Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

China’s Rise and Regional Integrationin East Asia

Featuring far-reaching diversities and disparities among the regional states intheir political, economic and social systems and cultural and religious orien-tations, East Asia is a microcosm of international society at large. Never theless, there are unique dynamics unfolding in East Asia at the turn of thetwenty-first century, namely the rise of China as a contender for regional andglobal hegemony, and a set of collective initiatives to integrate the region intoa harmonious community.

This book provides new arguments on China’s rise and the transformationof East Asia and analyzes the foreign policy behavior of the regional statesand relations among them. In doing so, the contributors show why and howChina is rising, and how China’s rise shapes the emerging regional structuresand institutions in East Asia. Furthermore, given the East Asian contextwhere the world’s second and third largest economies coexist with muchsmaller states, and with China’s ascendency likely to continue, this bookchallenges the pervasive dichotomy of hegemony and community. This allowsfor a fuller and more nuanced account of China’s role and the shifting regio-nal policies in East Asia in which hegemonic cooperation does not necessarilylead to a hegemonic form of regional order.

Presenting strategic, political, economic and historical perspectives onChina’s changing role in the region and the development of regionalism,China’s Rise and Regional Integration in East Asia will be of great interest tostudents and scholars of Chinese politics, Asian politics, international relationsand regionalism.

Yong Wook Lee is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Scienceand International Relations at Korea University, South Korea.

Key-young Son is Humanities Korea Professor in the Asiatic Research Instituteat Korea University, South Korea.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

Politics in Asia series

ASEAN and the Security ofSouth-East AsiaMichael Leifer

China’s Policy towardsTerritorial DisputesThe case of the South ChinaSea islandsChi-kin Lo

India and Southeast AsiaIndian perceptions and policiesMohammed Ayoob

Gorbachev and Southeast AsiaLeszek Buszynski

Indonesian Politics under SuhartoOrder, development and pressurefor changeMichael R.J. Vatikiotis

The State and Ethnic Politics inSoutheast AsiaDavid Brown

The Politics of Nation Building andCitizenship in SingaporeMichael Hill and Lian Kwen Fee

Politics in IndonesiaDemocracy, Islam and the ideologyof toleranceDouglas E. Ramage

Communitarian Ideology andDemocracy in SingaporeBeng-Huat Chua

The Challenge of Democracyin NepalLouise Brown

Japan’s Asia PolicyWolf Mendl

The International Politics of theAsia-Pacific, 1945–95Michael Yahuda

Political Change inSoutheast AsiaTrimming the banyan treeMichael R.J. Vatikiotis

Hong KongChina’s challengeMichael Yahuda

Korea versus KoreaA case of contested legitimacyB.K. Gills

Taiwan and ChineseNationalismNational identity and status ininternational societyChristopher Hughes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

Managing Political Changein SingaporeThe elected presidencyKevin Y.L. Tan and Lam Peng Er

Islam in MalaysianForeign PolicyShanti Nair

Political Change in ThailandDemocracy and participationKevin Hewison

The Politics of NGOs inSoutheast AsiaParticipation and protest inthe PhilippinesGerard Clarke

Malaysian PoliticsUnder MahathirR.S. Milne andDiane K. Mauzy

Indonesia and ChinaThe politics of a troubledrelationshipRizal Sukma

Arming the Two KoreasState, capital andmilitary powerTaik-young Hamm

Engaging ChinaThe management ofan emerging powerEdited by Alastair Iain Johnston andRobert S. Ross

Singapore’s Foreign PolicyCoping with vulnerabilityMichael Leifer

Philippine Politics and Society in theTwentieth CenturyColonial legacies, post-colonialtrajectoriesEva-Lotta E. Hedman andJohn T. Sidel

Constructing a Security Communityin Southeast AsiaASEAN and the problem ofregional orderAmitav Acharya

Monarchy in South East AsiaThe faces of tradition in transitionRoger Kershaw

Korea After the CrashThe politics of economic recoveryBrian Bridges

The Future of North KoreaEdited by Tsuneo Akaha

The International Relations of Japanand South East AsiaForging a new regionalismSueo Sudo

Power and Change in Central AsiaEdited by Sally N. Cummings

The Politics of Human Rights inSoutheast AsiaPhilip Eldridge

Political Business in East AsiaEdited by Edmund Terence Gomez

Singapore Politics under the People’sAction PartyDiane K. Mauzy and R.S. Milne

Media and Politics in Pacific AsiaDuncan McCargo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

Japanese GovernanceBeyond Japan Inc.Edited by Jennifer Amyx andPeter Drysdale

China and the InternetPolitics of the digital leap forwardEdited by Christopher R. Hughesand Gudrun Wacker

Challenging Authoritarianism inSoutheast AsiaComparing Indonesia and MalaysiaEdited by Ariel Heryanto andSumit K. Mandal

Cooperative Security and theBalance of Power in ASEANand the ARFRalf Emmers

Islam in Indonesian Foreign PolicyRizal Sukma

Media, War and TerrorismResponses from the Middle Eastand AsiaEdited by Peter Van der Veer andShoma Munshi

China, Arms Control andNonproliferationWendy Frieman

Communitarian Politics in AsiaEdited by Chua Beng Huat

East Timor, Australia andRegional OrderIntervention and its aftermath inSoutheast AsiaJames Cotton

Domestic Politics, InternationalBargaining and China’sTerritorial DisputesChien-peng Chung

Democratic Developmentin East AsiaBecky Shelley

International Politics of theAsia-Pacific since 1945Michael Yahuda

Asian StatesBeyond the developmentalperspectiveEdited by Richard Boyd andTak-Wing Ngo

Civil Life, Globalization, andPolitical Change in AsiaOrganizing between family and stateEdited by Robert P. Weller

Realism and Interdependence inSingapore’s Foreign PolicyNarayanan Ganesan

Party Politics in TaiwanParty change and the democraticevolution of Taiwan, 1991–2004Dafydd Fell

State Terrorism and PoliticalIdentity in IndonesiaFatally belongingAriel Heryanto

China’s Rise, Taiwan’s Dilemma’sand International PeaceEdited by Edward Friedman

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

Japan and China in the WorldPolitical EconomyEdited by Saadia M. Pekkanen andKellee S. Tsai

Order and Security inSoutheast AsiaEssays in memory of Michael LeiferEdited by Joseph Chinyong Liowand Ralf Emmers

State Making in AsiaEdited by Richard Boyd andTak-Wing Ngo

US-China Relations in the21st CenturyPower transition and peaceZhiqun Zhu

Empire and Neoliberalism in AsiaEdited by Vedi R. Hadiz

South Korean Engagement Policiesand North KoreaIdentities, norms and the sunshinepolicySon Key-young

Chinese Nationalism inthe Global EraChristopher R. Hughes

Indonesia’s War over AcehLast stand on Mecca’s porchMatthew N. Davies

Advancing East Asian RegionalismEdited by Melissa G. Curley andNicholas Thomas

Political Cultures in Asiaand EuropeCitizens, states and societal valuesJean Blondel and Takashi Inoguchi

Rethinking Injustice andReconciliation in Northeast AsiaThe Korean experienceEdited by Gi-Wook Shin,Soon-Won Park and Daqing Yang

Foreign Policy Making in TaiwanFrom principle to pragmatismDennis Van Vranken Hickey

The Balance of Power inAsia-Pacific SecurityUS-China policies on regional orderLiselotte Odgaard

Taiwan in the 21st CenturyAspects and limitations of adevelopment modelEdited by Robert Ash andJ. Megan Green

Elections as Popular Culture in AsiaEdited by Chua Beng Huat

Security and Migration in AsiaThe dynamics of securitisationEdited by Melissa G. Curley andWong Siu-lun

Political Transitions in DominantParty SystemsLearning to loseEdited by Edward Friedman andJoseph Wong

Torture, Truth and JusticeThe case of Timor-LesteElizabeth Stanley

A Rising China and Security inEast AsiaIdentity construction andsecurity discourseRex Li

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

Rise of ChinaBeijing’s strategies and implicationsfor the Asia-PacificEdited by Hsin-Huang MichaelHsiao and Cheng-yi Lin

Governance and Regionalism in AsiaEdited by Nicholas Thomas

Constructing a Security Communityin Southeast AsiaASEAN and the problem ofregional orderSecond editionAmitav Acharya

East Asia’s New DemocraciesDeepening, reversal, non-liberalalternativesYin-Wah Chu and Siu-lun Wong

