Search

This paper analyses an emerging interaction between bilateral and multilateral security arrangements for conflict resolution in Asia since the 1990s by emphasizing the correlation of Asian hegemony management with foreign policy strategies of the US, China and Japan. As protracted conflicts of the Korean Peninsula and the Taiwan Straits have threatened regional prosperity and stability, regional security institutions have become an important policy concern in the post-Cold War era. Detecting nascent multilateral institution-building in Asian regional security, this paper asks how and why US-led bilateral alliances interact with multilateral security arrangements such as the ASEAN Regional Forum and the ASEAN-Plus-Three. In order to examine this puzzle, the paper focuses on three points: (1) foreign policy strategies of three countries, (2) domestic interests concerning the feasibility and legitimacy of supplementing bilateralism with multilateralism in Asian security, and (3) impacts of Asian hegemony management on establishing regional security institutions. The paper compares the three countries’ preferences to regional security by focusing on the relationship between bilateralism of the US-led alliances and multilateralism. It then tries to demonstrate that both the dynamics of Asian hegemony management and the policy preferences concerning bilateralism and multilateralism are essential in understanding regional security arrangements in Asia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to test a theory of collective security alliances against evidence of Asia-Pacific states' alliance formation behaviors in the early Cold War period. Specifically, I attempt to study why a multilateral alliance in the Asia-Pacific, namely a Pacific Pact did not materialize despite the fact many of Asia-Pacific states including the United States considered seriously and took initiative in developing such a pact. This puzzle is particularly interesting given the Western European states successfully developed a multilateral alliance, namely the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Why did a Pacific Pact failed, while NATO succeeded?The paper analyzes a case of decision-making and behaviors of potential allies and major stakeholders for forming a multilateral alliance in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly those of the United States, Japan, the Philippines, Australia, the Republic of Korea (ROK or South Korea) and the Republic of China (ROC or Taiwan) of the period from March 1949 to September 1951. This timeframe was chosen, because some of Asia-Pacific states developed their interest in building a multilateral alliance in their region after the North Atlantic Treat was signed in April 1949, and a possibility of building multilateral security alliance was abandoned but instead, two bilateral and one trilateral alliances were signed in August and September 1951.Before going into further discussion, note that this paper is interested not in a multilateral alliance with three or more member sates, but a multilateral alliance that possesses the feature of indivisible security. From now on, this paper merely calls the former type of alliance a multilateral alliance but names the latter type as a collective security alliance. Specifically, NATO is a multilateral alliance as well as a collective security alliance, while ANZUS or SEATO is a multilateral alliance but not a collective security alliance according to this paper's definition. In fact, this conception of a multilateral and collective security alliance is not new. For instance, Hemmer and Katzenstein does not treat the SEATO as a multilateral alliance, although more than five states constituted the alliance, because they consider that SEATO is more like a series of bilateral alliances . For the same reason, this paper regards ANZUS as a multilateral alliance but not as a collective security alliance.In general, the existence of a threat or hostile power is a necessary condition for developing a collective security alliance, since a collective security is one type of alliances. However, the balance of threat theory does not predict what type of alliances such as bilateral, multilateral or collective security alliances will be formed. A collective security alliance would be likely to develop if two or more great powers are willing to bear an extra burden of providing security to other states and regions as well as to its own territory, and also if they are willing to restrain their freedom of action in order to balance against external threats. Empirical Evidence shows that the Department of States and Defense started drafting a Pacific Pact with features of a collective security alliance at the end of 1950 when the U.S. government found the Communist expansion most threatening at the end of 1950. Also, the United States started discussing this Pacific Pact proposal with relevant Asia-Pacific states at the beginning of 1951. The heightened perception of threat surely drove a state to form an alliance. However, historical evidence shows that perceived threat is necessary, but not sufficient for forming a collective security alliance as a conclusion... ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will examine four fundamental questions concerning US allies and partners in Asia: How is the United States perceived by elites/public opinion? Why does this matter -- how do these countries figure in US interests? How can consequences for the United States be measured? What can/should the United States do to influence the impact on US interests? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper examines the nature of the Asian states system, in particular, the stability and persistence of the Asian states system under unbalanced Chinese power. It addresses the empirical puzzle of why Asian secondary states submitted themselves to China’s tributary system that locked them in periphery positions and why they did not form balancing alliances against Chinese power. The paper looks at how the institutional innovation of the tributary system captured both Chinese power and the Confucian culture. As the resulting institution provided “a form of legitimation” from which secondary states drew their domestic regime legitimacy, they willingly submitted themselves to Chinese superiority. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper focuses on Chinese foreign policies towards Taiwan, Japan and the Korean peninsula and the consequences of these policies for Asia-Pacific security. Northeast Asia is a strong-hold of the US alliance system and China's near abroad, thus affecting China's influence on global security. If China cannot accommodate the region into its overall foreign policy strategy, its suggestions for a post-Cold War security order are likely to appear unconvincing to the international community. The paper emphasizes the weaknesses inherent in China's contemporary foreign policy strategy, thereby pointing to the possibility that China might fall into the rank of secondary powers. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Japan has had two strategic directions of forging its relations with the US across the Pacific Ocean and of developing its relations with Asia including China, Korean and ASEAN. Multilateralism in Asia lies at the cross road of these two strategic orientation.This paper tries to examine the role of multilateralism for Japan as a strategic choice, with a focus on Japan?s involvement in East Asia community building and Northeast Asia six party talks. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In March 2005, in his speech at the Korean Military Academy, South Korean President Roh declared that South Korea will play a role of balancer in the power politics of Northeast Asia between China and Japan. His remarks caused serious controversies and debates about South Korea?s military strategy. The paper will discuss whether the new role proposed by Roh reflects a new thinking in South Korea?s grand strategy in the region. If so, feasibility and implication of South Korea?s new military thinking will be addressed especially with regard to the U.S.-ROK alliance. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to explain the position of the U.S.-Japanese alliance in the context of Northeast Asian regional security order. It also examine how strengened ties between the two countries would influence in shaping the future regioanl security order. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on whether Asia-Pacific security and alliance politics is facing bilateralism's demise. It explains why U.S.-led bilateral security politics has endured in the Asia-Pacific. It notes that there has been no collective defense organization in the region since the demise of the Southeast Asian Treaty Organisation (SEATO) and the New Zealand unit of the ANZUS tripartite treaty. It cites accommodating allied interests in an interdependent regional security environment embodies one of the key challenges for modern U.S. security planners.