Oct 09 2005
Review on Yahuda’s “The International Politics of the Asia-Pacific”
Michael Yahuda: The International Politics of the Asia-Pacific
Major points:
1. Despite their geographical proximity, Asia-Pacific nations had very different histories. For example, East Asia countries had long, continuous statehood, strong cultural identities and prolonged inter-relations. On the other hand, modern South East Asian nations’ identities were mostly shaped by their respective colonial past.
2. During the Cold War era, the international relationships in Asia-Pacific were framed by a bipolar system. The clash of the superpowers left a lasting and painful legacy in the region. Korea and Vietnam turned into proving ground of Soviet and U.S. geo-political theories; Japan and South Korea lost their policy independence and became proxy states of the U.S. Although there was a strong push toward regionalism (in the form of ASEAN) vis-à-vis alliance with superpowers, the region was too young to breakaway from external forces. In fact, the very existence of ASEAN leader, Indonesia, thanks largely to the Cold War concerns of the U.S.
3. After the Cold War, a new pattern of Asia-Pacific relations is emerging. Its main characteristics are the pre-eminence of U.S. power and a rising Chinese nation. United States plays an important and positive role in the region by ensuring peace and stability. China’s economic growth brought not only prosperity to the region, but constant anxiety as well. There are two seemingly opposite developments in today’s Asia-Pacific: the close-knit economic interdependence, and the potential for major conflicts in North Korea and Taiwan. Although US and China are major actors in both theaters, the new dynamics present opportunities and challenges to the rest of the region as well.
Comments and Critiques:
1. In his book, Yahuda frequently compares the situation in Asia to that of Europe: “Thus Europe … adopted an entirely different agenda from East Asia.” (p. 2), or “Unlike Europe, Asia did not have multilateral … [rule setting] organizations” (p. 229) I am very interested in knowing what historians’ view on why such difference exists. On the surface, one might argue that Asia-Pacific region was never united under one empire, like Europe during the Roman period. Yet it is still unclear what exactly “homogenization” has brought to the continent? After all, Europe had been the most volatile region until after WWII. It may also be argued that lack of history or national identity constrained the formation of a regional identity that can be codified in such institutions. However, if history is the only deterministic factor, could one argue, and predict too, that such institution will mature (i.e. be more binding) as time pass by?
2. There is a clear theme of “identity struggle” throughout Yahuda’s narrative of the region’s history. The lack of “id” not only contributes to some of the innate weakness of regional organizations such as ARF, it may also help to explain other ongoing issues. For example, he postulated that China’s strife for greatness was more of a subconscious reaction to its past humiliation than a salient desire of territorial gain. This insight becomes more poignant in light of the recent anti-Japanese flare-up in China. Most observers in the West faulted the communist regime for consciously manipulating nationalistic sentiment. Yet it remains unclear what exactly the communist regime has gained. By bringing the topic of “identity” to our attention, Professor Yahuda seems to suggest there is a whole new dimension to the analysis of International Relations other than Machiavellian plots.
3. The book is very methodical and structured in its presentation. The narrative was divided along timeline: Historical Context, Bipolar World during the Cold War and the Post-Cold War era. Within each section, there was an overview of the grid of relations among the major nations, followed by more detailed descriptions of each country or sub-region. Inevitably, this structure created certain amount of redundancy. The book is certainly a fitting example of “excellent introduction”, but regional study scholars might find it lack of an encompassing theoretical framework to pin all the materials onto.