China’s Multilateral Co-operation inAsia and the PacificInstitutionalizing Beijing’s ‘goodneighbour policy’Chien-peng Chung

The International Politics of theAsia-PacificThird editionMichael Yahuda

Asia-Pacific Security Dynamics inthe Obama EraA new world emergingS. Mahmud Ali

New Thinking about theTaiwan IssueTheoretical insights into its origins,dynamics and prospectsJean-Marc F. Blanchard andDennis V. Hickey

Votes, Party Systems andDemocracy in AsiaJungug Choi

Security Cooperation inNortheast AsiaArchitecture and beyondEdited by T.J. Pempel andChung-Min Lee

Japan and Germany asRegional ActorsEvaluating change and continuityafter the Cold WarAlexandra Sakaki

Japan’s Relations withSoutheast AsiaThe Fukuda doctrineand beyondEdited by Peng Er Lam

Secessionism and Separatism inEurope and AsiaTo have a state of one’s ownEdited by Jean-Pierre Cabestan andAleksandar Pavković

Chinese Diplomacyand the UN SecurityCouncilBeyond the vetoJoel Wuthnow

The Economy-Security Nexus inNortheast AsiaEdited by T.J. Pempel

Parliaments in AsiaInstitution building and politicaldevelopmentEdited by Zheng Yongnian,Lye Liang Fook andWilhelm Hofmeister

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

Democracy in Eastern AsiaIssues, problems and challenges in aregion of diversityEdited by Edmund S.K. Fung andSteven Drakeley

The US Versus the North KoreanNuclear ThreatMitigating the nuclear securitydilemmaEr-Win Tan

Democratization in China, Koreaand Southeast Asia?Local and national perspectivesEdited by Kate Xiao Zhou,Shelley Rigger and Lynn T. White III

Japan’s Civil-Military DiplomacyThe banks of the RubiconDennis T. Yasutomo

Constructing a Security Communityin Southeast AsiaASEAN and the problem ofregional orderThird editionAmitav Acharya

China’s Rise and RegionalIntegration in East AsiaHegemony or community?Edited by Yong Wook Lee andKey-young Son

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

This page intentionally left blank

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

China’s Rise and RegionalIntegration in East AsiaHegemony or community?

Edited byYong Wook Lee and Key-young Son

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

First published 2014by Routledge2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

and by Routledge711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2014 Yong Wook Lee and Key-young Son

The right of the editors to be identified as the authors of the editorialmaterial, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been assertedin accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs andPatents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced orutilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, nowknown or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or inany information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writingfrom the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks orregistered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanationwithout intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataChina's rise and regional integration in East Asia : hegemony orcommunity? / edited by Yong Wook Lee and Key-young Son.pages cm. – (Politics in Asia)

Includes bibliographical references and index.1. China–Foreign relations–East Asia. 2. East Asia–Foreign relations–

China. 3. East Asian cooperation. 4. East Asia–Economic integration. I.Lee, Yong Wook, author, editor of compilation. II. Son, Key-young, editorof compilation.

DS518.15.C54 2014327.5105–dc23

2013040195

ISBN: 978-0-415-73513-1 (hbk)ISBN: 978-1-315-81943-3 (ebk)

Typeset in Times New Romanby Taylor & Francis Books

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

Contents

List of illustrations xiiiList of contributors xvForeword xix

1 Introduction 1KEY-YOUNG SON AND YONG WOOK LEE

I Hegemony 15

2 US-China relations and a new dual leadership structurein the Asia-Pacific 17QUANSHENG ZHAO

3 The United States, East Asia, and Chinese “triumphalism” 40YINHONG SHI

4 A reason for concern but not alarm: a Chinese perspective onChina’s military rise 54QINGGUO JIA

5 The emergence of the G2 era and falteringSouth Korea–China relations 66JUNG-NAM LEE

II Community 93

6 Transnational identity and order in Northeast Asia 95GILBERT ROZMAN

7 Commercial space versus security space: the complex institutionsof Northeast Asia 115T.J. PEMPEL

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

8 China’s relations with its neighboring countries: historical patternsand the formation of a regional community 141XIAOMING ZHANG

9 Synthesis and reformulation of foreign policy change: Japan andEast Asian financial regionalism 159YONG WOOK LEE

Index 171

xii Contents

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

List of illustrations

Figures

2.1 Perceptions of world’s leading economic power (2000–11) 184.1 China’s defense spending (1996–2008): official figures

and US estimates 554.2 Global distribution of military expenditure in 2010 564.3 Defense expenditure as a share of GDP in 2007 564.4 China’s defense budget as a share of government expenditure

(1998–2009) 57

Tables

2.1 Top ten world economies by GDP (2010) 222.2 US Treasury cash and security holdings in Asia-Pacific

(December 2010) 242.3 Foreign reserves in the Asia-Pacific (2010) 252.4 Major partners in international trade, ranked (2009) 252.5 FDI inflows in the Asia-Pacific (2010) 262.6 FDI outflow by country/region across Asia-Pacific (2010) 262.7 United States vs. China across categories 272.8 Global military expenditures (2010) 282.9 US military relationships 294.1 Distribution of China’s defense spending (2009) 575.1 South Korean and Chinese public evaluation of South

Korea-China relations 675.2 What is your opinion on the current international order? 745.3 Do you believe China will lead the world in the near future,

surpassing the United States? 745.4 Do you believe the influence of the United States and China

has increased in Asia over the last ten years, or do you believe ithas decreased? 75

5.5 What influence do you believe the following countries have onChina’s security? 76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

5.6 What influence do you believe the following relationshave on China? 77

5.7 The following factors may threaten the national interestsof China over the next ten years. What is your opinion abouteach of them? 77

5.8 What influence do you believe the following countries have onSouth Korea’s security? 79

5.9 How do you feel about the possibility that China will become aleader in Asia? 79

5.10 The following are possibilities that may threaten the nationalinterests of South Korea over the next ten years. What is youropinion about each of them? 80

5.11 What influence do you believe the reinforcement of therelationship between North Korea and China will have onSouth Korea’s security? 81

5.12 What position do you believe the following countries have aboutthe unification of the Korean Peninsula? 83

5.13 What is your opinion on the unification of theKorean Peninsula? 83

5.14 What is your opinion on the intervention of the United Statesand China in the event that the North Korean regime suffers aserious crisis? 84

5.15 How do you believe China would act in the event that Southand North Korea clash militarily? 85

5.16 Which country do you think is more closely related to SouthKorea: the United States or China? 85

5.17 How do you believe South Korea should act in the case of aserious conflict between the United States and China? 86

5.18 Do you believe the United States would support South Koreamilitarily in the event that North Korea were to invadeSouth Korea? 86

xiv List of illustrations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

List of contributors

Qingguo Jia is Professor at Peking University. Jia received his PhD fromCornell University in 1988. His areas of research include international rela-tions, Chinese foreign policy, US–China relations, and cross-Taiwan Straitrelations. His recent publications include: Gonggong waijiao: lilun yu shijian(Public Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, ed., Xinhua Publishing House,2012); Quanqiu zhili yu zhongguo zuoyong (Global Governance and theRole of China, ed., Xinhua Publishing House, 2011); Quanqiu zhili yu daguozeren (Global Governance and Great Power Responsibilities, ed., XinhuaPublishing House, 2010); Zhongguo heping fazhan de guoji huanjing fenxi(Analysis of the International Situation for China’s Peaceful Development,co-author, Jingji Kexue Publishing House, 2009); and Cong guoji guanxililun kan zhongguo de heping jueqi (The Rise of China from Perspectives ofInternational Relations Theories, ed., Wunan Publishing, 2007).

Jung-Nam Lee is Professor of the Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University.She received her PhD from the Department of Political Science and PublicAdministration, Peking University, in 1999. Her areas of research includeChinese politics, especially political reform and transformation in China’sforeign policy. Her recent publications include Democracy and China (ed.,Asiatic Research Institute Press, 2012); “The Global Financial Crisis and aChange in China’s View of the U.S.: Analysis of Academic Perspectives,”The Korean Journal of Area Studies 29:2 (August 2011); “China’s PolicyTowards North Korea and Dynamics of the Alliance between North Koreaand China in Cold War Era,” Peace Studies 19:1 (Spring 2011); and“China’s Idea of East Asian Order: A Comparative Study of ‘HarmoniousWorld Theory’ and Sino-Centric Tributary System,” The Korean Journal ofInternational Relations 50:1 (Spring 2010).

