Search

The pending rise of China has been one of the most debated issues in international relations during the last decade. This situation creates problems for surrounding East Asian states, the majority of which are currently allied with the United States. What happens if China becomes a regional or even world leader? Will East Asian states be forced to choose between two competing powers? This paper seeks answers to these questions by examining prominent realist theories in relation to small state behavior in the international system, and applying each to the context of China and its surrounding states in Northeast Asia. First, I begin with an overview of the literature dealing with the rising power of China. Second, I seek to correctly understand the fundamental basis of the small state debate by examining in detail Waltz?s balance of power theory. An analysis reveals a fundamental flaw in interpretation: Waltz?s balancing hypothesis pertains to situations of multipolarity, rather than the current situation of unipolarity in the international arena. Waltz?s theory, when applied, predicts states will automatically align with the rising power against the dominant power. Given this finding I offer some facts on small state behavior in East Asia that show this may not be the case. Next, I turn to Walt(1987)?s balance of threat theory and discover Walt, while often understood as prescribing balancing behavior for the international arena, is actually unable to provide predictions for either bandwagoning or balancing in East Asia. I analyze the limitations of Walt?s theory and conclude the ambiguity of his conditions of state behavior, problems in operationalization of state actions and the lack of recognition of the role played by credibility in threat perception, undermine the ability of his theory to fully explain small state action in the context of our situation. Finally, power transition theory is revealed to provide inadequate, albeit roughly accurate, explanations of events in East Asia because of its overwhelming focus upon major powers. This paper deals briefly with its limitations and offers suggestions for further research. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sino-Russian relations are complex, delicate, businesslike, and multifaceted. This complexity provides stability as the relationship institutionalizes. On the other hand, there is a basic asymmetry in Sino-Russian relations. Chinese follow fixed principles with minor domestic disagreement in their Russia policy while Russians pursue ad hoc, contradictory policies often interrupted by domestic disputes with a gap between their stated China policy and the actual Russian policy implementation. Although Russia is the militarily stronger partner, China is the more cohesive partner. The asymmetric nature of the bilateral relationship impacts East Asian stability as Beijing?s strategies often drive the direction of mil-mil exchanges. This has consequences for U.S. strategic interests in East Asia. Sodruzhestvo-2005 (the first joint military exercise between Chinese and Russian militaries planned for summer 2005) was initiated by Beijing which originally hoped to give the exercise a Taiwan focus. In the end it was slated to take place in China?s Northeast with a Korean focus.This paper assesses the nature of Sino-Russian relations and their impact on East Asia, contrasting this with the bilateral relationship?s impact on Central Asia. Both regions involve U.S. interests. Rather than a narrow focus on the Sino-Russian arms trade and military exercises, analysis of the strategic relationship must be placed in a broader context of the bilateral partnership. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

That China has been politically and economically playing an important role in the world has great impact to regions all over the world, especially in East Asia. After the Cold War, Japan has gradually walked out of its past "one nation pacifism," actively participating in the international affairs under frameworks of "U.S.-Japan alliance" and the U.N. It is to fulfill its dream of becoming a "political great power." Therefore, Japan has also been playing an important role in the regional issues. On November 2002, North Korea decided to reactivate its uranium-enriching program. It has raised the tension in the region of East Asia; it has also disturbed international relations in the region. The U.S. expects China and Japan, two great powers in the Northeast Asia, intervene in the North Korea problem, hoping to solve the problem with multi-literal agreement. Can the North Korea nuclear crisis shorten the diplomatic distance between China and Japan, establishing the "military strategic partnership," or showing the radical paradox between the two countries? Examining interactions between China and Japan in the North Korea nuclear crisis can clarify the thinking of two countries' regional strategies and benefits of competition and cooperation in politic, security, and economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]