Indonesia's Vision of Regional Order in East Asia amid U.S.-China Rivalry: Continuity and Change

Asia Policy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 57-63
Author(s):  
Dewi Fortuna Anwar
Keyword(s):  
East Asia ◽  
Continuity And Change ◽  
Regional Order

The United States, China, and the Politics of Hegemonic Ordering in East Asia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beverley Loke
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
East Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
English School ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Regional Dynamics ◽  
Regional Order ◽  
Us Hegemony ◽  
Power Position ◽  
Hybrid Forms

Abstract China's rise has raised important questions about the durability of US hegemony in East Asia. Much of the debate, however, has generally been cast in fairly simplistic terms, suggesting the durability or end of US regional hegemony. Such framings nevertheless fail to fully capture regional dynamics and complexity. Advancing an English School conception of hegemony, this paper examines the politics, contestation, and renegotiation of the post–Cold War US hegemonic order in East Asia. It maps out four logics of hegemonic ordering in the existing literature, outlines their shortfalls and advances a twofold argument. First, although regional order will not disintegrate into binary “order versus disorder” or “US versus Chinese hegemony” scenarios, the politics of hegemonic ordering—the interactive discourses, processes, relations, and practices that underpin hegemony—will intensify as the United States and China continue to both cooperate and compete for power, position, and influence in East Asia. Second, I argue that the East Asian regional order will evolve in ways that resemble hybrid forms of hegemony in a complex hierarchy. Specifically, I develop a new logic—“coalitional and collaborative hegemonies in a complex hierarchy”—that is anchored in assertiveness, fluidity, and compartmentalization. It demonstrates that Washington and Beijing will not only form coalitional hegemonies, seeking legitimation from multiple and often overlapping constituencies, but also engage in a collaborative hegemony on shared interests. This better reflects evolving regional dynamics and yields theoretical insights into examining hegemonic transitions less as clearly delineated transitions from one distinct hegemonic order to the next, and more as partial and hybrid ones.

scholarly journals Is China Trying to Push the U.S. out of East Asia?

2015 ◽  
Vol 01 (01) ◽  
pp. 59-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong Wang
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
East Asia ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Willingness To Participate ◽  
Monroe Doctrine ◽  
Western Discourse ◽  
The Future ◽  
Regional Order ◽  
The U.S

One of the key questions for understanding the future trajectory of regional order is whether or not China is trying to push the United States out of East Asia and build a China-dominated regional order. Some Western analysts accuse China of pursuing the Monroe Doctrine and excluding the United States from the region. This article argues that the Western discourse of China practicing the Monroe Doctrine is a misplaced characterization of China's behavior. Rather than having intention of pushing the United States out of East Asia and build a China-dominated regional order, China is pursuing a hedging strategy that aims at minimizing strategic risks, increasing freedom of action, diversifying strategic options, and shaping the U.S.' preferences and choices. This can be exemplified in five issue areas: China's ties with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and China's foreign policy activism, China-Russia relations, the Conference on Interactions and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) and the New Asian Security Concept, as well as China-U.S. relations. Beijing has explicitly acknowledged the U.S. predominance in the international system and reiterated its willingness to participate in and reform the existing system. It concludes by suggesting that, for a more peaceful future to emerge in East Asia, the United States and China, as an incumbent power and a rising power, will have to accommodate each other, and negotiate and renegotiate the boundaries of their relative power, as well as their respective roles in the future regional order where Beijing and Washington would learn to share responsibilities and leadership.

The Evolving Regional Order in East Asia: A View from Vietnam

Asia Policy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 64-68
Author(s):  
Tran Viet Thai
Keyword(s):  
East Asia ◽  
Regional Order

‘The Inalienable Right of the White Man’

2019 ◽  
pp. 78-99
Author(s):  
Cees Heere
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
East Asia ◽  
Political Influence ◽  
The Other ◽  
Treaty Port ◽  
British Policy ◽  
Regional Order ◽  
Treaty Ports ◽  
China Coast ◽  
Public Campaigns

Victory over Russia established Japan as the leading power in East Asia, and inaugurated a period during which its economic and political influence in the region sharply expanded. This chapter explores these shifts in the regional order from the perspective of both British policymakers in London, and from that of the British communities in Shanghai, Hong Kong, and the other ‘treaty ports’ scattered along the China coast. For many, Japan, came to represent a challenge to British hegemony in China that manifested itself on a racial as well as on the commercial or political fronts. The chapter goes on to analyse the efforts of the ‘Shanghailanders’ to mobilize British policy to constrain Japanese power in the region through public campaigns and political manoeuvring. In the process, it demonstrates how treaty port residents articulated their own vision on Britain’s imperial future in Asia.

scholarly journals China’s Revisionism Versus India’s Status Quoism: Strategies and Counter-strategies of Rivals in Doklam Standoff

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-100
Author(s):  
Suneel Kumar
Keyword(s):  
East Asia ◽  
South Asia ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
New Delhi ◽  
South East Asia ◽  
Special Relationship ◽  
The Status ◽  
Regional Order ◽  
Regional Position ◽  
Global Agenda

This article contends that China, as a part of its broader global agenda, is striving to recast the regional order in East Asia, South East Asia, and South Asia. Its revisionist moves and growing influence in South Asia are perceived by New Delhi as challenge to its national security and regional position thus forcing it to counter the Chinese moves and preserve the status quo ensuing into bilateral rivalry. Doklam standoff was an outcome of this bilateral rivalry between the two emerging Asian powers as Beijing attempted unilaterally to alter the prevailing territorial arrangement in the area of dispute and New Delhi counter-attempted to maintain the status quo. During the standoff, China projected itself as ‘victim’ of India’s aggression while making provocative military deployments and threats of war against India. Opposite to this, India absorbed Beijing’s pressure and defended its move in Doklam giving the logic of its ‘security concerns’ and ‘special relationship’ with Bhutan. New Delhi asked Beijing to resolve the dispute diplomatically while emphasizing on their troops’ mutual withdrawal from the site of standoff.

Continuity and Change in the International History of Maritime South East Asia

1968 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. D. Cowan
Keyword(s):  
East Asia ◽  
East Asian ◽  
South East Asia ◽  
Modern History ◽  
International History ◽  
Continuity And Change ◽  
Asian Society ◽  
History Of ◽  
East Asian Society ◽  
Dividing Line

That view of the history of maritime South East Asia which fixed a rigid dividing line in 1511 or 1600, and regarded the assertion of European dominance in the area as marking the frontier between traditional and modern history, has long ago been discredited and discarded. It led to the treatment of the earlier history of Malaya and Indonesia as a mere prelude to the coming of the Europeans, or at least as an era without relevance to later events, to which special criteria must be applied. The later history was treated predominantly as the story of European activities and rivalries, and purely western criteria were applied even to indigenous themes. All this is now regarded as unscientific, and labelled ‘Europe-centric’. Few, if any, contemporary historians would challenge this judgment so far as the internal history of Malaya and Indonesia and their component parts are concerned, and, though there is still ample room for discussion as to its application in practice, this paper does not seek to re-open the debate. It is concerned not so much with the development of maritime South East Asian society, or with the history of individual states within what are now Malaysia and Indonesia, as with the relations of these states with each other.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document