Yong Wook Lee is Associate Professor of International Relations at KoreaUniversity. Professor Lee received his PhD in international relations fromthe University of Southern California. He served as a visiting scholar at theInstitute of Social Sciences at the University of Tokyo, as a lecturer at theUniversity of Southern California, as freeman fellow at the Watson Insti-tute for International Studies and Department of East Asian Studies at

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

Brown University, as faculty associate at the US-China Institute, and asassistant professor at the School of International and Area Studies andDepartment of East Asian Studies at the University of Oklahoma. Hisrecent publications include: Political Economy of East Asian FinancialRegionalism: Institutional Developments and Issues (Asiatic Research Insti-tute Press, 2012, in Korean); The Japanese Challenge to the AmericanNeoliberal World Order: Identity, Meaning, and Foreign Policy (StanfordUniversity Press, 2008); and “Synthesis and Reformulation of ForeignPolicy Change: Japan and East Asian Financial Regionalism,” Review ofInternational Studies 38:4 (October 2012).

T.J. Pempel is the Jack M. Forcey Professor of Political Science at the Uni-versity of California, Berkeley. He has also held positions at Cornell University,the University of Colorado, the University of Wisconsin and the Universityof Washington. His research focuses on comparative politics, Japanesepolitical economy, and Asian regional issues. His most recent books includeRemapping East Asia: The Construction of a Region (Cornell UniversityPress, 2005); Beyond Bilateralism: U.S.-Japan Relations in the New Asia-Pacific(Stanford University Press, 2004); Crisis as Catalyst: Asia’s Dynamic Poli-tical Economy (Cornell University Press, 2008); and Security Cooperationin Northeast Asia (co-authored with Chung-min Lee, Routledge, 2012).

Gilbert Rozman is Musgrave Professor of Sociology at Princeton University.He obtained a PhD from Princeton University in 1971. He is the author oreditor of many books, including Japanese Strategic Thought Toward Asia(co-ed., Palgrave, 2007); Strategic Thinking about the Korean NuclearCrisis: Four Parties Caught between North Korea and the United States(Palgrave, 2007, revised paperback edn 2011); South Korean StrategicThought Toward Asia (co-ed., Palgrave, 2008); Chinese Strategic ThoughtToward Asia (Palgrave, 2010, revised paperback edn 2012); U.S. Leader-ship, History, and Bilateral Relations in Northeast Asia (ed., Cambridge,2011); East Asian National Identities: Common Roots and Chinese Excep-tionalism (ed., Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Stanford UniversityPress, 2012); National Identities and Bilateral Relations: Widening Gaps inEast Asia and Chinese Demonization of the United States (ed., WoodrowWilson Center Press and Stanford University Press, 2012); China’s ForeignPolicy: Who Makes it, and How is it Made? (ed., Asan Institute, 2012); Asiaat a Tipping Point: Korea, the Rise of China, and the Impact of LeadershipTransitions (ed., Korea Economic Institute, 2012).

Yinhong Shi is Professor of International Relations, Chairman of AcademicCommittee of the School of International Studies, and Director of theCenter on American Studies at Renmin University of China in Beijing. Hehas served as a counselor on the State Council of the People’s Republic ofChina since February 2011. He previously was Professor of InternationalHistory at Nanjing University, 1993–98, and Professor of International

xvi Contributors

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

Relations at the International Relations Academy, Nanjing, 1998–2001. Healso served as President of the American Historical Research Associationof China from 1996 to 2002. He received a PhD in International Historyfrom Nanjing University in 1988. Shi engages in research and teaching onthe history and theory of international politics, strategic studies, East Asiasecurity, and foreign policies of both China and the United States. He haspublished fourteen books, most of them in China, including Chinese Poli-tical Experiences over a Millennium: A Politico-Strategic Reading of ShimaQian’s Historical Record (1st Century BC) (2012); Global Challenges andChina (2010); Thirty Studies on Strategy: Reflections of China’s ExternalStrategy (2008); and History of Modern International Relations: From the16th Century to the End of the 20th (2006).

Key-young Son is Humanities Korea (HK) Professor at the Asiatic ResearchInstitute, Korea University. His areas of research include East Asian poli-tics and constructivist theories. He received a PhD from the University ofSheffield and served as lecturer in Korean Studies at the university’s Schoolof East Asian Studies. He also served as post-doctoral research fellow atRikkyo University, Japan, and University College Dublin, Ireland. He wasvisiting associate professor at Tohoku University in Sendai. His recentpublications include South Korean Engagement Policies and North Korea:Identities, Norms and the Sunshine Policy (Routledge, 2006); “Entrenching‘Identity Norms’ of Tolerance and Engagement: Lessons from Rap-prochement between North and South Korea,” Review of InternationalStudies (2007); “From a Garrison State to a Humanitarian Power? SecurityIdentities, Constitutive Norms and South Korea’s Overseas Troop Dis-patches,” The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis (2011); and “Harmony,the Supremacy of Human Agency and East Asia’s Mega-Discourses forGovernance,” Chinese Journal of International Politics (2012).

Xiaoming Zhang is Professor of International Relations at the School ofInternational Studies, Peking University, Beijing, where he has taught since1988. Educated at Peking University (BA in 1985, MA in 1988, PhD in1993), Zhang has been working on Cold War history, China’s relationswith its neighboring countries, US–East Asia relations, and theory ofinternational relations. He is the author of five books in Chinese: George F.Kennan’s Containment (1994); The Cold War and its Legacy (1998);China’s Relations with its Neighbors (2003); English School of InternationalRelations: History, Theory, and View on China (2010); and An Introductionto the History of US-East Asia Relations (2011). He was a fellow of theCold War International History Project at Woodrow Wilson Center (1994),fellow of the Korea Foundation at Korea University (1998), FulbrightResearch Scholar at Harvard University (1999–2000), guest researcher atthe Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2000), visiting pro-fessor at Chuo University, Japan (2005), and visiting senior scholar at theLondon School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) (2007–08).

Contributors xvii

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

Quansheng Zhao is Professor of International Relations and Director ofCenter for Asian Studies at American University in Washington, DC. Heis also guest professor at Peking, Tsinghua, Fudan, Foreign Affairs, andInternational Business and Economics Universities in China, and KoreaUniversity in South Korea. Professor Zhao received his BA from BeijingUniversity, MA and PhD from the University of California at Berkeley.After one-year of post-doctoral research at Harvard University, he servedfor many years as research associate at Harvard’s Fairbank Center for EastAsian Research. A specialist in international relations and comparativepolitics focusing on East Asia, Dr Zhao is the author of Interpreting Chi-nese Foreign Policy (Oxford University Press, 1996, winner of the BestAcademic Book Award by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic ofKorea); and Japanese Policymaking (Oxford University Press/Praeger,1995, selected as “Outstanding Academic Book” by Choice).

xviii Contributors

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

Foreword

If the twentieth century has been an American century, many believe thetwenty-first century will become an Asian century. This characterizationenvisions the region’s economic, political and cultural power towering overthat of its American and European counterparts. Is the region’s growth takingplace in all walks of life, though? When it comes to the ivory tower of aca-demia, hegemony still lies in the West. Western academia has long been thesource of knowledge, inspiration and methodologies, and the vehicle of theirproduction and dissemination.

This academic hegemony is also evident in the field of area studies. EastAsian scholars routinely visit, for instance, the Association for Asian Studies(AAS) annual conference taking place in a North American city, just likemany Muslims visit Mecca annually. Could East Asia continue to remain atthe periphery of East Asian studies? Why do East Asian scholars need to goto the United States in search of knowledge and theoretical frameworks toanalyze their own region? Why is no academic gathering organized by EastAsians that could parallel these Asian studies conferences taking place inAmerican cities?

With this problem in mind, the Asiatic Research Institute (ARI), KoreaUniversity, has been organizing international conferences since 2010, bringingtogether scholars from China, Japan, South Korea and the United States.From the beginning, ARI director Nae-Young Lee and his colleagues soughtto promote East Asian studies “by and for East Asian initiatives” independentfrom the academic hegemony of the Western world. Their flagship project, theEast Asian Community Forum, is a modest start, compared with the AASand the International Convention for Asia Scholars (ICAS), held in an Asiancity but by Europeans. The organizers of this forum envisioned the creation ofa top-notch academic gathering through which East Asians could reasserttheir academic initiatives especially in the field of East Asian studies. Buildingon the successful convening of the past three forums in Seoul, the organizersplan to rotate the venue among three cities—Seoul, Tokyo and Beijing—through partnership with the University of Tokyo and Tsinghua University.

