Domestic Politics and Nationalism in East Asian Security

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall L. Schweller
Keyword(s):  
East Asia ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
East Asian ◽  
Primary Factor ◽  
Security Policies ◽  
Asian Security ◽  
Rise Of China ◽  
East Asian Security ◽  
The Rise Of China

This chapter works within the neoclassical realist tradition to examine the role of nationalism in foreign policymaking and the implication for the international politics of East Asia. Whereas the rise of China is an important structural factor necessarily affecting states' security policies throughout East Asia, China's rise does not determine these states' security policies. Rather, domestic politics ultimately determines how a state responds to changing security circumstances. In particular, nationalism can drive states to adopt more belligerent policies than warranted by their strategic environment, thus contributing to heightened bilateral conflicts and regional tension. The chapter argues that, in contemporary East Asia, rising China sets the context of policymaking, but domestic politics has been the primary factor shaping policy.

Reacting to China’s rise throughout history: balancing and accommodating in East Asia

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weizhan Meng ◽  
Weixing Hu
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
East Asia ◽  
East Asian ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
Rise Of China ◽  
China's Rise ◽  
China Rose ◽  
Chinese State ◽  
Asian History ◽  
The Rise Of China

AbstractThe rise of China and how other countries respond to China’s rising is widely studied. But little has been done on how other countries reacted to the rise of China throughout history and how China strategically interacted with them. The conventional wisdom holds East Asian international relations did not operate in the Westphalian way and China’s rising in history did not trigger regional balancing actions. In this article, we challenge that view. We argue East Asian international relations were not exceptional to basic rules of the Westphalian system. Each time China rose up, it triggered balancing actions from neighboring regimes, including nomadic empires and settled kingdoms. The neighboring regimes would accommodate China only after they were defeated by China or pro-China regimes propped up in these countries. The Chinese hegemony in East Asian history could not be taken for granted. Over last 2,000 plus years, only during three periods of time (the Qin-Han 秦汉, Sui-Tang 隋唐, and Ming-Qing 明清 dynasties) China could successfully overpower regional resistance and enjoyed a stable tributary relationship with neighboring states. In the rest of time, the Chinese state could not retain hegemony in East Asia.

The Sino-Japanese Relationship and East Asian Security: Patterns and Implications

1990 ◽  
Vol 124 ◽  
pp. 714-729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan D. Pollack
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
East Asia ◽  
International Politics ◽  
East Asian ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Military ◽  
Asian Security ◽  
East Asian Security ◽  
Strategic Pattern ◽  
Central Factors

The Sino-Japanese relationship is among the central factors in East Asian international politics, but it remains a derivative rather than primary strategic pattern. Leaders in Beijing, long preoccupied by the Soviet-American military competition in East Asia and the more immediate Soviet challenge to China's security, have only begun to assess the potential effects of Japanese power on Chinese political and security interests. Japan's predominant concern has been the maintenance of its political and security alignment with the United States, reinforced by decades of Soviet rigidity toward Tokyo.

Elusive East Asia:MethodologicalSuggestions for the Study of East Asian Security

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 451-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
YONG-SOO EUN
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
East Asia ◽  
Real World ◽  
East Asian ◽  
The Real ◽  
Asian Security ◽  
Research Outcomes ◽  
East Asian Security ◽  
Northeast Asian

AbstractThis article attempts to fill a gap in International Relations (IR) literature on East Asian security. ‘East Asia’ appears to be mostly an indeterminate conceptual construct, allowing scholars to look selectively at those aspects and areas that could justify their security thesis,albeitsecurity dynamics in the region are all too difficult to comprehend and predict. This problem has been frequently pointed out in IR literature, but itsmethodologicalimplications and suggestions have neither been appropriately illuminated nor been systematically offered, and the main solution commonly found in the literature was the tautological one of ‘better defining’ the region. As an alternative, this article suggests that one needs to tighten geographical focus and differentiate the subjects of analysis. When it comes to the study of East Asian security, one needs to aim to develop specific and differentiated generalizationsas opposed togeneralizations of a broad character. To showcase the fact that research outcomes can be more determinate when the target of analysis is more focused and specified, this article takes Northeast Asian security as an example and challenges the so-called ‘peaceful East Asia’ thesis, one of the mainstream perspectives on East Asian security. This article ultimately argues that while apprehending East Asian security dynamicsthroughdelimiting the scope of analysis and circumscribing the subjects of investigation is often deemed to be a modest enterprise―in particular, in terms of generalizability―the merits are substantial: research outcomes will be able not only to give us a truer mapping of the real world, but also bring us closer to building knowledge which satisfies the scientific criterion of ‘falsifiability.’

Whither East Asian Regionalism? An ASEAN Perspective

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siow Yue Chia
Keyword(s):  
East Asia ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
East Asian ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Production Networks ◽  
Political Relations ◽  
The World ◽  
Rise Of China ◽  
The Rise Of China

East Asia is catching up with the rest of the world in establishing regional trade arrangements (RTAs). This region is responding to pressures from globalization, regionalism in the Americas and Europe, the rise of China and India, improved political relations in the region with the end of the Cold War, as well as market-driven trade and investment integration and the emergence of production networks. ASEAN formed the first RTA in 1992, and by the turn of the decade, ASEAN was signing or negotiating free trade agreements (FTAs) with Japan, China, South Korea, India, Australia–New Zealand, and the European Union. It also entered into bilateral FTAs with the United States and countries in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. ASEAN is also considering an East Asian FTA. Can ASEAN remain in the driver's seat of regional integration and be an effective hub? The FTA proliferation also has important consequences and effects for East Asia and the world trading system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document