We, the organizers of the East Asian Community Forum, have three aims. First,we pursue the production of world-class knowledge and its dissemination.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

Second, we reject the dichotomy of Western and East Asian methodologies,and seek to develop authentic methodologies that reflect both Western andEast Asian perspectives. Third, we seek to maximize academic exchangeamong Chinese, Japanese and Korean scholars, to learn from each other’sstrengths and to devise collectively “new perspectives of East Asian origin.”

Our academic endeavors have been part of the region’s aspiration to put anend to various forms of international disputes and confrontations and con-struct a harmonious community, overcoming its historical, political, eco-nomic and social disparities. This kind of academic project is timely in thesense that East Asia is currently undergoing radical changes, starting with therise of China, but continuing with the 11 March 2011 great earthquake ineastern Japan, as well as multiple initiatives to build an East Asian commu-nity. Even at the time of preparing this foreword, China, Japan and SouthKorea were caught in a serious dispute over their conflicting territorial claimsand interpretation of their past history.

This edited volume will become the first fruit of our three year-long effortsto make contributions to East Asian studies on the one hand, and to providea thorough account of the region’s contemporary transformation on the other.Representing cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, this volumebrings together many renowned and emerging scholars known for theirexpertise in their respective fields.

The cross-boundary and cross-disciplinary nature of the project wasdesigned to construct a hybrid approach that will best serve our intention toilluminate heterogeneous East Asia. In this way, we hope to shed new light onwhich identities East Asia has maintained and which it has sought to trans-form, what roles it can play for the international community, and who will bethe main actors.

This volume by many leading scholars in Chinese and East Asian Studies,based in both East Asia and the United States, will offer an unrivalled in-depth look at the political thinking of Chinese and East Asian leaders andstrategists. In the extant literature, almost all contributors were US- orEurope-based Western scholars. In spite of their theoretical depth and meth-odological refinement, they were short of capturing what the Chinese or EastAsian elite has been really thinking about the identity and status of Chinaand East Asia and what their future would be. In this edited volume, a groupof well-known scholars analyze China’s rise and East Asia’s transformation fromChinese and East Asian perspectives. These perspectives are critically assessedby other Chinese scholars and their American and Korean counterparts toprovide a holistic picture of East Asia’s transformation.

Many colleagues and friends, including Shin-wha Lee, Sang-soo Park,Dong-jun Lee and Jungmee Hwang, have offered comments along the wayand our appreciation goes to both the participants and the audience at thethree international conferences we organized at Korea University, Seoul.

Finally, we wish to thank the National Research Foundation of Korea(KRF-2008-362-A00001), the Japan Foundation, the Korea Future Foundation

xx Foreword

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

and the Northeast Asian History Foundation for funding the conferences.Many thanks to Glenn Hook for offering us advice on the publication of thisedited volume. Able research assistance and proofreading were provided byYe Jin An, Eun Bee Kwak and Jonathan Hoare. Stephanie Rogers andHannah Mack, our editors at Routledge, showed much interest in this bookproject.

Nae-young LeeKey-young Son

Seoul, March 2013

Foreword xxi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

This page intentionally left blank

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

1 Introduction

Key-young Son and Yong Wook Lee

East Asia is a microcosm of world politics, featuring far-reaching diversitiesand disparities among the regional states in their political, economic andsocial systems and cultural and religious orientations (Ikenberry and Mas-tanduno 2003; Shambaugh and Yahuda 2008). Never the less, outstandingdynamics are unfolding in East Asia’s transnational space at the turn of thetwenty-first century: the rise of China as a contender for regional and globalhegemony and a set of collective initiatives to integrate the region into aharmonious community. Since the end of the Cold War, these two dynamicshave irreversibly transformed the fabric of international and transnational lifein East Asia, adding dynamism and complexity to the already complicatedinteraction among the region’s states.

This edited volume examines these two dynamics as twin processes gen-erating the transformation of East Asia. An unbalanced emphasis on either ofthese will miss the big picture. Ultimately, these two dynamics will create anew East Asia, similar either to the North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA), an example of hegemonic regionalism, or to the European Union(EU), an example of cooperative regionalism. However, we cannot rule outthe possibility that East Asia could invent a still unknown form of regional-ism or regionalization requiring harsh reality checks against international,regional and domestic pressures.

In exploring such divergent possibilities in East Asia’s future, this volumemakes an important assumption about world politics. That is, world politicscannot be properly understood without paying due attention to the emergenceand development of regionalism. Regionalism is defined here broadly as “apolicy and project whereby states and non-state actors cooperate and coordi-nate strategy within a given region” (Fawcett 2005: 24). Regionalism, as it isunderstood as such, is thus a mechanism through which region making takesplace. In other words, a region is made to exist when regional integrationprojects help to distinguish a particular geographical area from the rest of theglobal system in its political, economic, and social practices (Hettne andSöderbaum 2000: 461). In this context, the world is increasingly being dividedinto regions accompanying the proliferation of regional institution-buildingefforts (Katzenstein 2005; Powers and Goertz 2011). As shown below, East

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

Asia is no exception to this trend. What this suggests is that regionalism is anemerging force that shifts the politics of conflict and cooperation from thenational (nation versus nation) to the regional level (region versus region orregion versus global) (Hurrell 2005). If successful and effective, regionalinstitutions can be the sites of important decision making for major economicand security affairs. We observe that East Asia has already entered intoregional institution-building processes in various issue areas, including security,trade, finance, and climate change among others.

As such, of critical importance is the question of how far and how deepEast Asian regionalism can go institutionally. Can it reach the level of regio-nal society where East Asian states would share interest in governancethrough common institutions? The concept of regional society derives fromHedley Bull’s conceptualization of international society. Bull conceives asociety of states to exist when “a group of states, conscious of certaincommon interests and common values, form a society in the sense that theyconceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relationswith one another, and share in the working of common institutions” (Bull1977: 13). Can East Asia progress from regional society toward even regionalcommunity? By regional community we mean that a region increasingly turnsinto “an active subject with a distinctive identity” embedded in a convergenceand compatibility of ideas, values, organizations, and decision-making pro-cesses beyond the maintenance of the orderly coexistence of separate politicalcommunities (Hettne and Söderbaum 2000: 466; Linklater and Suganami2006: 121–23).

We posit that the extent and depth of East Asian regionalism are bothshaping and being shaped by the forms of institutional cooperation in EastAsia, a vertical hegemonic cooperation or a horizontal community building(Farrell 2005). The rise of China is implicated in both processes. Here we usethe concepts of hegemony and community in a processual sense, as modalitiesof region making. They are not meant simply to capture the resulting finalshapes of emerging regional institutional cooperation. The concepts of hege-mony and community are used at once to explicate the modalities of regionalcooperation and to posit the range of the emergent institutional possibilities.As discussed below in detail, however, we do not make any one-to-one cor-responding claim about the relationship between the modalities of coopera-tion and the resulting forms of regional institutional arrangement. Putdifferently, hegemonic cooperation, for example, does not necessarily lead to ahegemonic form of regional order (Ruggie 1982).

For many years, scholars of international relations and international poli-tical economy have paid attention to the twin concepts of hegemony andcommunity but in separate spheres. It appeared that in international life thetwo could not coexist, since hegemony, a form of power or cultural politics,precludes the possibility of forming a community of equals, whereas a com-munity is presupposed not to take a hegemonic form, given the word “com-munity” has been used to refer to a group of states sharing friendship,

2 Key-young Son and Yong Wook Lee

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

morality, human rights, etc. Perhaps, this is why the European Union, a groupof states with no hegemonic powers, is often called a community, whereasNAFTA is rarely referred to as the North American community. Basically,NAFTA is a trilateral trade agreement signed by the governments of Canada,Mexico and the United States, and since the United States dwarfs the other two,the agreement looks more like a form of hegemony. Furthermore, a mem-bership of three states is rarely an appropriate form for a genuine communityof equals.

Here arises the question of East Asia, where the world’s second and thirdlargest economies coexist with much smaller states and, furthermore, China’sascendency is likely to continue, threatening the status of the United States asthe most powerful state on the earth. If a certain kind of regional groupingemerges in East Asia in the foreseeable future, how can we describe it? Couldbe it a form of hegemony or community? What will shape the direction EastAsia will take in the process of regional integration?

The revival of the Chinese world order in its ancient form is impossible atthe turn of the twenty-first century, given the firmly established norm ofsovereignty and equality between states (Ikenberry 2008). Nevertheless, if itkeeps up the current pace of economic development China will tower over theother states. As long as the other states look like miniature versions of theChinese state, a genuine form of community in East Asia cannot be expected.Hence the need to employ the twin concepts in order to make a fuller accountof what has really changed in the regional policies of East Asia. This intro-duction will first discuss China’s rise and the concept of hegemony and thenelaborate on community building in East Asia. The next sections will brieflysummarize the volume’s chapters.

China’s rise and hegemony

The theory of hegemonic stability contends that the rise of a single hegemonicpower is most conducive to the formation of stable economic or politicalrelations between the hegemon and those on the bandwagon (Kindleberger1973; Gilpin 1975; Keohane 1984). Charles P. Kindleberger (1973: 305) said,“for the world economy to be stabilized, there has to be a stabilizer, one sta-bilizer.” In this sense, the existence of hegemony is easily translated into theformation of a group of like-minded states abiding by the hierarchical normsand institutions as the underlying dynamic of the system.

Is hegemony the only determinant for cooperation, though? A long list ofliterature exists in which hegemony and community are not mutually exclu-sive terms or completely separate occurrences. In a rebuttal of the realisttheory of hegemonic stability, Bob Keohane (1984: 15) noted, “Hegemonyand international regimes may be complementary, or even to some extentsubstitute for each other: both serve to make agreements possible and tofacilitate compliance with rules.” In other words, Keohane argued that post-hegemonic cooperation is possible within existing international regimes, even

Introduction 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

though these regimes are difficult to build and maintain in the absence of ahegemonic power. Regimes can be defined as “sets of implicit or explicitprinciples, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’expectations converge in a given area of international relations” (Krasner1982: 186, emphasis added). Once regimes acquire stability and durability, theycan give birth to a regional or global community depending on the coverageof the specific regimes (Ikenberry 2001).

Additionally, a modified realist as well as a constructivist view sees greaternuance in the relationship between hegemony and regional cooperation. Crone(1993) formulates a modified version of hegemonic stability theory and arguesthat hegemonic decline rather than ascendance provides a more conduciveenvironment for the formation of a regional institution. When in the ascen-dant, when power is highly asymmetrical, a hegemonic state has little incen-tive to pursue an institutionalized regional order. Only when a hegemonicstate declines relative to other states in a region does it seek institutionalizedregional cooperation. The emergence of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation(APEC) is a case in point. Crone further suggests that the deepening ofregional cooperation after hegemony depends on the extent of common interestsand shared values. Katzenstein paints a different picture of the role of hege-monic states in the formation of institutionalized regional orders. The specificinstitutional features of regional cooperation are determined by the interac-tion between a hegemonic state and a core state in a given region. In his case,“American imperium” interacts with Germany for formal, legalistic institu-tional arrangements in Europe and with Japan for a network style of openregionalism in East Asia. Power, ideas, values, and identities are combined tostructure the way “American imperium” works with regional core states,often resulting in multi-layered porous relations and diversities within regionalarrangements.

The Chinese world order, which has kept China at the center of the uni-verse for millennia, was an East Asian hierarchy involving China and itsneighboring states observing explicit and implicit rules and norms governingstate relations (Fairbank 1968; Kang 2007). However, hegemony lurks everywhere.Beneath the veil of the contemporary European community, the Franco-German leadership exists to play a leading role in the decision-making pro-cess of the EU (Cole 2001). In other words, hegemony has been expressed invarious similar terms, including leadership and order.

Applying these concepts of hegemony and community to East Asia is aninteresting academic experiment, given that China is rising so rapidly thatmany forecasts point to the stage of economic parity unfolding between Chinaand the United States in a few years. Both the International Monetary Fund(IMF) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD) forecast that China will overtake the United States in terms of grossdomestic product (GDP) as early as 2016 (Weisbrot 2011; Moulds 2012).Nevertheless, East Asia is a region heavily penetrated by the United States,which has continuously played a durable intervening role, a fact that made

4 Key-young Son and Yong Wook Lee

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

East Asia’s boundary a little blurry and the regional politics of East Asiahighly competitive and unpredictable (Buzan and Wæver 2003: 180–82; Kat-zenstein and Shiraishi 2006). Though demoted to the position of third largestcountry in terms of GDP, Japan has trodden the path of normalization andmilitarization at the turn of the twenty-first century (Hook et al. 2005). High-level uncertainties surrounding the future destiny of the Korean Peninsulafurther complicate the guesswork of pundits.

East Asian community

Given the current speed of regionalization, the emergence of a community inEast Asia appears fairly close to a fait accompli. Even to those who believethe formation of a regional community in East Asia is highly unlikely, theendless list of new community-building initiatives popping up year by year isexceptional, making the extant literature on regionalism and regionalizationin East Asia appear outdated and out of focus overnight (Katzenstein andShiraishi 2006). The amount of academic interest in this regard manifested inthe publication of theRoutledge Handbook of Asian Regionalism, which collectsthirty-three essays examining security, economic, political and institutionalaspects of regionalism in East Asia (Beeson and Stubbs 2012).

There is much ado about the rise of China, but China’s political and eco-nomic muscles are still nowhere to be seen, except in a few isolated cases,such as the 2010 incident in which China restricted the export of rare earthmaterials to Japan in a display of its economic power against Japan’s handlingof a Chinese fishing boat detained in a collision in the sea off the disputedSenkaku Islands, known as Diaoyu in China. This leads David Shambaugh,one of the leading experts on China’s international affairs, to conclude inhis recent book that China is a “partial power” (Shambaugh 2013). China hasincreased its influence across the globe, but its influence is not deep and variessubstantially by sector and region. Likewise, a number of regional organiza-tions operate, but still we seldom witness the collective exercise of political oreconomic power by a united East Asia.

Given the lapse of only two decades since the end of the Cold War and thelingering division of states as the war’s legacy, the expectation of a seachange is farfetched. Nevertheless, it is important to trace the evolution ofregionalist initiatives in East Asia, to help put the discussion of hegemony andcommunity into multifaceted historical contexts.

A sense of community among the states in East Asia has been relativelyweak, primarily because they do not share similar values, political and eco-nomic systems and social norms, to say nothing of the absence of the EU-stylesupranational institutions. Some preliminary efforts have been made torecycle the ancient Chinese ideas of regional governance for use as an analyticor explanatory tool of contemporary East Asian or global politics, but stillthe project, called Chinese IR (international relations), remains a cottagebusiness (Tao et al. 2010; Bell 2008a, 2008b; Callahan 2008). Despite slow

Introduction 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

progress in academically sizing up the contemporary regional politics, a longlist of regionalist initiatives have been created to integrate the region into aharmonious community, including the Association of Southeast AsianNations (ASEAN), the ASEAN Plus Three, the East Asian Summit, theASEAN Regional Forum and the Trilateral Summit (China, Japan and SouthKorea). Although regarded as a form of “failed regionalism,” many EastAsian countries are members of the APEC forum, and some Asian stateshave already joined the strengthened Trans-Pacific Partnership, in which theUnited States emerged as the main driving state. In this sense, East Asia hasfeatured both “open” and “closed” regionalisms, further raising the questionof “what is the boundary of East Asia?” Discussion of these regionalistinitiatives will be taken up in detail in Part II.

Approaches and positions

Contemplating the twin ideas of hegemony and community, the contributorsto this edited volume make their own arguments on China’s rise and thetransformation of East Asia. It appears that they are convinced East Asia’sfuture is not like its past and China will regain its erstwhile regional influence,but not in a form of status par excellence (Jacques 2009).

Consequently, these experienced contributors make very cautious assess-ments of the contemporary distribution of power and influences and thepotential to form a regional community. The reader of this edited volume willnot find grandiose tales, such as the demise of the world-capitalist system as aresult of the rise of China and then India, which will eventually raise “lowenvironmental cost, low wage cost, and low taxation cost,” prerequisites forthe maintenance of capitalism (Li 2008: ix.). Neither will they come acrosspredictions of a possible implosion of the Chinese communist system becauseof a mounting sense of insecurity among the Beijing leadership as a result ofa general public empowered by economic prosperity (Shirk 2007).

The contributors to this edited volume rather portray China as a slightlymore ambitious state and neighboring states as slightly more worried aboutits rise than the predictions of Steve Chan and David Kang. Chan (2012)noted that China, mindful of regime survival and economic gains, does notaim to match US military or foreign policy influences and that its neighborswill seek to maximize economic gains resulting from cooperation rather thanby balancing China. Kang (2007) believes that East Asia has already accom-modated China’s peaceful rise for the past three decades and China itself isnot so ambitious to challenge the global leadership of the United States andwill satisfy itself with being a regional leader.

By the same token, this edited volume does not clinch the straitjacket of the“China threat” thesis (Mearsheimer 2001; Yee and Storey 2002; Friedberg2011). China, in its rise, is as much shaping as shaped by global and regionalpolitics. For example, Sutter and Lampton draw two diametrically differentconclusions on the nature of China’s rising power (Lampton 2005; Sutter

6 Key-young Son and Yong Wook Lee

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

2005). On the one hand, Sutter argues that the essence of China’s grandregional strategy is to keep the United States out of the region or regionalaffairs to reduce American power and influence in the Asian region. For thispurpose, China took active participation in the ASEAN Regional Forum(ARF) to marginalize the United States. China’s effort to create and upgrade“the ASEAN plus Three (APT),” to make it a major regional economic policyforum for East Asia is further evidence. The APT excludes the United Statesfrom membership. As such, the current Chinese policy of reassurance andaccommodation is a tactic to buy time for China’s ascendance as the worldhegemonic power. On the other hand, Lampton claims that the rise of Chinamay be good not only for the United States, but also for the world as awhole. Heshows that China contributes to the world economy as the producer of cheapgoods (good for consumers all over the world) as well as the investor in andmarket for goods from across the globe. Moreover, the kind of power China hasexercised since its rise to the status of great power in the 1990s belongs (moreor less) to the realm of “remunerative power,” the power of money. Asidefrom China’s exercise of coercive power over Taiwan, there is little evidencesuggesting an increase in the frequency and level of China’s arm-twisting ofsmall neighboring countries. Both how the world or East Asia interprets andinteracts with China’s rise and how China interprets and interacts with thepolicies of neighboring countries toward its rise would importantly conditionthe nature of China’s rise.

Overall, such commentators have reached no consensus on whether Chinawill emerge as a global hegemon or remain a regional leader and what couldbe the most desirable policies of the United States and China’s neighboringstates to control China’s rise. Furthermore, we don’t know whether China willgrow into a great power whose hard power will tower above all other com-petitors or furnish itself with soft and cultural power with which to charminternational society.

While Western academia has been inundated by a range of books on thefuture of China and the world with China, this edited volume focuses on lis-tening to the voices of Chinese scholars about the contours of their state’scapabilities, orientations and worldviews.

As to community building in East Asia, many specialists have sought toprovide a comprehensive picture of the region’s integration initiatives theoreti-cally and conceptually. Mark Beeson (2007) approaches the regionalist initia-tives from the perspectives of history, values and political projects, but mostanalysts highlight the importance of trade and business linkages in East Asiaas a major contributor to community building (Dent 2008; Pomfret 2010; Cai2010). This is a reflection of the fact that the political projects for regionmaking developed slower than the economic process of regionalization. Thus,what’s called for is a balanced look at the region’s integration processes, usingvarious perspectives. The contributors to this edited volume elucidate thesecurity side of region making and the sociological changes involving identitiesand values.

Introduction 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

Chapter outline

This edited volume brings together a group of well-known and emergingscholars in Chinese and East Asian studies with the working premise that therise of China and community building are the two most important processestaking place in East Asia. Each author analyzes the foreign policy behavior ofone or more of the regional states and/or relations among them in an effort tomake claims about whether and how China is rising and what forms of orderor institutionalization are emerging as dominant in East Asia. Some of thechapters forming Part I focus on the transformation of strategic relations inEast Asia associated with China’s ascendency. The authors here do not pre-sent a particular theoretical perspective, but instead make a substantial con-tribution to our understanding of China by drawing on the full gamut oftheoretical approaches in contemporary international relations scholarship,balanced with historical and sociological perspectives. Part II brings togetherthe thinking of the theoretically informed and politically engaged scholarshipon community building in East Asia.

Contributors to Part I of this volume are not strong advocates of Sino–American partnership for the co-management of global affairs, even thoughthey leave open the possibility of their cooperation in a relatively competitivestrategic environment. Nor do they use the word “hegemony” in an explicitmanner, given that it is a heavily loaded term. In a departure from the theo-retical and conceptual clarity often employed by many Western scholars, theChinese and Korean contributors take practical approaches, analyzing in abalanced manner the current constellation of power in East Asia. Never-theless, the contributors approach the shifting international relations of East Asiain the wake of China’s rise from the perspectives of implicit hegemonic com-petition. Quansheng Zhao believes in the “natural” formation of what hecalls a “dual leadership” structure in the Asia-Pacific region where the two greatpowers will be caught in a dynamic of cooperation and confrontation fromthe position of each other’s area of strength, e.g. the United States in the fieldof security and politics and China in the economic domain. Thus, Zhao’s “dualleadership” thesis is a rebuttal of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s G2 (the “Group ofTwo”—the United States and China) model in which the relationship of thetwo great powers could develop to form a comprehensive global partnership.

Yinhong Shi is more pessimistic about the possibility of a Sino-Americancondominium in East Asia than Quansheng Zhao. Shi has been highly criticalof what he calls “the Chinese version of the G2” in which many Chineseforeign policy elites allegedly emphasized the formation of a stronger rela-tionship with the United States as China’s top diplomatic goal. According toShi, advocates of the “Chinese version of the G2” believe that the joint Sino–American handling of various territorial issues taking place in East Asiabetween China and its neighboring countries, as well as North Korea’s nuclearissues, will be a short cut to the resolution of these issues, because it is more cost-effective than China handling these issues on a case-by-case basis. However,

8 Key-young Son and Yong Wook Lee

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

Shi calls this vision “illusionary,” because the United States is sometimesbehind these countries, pulling the strings, encouraging more conflicts. In thiscontext, Sino–American “co-management” of East Asia and the westernPacific in general is a dashed dream. Furthermore, Shi rejects any scholarlyprediction of future superpower relations as ungrounded and makes instead arather practical proposition. Shi advocates the establishment of a politicalleadership in China capable of handling a list of regional and global issues inan effective manner at least equaling the US leadership’s tenacity to maintainits position in East Asia, strategic senses and mobilization of both soft andsmart power. Shi appears confident of this future path for China, since thestate maintains its own strengths in terms of economic vigor, geographicalpropinquity and diplomatic patience and amiability.

Qingguo Jia accepts the notion of China’s rise, but argues that China fol-lows the path of a peaceful rise, like other great powers, such as the UnitedStates before World War I and Japan and Germany after World War II. Thesecret of a peaceful rise, according to him, lies in the acceptance of the exist-ing world order, abandonment of territorial acquisition, reliance on interna-tional trade and the sharing of basic values with the hegemonic state. SinceChina has proceeded along a path of peace, Jia contends that the interna-tional society should recognize its efforts and refrain from offending China.Jia makes a list of what he regards as offensive behavior towards China, suchas US arms sales to Taiwan, third-party efforts to revise the current statusquo regarding territorial claims, and the strengthening of military alliancesand deployments to contain China. In a nutshell, China has not pursuedmilitary hegemony and therefore does not constitute an existential threat tothe United States and other countries. Jia notes that China’s defense build-upis only proportional to its economic growth and that the gigantic size of theUS military dwarfs its military capabilities, despite their rapid growth.

Jung-Nam Lee portrays the East Asian security landscape as a dynamic“G2 system” in which the competitive side of the two powers’ strategic rela-tions overshadows the cooperative relations between the regional states. Inparticular, Lee argues that the birth of the “G2 system” has barred the pro-gress of political and security relations between South Korea and China inspite of an enormous growth in economic relations and human exchange.Utilizing the results of opinion surveys conducted in both South Korea andChina, Lee identifies the perceptual gap between the two peoples regardingsecurity and military alliances. According to the survey results, the Chinesepublic regards South Korea’s act of strengthening its strategic relationshipwith the United States as detrimental to China’s security, while South Kor-eans believe that China has been siding with North Korea regardless of thestate’s act of violating international norms. In this context, Lee is pessimisticabout an early improvement in South Korea–China relations, because a dip-lomatic option is very unlikely to produce any viable outcome, given thatthese structural reasons hamper the creation of a favorable atmosphere for thesmooth progress of bilateral relations. Nevertheless, Lee makes a list of

Introduction 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

suggestions at the end of her chapter by which distrust between the peoples ofthe two countries could be phased out and a strategic partnership conduciveto Korean unification and peace and security in East Asia could be built.

The contributors to Part II size up the emerging, but still fragile East Asianinitiatives for community building by using a variety of yardsticks. GilbertRozman employs what he calls a multilayered approach to unpack the com-plexity of East Asia’s community-building values, identities and initiatives. Inparticular, Rozman uses the lens of national identity and portrays the regionalorder as consisting mainly of three parts: 1) the values and visions of the threenortheast Asian countries—China, Japan, and South Korea—as to the for-mation of an East Asian community; 2) the community-building functions ofthe Six-Party Talks; and 3) a United States-led Asia-Pacific community.Before proceeding to analyze these three parts, Rozman highlights the regio-nal states’ suspicion of the existence of any transnational identity or value inEast Asia that could serve as a glue to unite the region. Therefore, he surveysthe multiple ways value differences shape international and transnationalrelations in East Asia, while exploring the possibility of seeking commonvisions for a regional identity. Rozman concludes his discussion by empha-sizing the roles of the United States and China, especially the possibility oftheir cooperation in shaping any viable regional community in East Asia.

T.J. Pempel places various multilateral initiatives in East Asia into twogroups: commerce and security. While Rozman uses identities and values asthe ideational foundation for the formation of a regional community, as wellas his analytic tools, Pempel highlights the importance of common threats asa driving force to enable the regional states to form a common front. In par-ticular, Pempel identifies the 1997–98 East Asian financial crisis as a commonexternal threat that made the regional states perceive the necessity of region-wide,collective mechanisms. Nevertheless, Pempel highlights the difference betweenregional and security organizations in East Asia: the former collectively buffetagainst the external forces of global finance, while the latter addressesregionally endogenous security issues. Since they were founded on a strongcommitment to respect national sovereignty and geared to handle specificthreats or issues on an ad hoc basis, Pempel argues that these initiatives areintrinsically different from, for instance, the European integrationist initia-tives. Nevertheless, Pempel is not entirely pessimistic about community for-mation in East Asia, because his notion of “institutional Darwinism” allowsthe fittest to survive and prosper and others to die out in a unique ecosystemof multinational organizations in East Asia.

In a departure fromRozman’s sociological and constructivist perspectives andPempel’s political approaches, Xiaoming Zhang takes an historical approachand adopts a process-tracing framework from Chinese perspectives to illus-trate the change in East Asia’s strategic architecture. Zhang identifies threepatterns of China’s relations with its neighbors from the Qin Dynasty to theend of the Cold War: namely, the Sino-centric pattern, the Western-dominatedpattern, and the two superpowers-dominated pattern. In the post-Cold War

10 Key-young Son and Yong Wook Lee

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

era, Zhang argues that the general flow of history in East Asia points stronglyto the formation of an open regional community, since the dominance ofeither the United States or China would be counterbalanced by one another.Though idealistic, Zhang’s analytical historicism is a reflection of the currentbalance of power between the two greatest powers. Furthermore, this couldmanifest only on the conditions that the two powers would not aim fordominance and other neighboring states favor the creation of a regionalcommunity emerging from the politics of alliance with the superpowers.

While Xiaoming Zhang discusses the possibility of community building inEast Asia from Chinese perspectives, Yong Wook Lee elaborates on Japan’sleadership role in promoting financial regionalism in East Asia. Lee debunksthe conventional wisdom that Japan has been eager to include its closest post-war ally, the United States, in regionalist initiatives for a source of additionalfunding as well as for hedging against China’s influence. Lee argues thatJapan’s perceptional change, especially among officials of the Ministry ofFinance, and interpretation of the Asian financial crisis made the state go“regional” in the sense of conceiving and promoting regional financial initia-tives excluding the United States. In other words, Lee contends that the self-help system among the East Asian countries is becoming an operationalnorm in a dismissal of the US- or IMF-led neoliberal system which in EastAsia is increasingly subject to the “politics of resentment.”

Bibliography

Beeson, M. (2007) Regionalism and Globalization in East Asia: Politics, Security andEconomic Development, New York: Palgrave.

Beeson, M. and Stubbs, R. (eds) (2012) Routledge Handbook of Asian Regionalism,London: Routledge.

Bell, D. (ed.) (2008a) Confucian Political Ethics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

——(2008b) China’s New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a ChangingSociety, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, NewYork: Columbia University Press.

Buzan, B. and Wæver, O. (2003) Regions and Powers: The Structure of InternationalSecurity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cai, K. (2010) The Politics of Economic Regionalism: Explaining Regional EconomicIntegration in East Asia, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Callahan, W. (2008) “Chinese Visions of World Order: Post-hegemonic or a NewHegemony?” International Studies Review 10(4): 749–61.

Chan, S. (2012) Looking for Balance: China, the United States, and Power Balancing inEast Asia, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Cole, A. (2001) Franco-German Relations, London: Longman.Crone, D. (1993) “Does Hegemony Matter? The Reorganization of the Pacific Political

Economy.” World Politics 45(4): 501–25.Dent, C. (2008) East Asian Regionalism, New York: Routledge.

Introduction 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

Fairbank, J. (ed.) (1968) The Chinese World Order: Traditional China’s Foreign Rela-tions, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Farrell, M. (2005) “The Global Politics of Regionalism: An Introduction.” In M.Farrell, B. Hettne and L. Langenhove, eds, Global Politics of Regionalism: Theoryand Practice, London: Pluto Press, 1–17.

Fawcett, L. (2005) “Regionalism from a Historical Perspective.” In M. Farrell, B.Hettne and L. Langenhove, eds, Global Politics of Regionalism: Theory and Prac-tice, London: Pluto Press, 21–37.

Friedberg, A. (2011) A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle forMastery in Asia, New York: Norton.

Gilpin, R. (1975) U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation: The Political Econ-omy of Foreign Direct Investment, New York: Basic Books.

Hettne, B. and Söderbaum, F. (2000) “Theorizing the Rise of Regionness.” New Poli-tical Economy 5(3): 457–73.

Hook, G.D., Gilson, J., Hughes, C.W. and Dobson, H. (2005) Japan’s InternationalRelations: Politics, Economics and Security, London: RoutledgeCurzon.

Hurrell, A. (2005) “The Regional Dimension in International Relations Theory.” InM. Farrell, B. Hettne and L. Langenhove, eds, Global Politics of Regionalism:Theory and Practice, London: Pluto Press, 38–53.

Ikenberry, J. (2001) After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraints, and the Building ofOrder after Major Wars, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

——(2008) “The Rise of China and Future of the West.” Foreign Affairs 87(1): 23–37.Ikenberry, J. and Mastanduno, M. (eds) (2003) International Relations Theory and theAsia-Pacific, New York: Columbia University Press.

Jacques, M. (2009) When China Rules the World, London: Allen Lane.Kang, D.C. (2007) China Rising: Peace, Power, and Order in East Asia, New York:Columbia University Press.

Katzenstein, P. (2005) A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American Imper-ium, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Katzenstein, P. and Shiraishi, T. (eds) (2006) Beyond Japan: The Dynamics of EastAsian Regionalism, Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.

Keohane, R. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World PoliticalEconomy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kindleberger, C. (1973) The World in Depression, Berkeley, CA: University of Cali-fornia Press.

Krasner, S.D. (1982) “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes asIntervening Variables.” International Organization 36(2): 185–205.

Lampton, D. (2005) “China’s Rise in Asia Need Not Be at America’s Expense.” In D.Shambaugh, ed., Power Shift: China and Asia’s New Dynamics, Berkeley, CA:University of California Press, 306–26.

Li, M. (2008) The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World-Economy,London: Pluto Press.

Linklater, A. and Suganami, H. (2006) The English School of International Relations:A Contemporary Assessment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mearsheimer, J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York: Norton.Moulds, J. (2012) “China’s Economy to Overtake US in Next Four Years, SaysOECD.” The Guardian, November 9, www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/09/china-overtake-us-four-years-oecd (accessed March 1, 2013).

12 Key-young Son and Yong Wook Lee

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/09/china-overtake-us-four-years-oecdhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/09/china-overtake-us-four-years-oecd

Pomfret, R. (2010) Regionalism in East Asia: Why Has it Flourished Since 2000 andHow Far Will it Go? Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.

Powers, K. and Goertz, G. (2011) “The Economic Institutional Construction ofRegions: Conceptualization and Operationalization.” Review of International Stu-dies 37(5): 2387–415.

Ruggie, J. (1982) “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Lib-eralism in the Postwar Economic Order.” International Organization 36(2): 379–415.

Shambaugh, D. (2013) China Goes Global: The Partial Power, Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Shambaugh, D. and Yahuda, M. (eds) (2008) International Relations of Asia, Lanham,MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Shirk, S. (2007) China: Fragile Superpower, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Sutter, R. (2005) “China’s Regional Strategy and Why it May Not Be.” In D. Sham-baugh, ed., Power Shift: China and Asia’s New Dynamics, Berkeley, CA: Universityof California Press, 289–305.

Tao, J., Cheung, A.B.L., Painter, M. and Li, C. (eds) (2010) Governance for Harmonyin Asia and Beyond, London: Routledge.

Weisbrot, M. (2011) “2016: When China Overtakes the US.” The Guardian, April 27,www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/27/china-imf-economy-2016(accessed March 1, 2013).

Yee, H. and Storey, I. (2002) The China Threat: Perceptions, Myths, and Realities,London: Routledge.

Introduction 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/27/china-imf-economy-2016

This page intentionally left blank

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

I

Hegemony

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

This page intentionally left blank

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

2 US–China relations and a new dualleadership structure in the Asia-Pacific

Quansheng Zhao

Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, the ebb and flow of powerbetween China and the United States has led to the emergence of a new patternof leadership in Asia-Pacific international relations. In the economic and financialdimensions, China has gradually gained the upper hand and begun to play aleading role in certain areas, but it is commonly believed that in terms of military,security and political dimensions, the United States continues to be in ahegemonic position—far ahead of the rest of the major powers (Sutter 2010). Thisemerging dual leadership structure clearly reflects new configurations relatedto the rise of China for the past three decades. At the same time, it is also areflection of the continued US leadership position in regional as well as globalaffairs since the end of World War II.

The dual leadership structure reflects recent trends and perceptions regard-ing China’s rise—namely China’s dramatic and persistent economic growth.China’s economic growth may dramatically affect the global and regionalpower distribution, giving China considerable new leverage relative to theUnited States. For example, China’s increasing economic strength helped tomaintain economic stability in the Asia-Pacific when the 2008 financial crisisweakened the United States. At the same time, the continued US leadershipof the political and military dimensions may prove to play a balancing rolevis-à-vis China’s rising influence in the Asia-Pacific region, which could be ahindrance to China’s leadership in the region.

Some realists may see a bipolar US–China structure or balance, but thedual leadership structure is distinct from this concept. The dual leadershipstructure reflects fundamental asymmetry rather than parity. China has notmoved into a position where it can challenge US leadership. Rather, China ismerely starting to become more influential in the economic dimension. Whilethis trend may eventually enhance China’s power in the military and politicaldimensions, the transition from economic to political influence will occur overa long period of time and is difficult to measure. Therefore, it is unlikely thatChina will replace US leadership in both security and political dimensions,not only in global affairs but in regional affairs, any time soon.

Furthermore, the dual leadership structure may appear similar to the “G2”and other shared leadership concepts. However, they are conceptually and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

empirically different. Zbigniew Brzezinski (2009) argues strongly for the G2model, suggesting that “the relationship between the US and China has to be trulya comprehensive global partnership, parallel [to] relations with Europe andJapan.” In contrast, the dual leadership structure concept only refers to a newlyemerged regional structure in the Asia-Pacific and emphasizes the distinct strengthsof the United States and China in separate dimensions, namely economic vs.security. In a global sense, it is still an asymmetrical structure—that is, theUnited States still remains the sole hegemon and China is far from replacing it.

The dichotomy between economic and military dimensions can also be found inpublic perceptions. This is exemplified in a recently released Gallup ResearchReport on American perceptions of China’s influence. According to this study, in2000, 65 percent of Americans saw the United States as the world’s leading eco-nomic power, while only 10 percent said China held that position. By 2011, per-ceptions of these two countries had reversed. At that time, 52 percent named Chinaas the world’s leading economic power while only 32 percent saw the United Statesas such (see Figure 2.1). A similar survey by PEWResearch Center for the Peopleand the Press (2011) revealed the same perception changes in this regard.

This change in perception is due to the fact that China moved through the eco-nomic crisis fairly successfully, whereas the United States, Japan, and theEuropean Union (EU) all suffered substantially, creating a noticeable gap betweenpublic perception and reality. Namely, in the economic and trade dimensions,many people pay more attention to what China has to say, thereby increasingChina’s decision-making role in international organizations such as the WorldBank and International Monetary Fund (IMF 2011). In March 2011, the IMFpassed a resolution to increase the voting power of China within the IMF,making it the third largest member country (IMF 2011). This is even more pre-valent in the Asia-Pacific due to the fact that virtually all surrounding economieshave increased their dependence on China’s financial and trade markets.1

Figure 2.1 Perceptions of world’s leading economic power (2000–11)Source: Gallup, http://www.gallup.com/poll/146099/China-Surges-Americans-Views-Top-World-Economy.aspxCopyright © (2011) Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. The content is usedwith permission; however, Gallup retains all rights of republication.

18 Quansheng Zhao

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146099/China-Surges-Americans-Views-Top-World-Economy.aspxhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/146099/China-Surges-Americans-Views-Top-World-Economy.aspx

This new development of leadership is an important step in power transi-tion in contemporary international relations. Power Transition Theory focuseson the relationship between the rising power and the existing status quopower, particularly on how the leading status quo power deals with the risingpower’s ascent. One of the key elements of a peaceful transition compared toa drastic confrontation is the degree of satisfaction the rising power has withthe existing international system. The probability of conflict is greatest whenthe relationship can be characterized as a “zone of contention and probablewar” (Tammen et al. 2000: 31). History has shown that when a rising powerchallenges the dominance of an existing hegemony, it could mean either waror a peaceful transition (Lane 2008).

Recent history offers examples, such as the peaceful transition of powerfrom the United Kingdom to the United States in the late 1800s. Accordingto Robert Kagan (2005), “the most successful management of a rising powerin a modern era was Britain’s appeasement of the United States in the latenineteenth century, when the British effectively ceded the entire Westernhemisphere (except Canada) to the expansive Americans.” An example of asituation that escalated into war is Japan’s challenge to China’s dominanceduring the Meiji period and throughout the beginning of World War II.Another rising power of the time was Germany, which challenged the UK’sexisting dominance in Europe. Moreover, despite the absence of direct war,the rise of the Soviet Union resulted in the uneasy peace between the twosuperpowers, punctuated by numerous proxy wars during the Cold War era(Art 2010).

Although the power transition theory is not intended to be the majortheoretical framework for this chapter, the dual leadership concept never-theless reflects a changing process in this direction. The dual leadershipstructure has emerged as a means of mediating the process of power transi-tion as well as facilitating cooperation between the United States (the leadingstatus quo power) and China (the rising power). Both positive cooperation andpotential conflicts have increased in recent years. The change in leadershipstructure in the region is not only conducive to the coordination between the twocountries, but also to cooperation with other key players in the region such asJapan, Russia, the two Koreas and the Association of Southeast AsianNations (ASEAN), so that a disastrous military confrontation may be avoided.

Concepts of the leadership structure

In general, a country in a leadership position in international affairs shouldpossess at least the following five elements:

1 it should be the most powerful in the dimension in which it is a leader;2 it should have the ability to deliver and provide public goods in both peace

and crisis times;3 it should play a leading role in rule making and agenda setting;

US–China dual leadership 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

efen

ce]

at 2

1:19

19

May

201

6

4 it should occupy a leadership position in major international organizationssuch as the United Nations and the World Bank; and

5 it should occupy a high moral position.

These categories of leadership are strongly related to perceived influence. Inmany cases, a state’s actual power may not be enough to increase significantlyits relative position in the international system or catapult it into leadershipstatus. However, a global or regional perception of increasing power thatexceeds the reality of tangible power is still highly relevant because otherstates will listen more carefully, translating into increased influence. Forexample, it is doubtful that China could “rescue” the European Union in theaftermath of the euro crisis, but the perception that China possessed eco-nomic power sufficient to weather the 2008 financial crisis and the ongoingeurozone crisis led to much discussion of China’s potential role in bolsteringthe EU. In this sense, “leadership” in the dual leadership structure refers to adiscernible trend of influence, but not necessarily dominance, in diff