Abstract
In an age of globalization, where states have become increasingly interconnected, the demand for multilateralism has never been higher. The growing density of inter-state relations has brought the transnational nature of various political challenges — be they economic, environmental or societal — into sharper focus, and this has, in turn, enhanced the belief that cooperative responses are required to tackle them. East Asia, with its high level of intra-regional trade and interdependence1 and a common interest in regional stability, should be no exception to this. Indeed, at a glance, it would appear that multilateralism has become entrenched in the region. There are now a myriad of multilateral institutions in East Asia, ranging from the Chiang Mai Initiative to the ASEAN+3 Summits, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC), the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the Shangri-La Dialogue. Furthermore, states that were traditionally suspicious of multilateral cooperation have become enthusiastic participants of these institutions. With regards to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), David Shambaugh2 argues that ‘China’s perception of [multilateral] organizations [has] evolved from suspicion, to uncertainty, to supportiveness’. Chinese scholars concur, claiming that Beijing’s conventional fears of its loss of sovereignty to multilateral institutions have diminished.3 Others state that the PRC has increasingly come to share the view with their East Asian counterparts that economic and traditional security are intertwined, and that cooperative relations with their neighbours are important to protect China’s interests in these two areas.4 Based on these observations, some of the more optimistic Chinese observers even claim that ‘international relations of mutual benefit and the “indivisibility” of interests have begun to develop in Sino-East Asian relations under the framework of multilateralism’.5
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
N. Bisley, ‘East Asia’s Changing Regional Architecture: Towards an East Asian Economic Community?’, Pacific Affairs, 80:4 (2007/2008), 605–6.
D. Shambaugh, ‘China Engages Asia: Reshaping the Regional Order’, International Security, 29:3 (2004/2005), 69.
C.M. Liu and C.E. Pang, ‘Cong shuangbian zhuyi dao duobian zhuyi: zhongguo yu dongya guanxi de xinmoshi’, Shandong daxue xuebao, 5 (2007), 114; Y.Z. Wang, ‘Zhuquan fanchou zai sikao’, in Yang Chengxu (ed.), Xin tiaozhan — guoji guanxi zhong de ‘rendao zhuyi ganyu’ (Beijing: Zhongguo qingnian chubanshe, 2001a).
Z.Y. Pang, ‘Zhongguo de yazhou zhanlüe: linghuo de duobian zhuyi’, Shijie jingji yu zhengzhi, 10 (2001), 33.
J.G. Ruggie, ‘Multilateralism: the Anatomy of an Institution’, International Organization, 46:3 (1992), 571.
C. Hemmer and P. J. Katzenstein, ‘Why Is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism’, International Organization, 56:3 (2002), 576.
E. Goh, ‘Great Powers and Hierarchical Order in Southeast Asia: Analyzing Regional Security Strategies’, International Security, 32:3 (2007/2008), 123.
R. Foot, ‘Pacific Asia: The Development of Regional Dialogue’, in L. Fawcett and A. Hurrell (eds.), Regionalism in World Politics: Regional Organization and International Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 229–34.
D.M. Jones and M.L.R. Smith, ‘Making Process, Not Progress: ASEAN and the Evolving East Asian Order’, International Security, 32:1 (2007), 172.
These conditions would include: (a) a desire to reduce transaction costs; (b) imperfect information; and (c) a high level of issue density. For a full exploration of this issue, see R.O. Keohane, ‘The Demand for International Regimes’, International Organization, 36:2 (1982), 325–55.
A. Narlikar, ‘All that Glitters is not Gold: India’s Rise to Power’, Third World Quarterly, 28:5 (2007), 986.
E. Barkan, The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), p. XXII.
J. Duffield, ‘Why Is there No APTO? Where is there no OSCAP?: Asia-Pacific Security Institutions in Comparative Perspective’, Contemporary Security Policy, 22:2 (2001), 78.
J. O’Hagan, ‘Civilisational Conflict? Looking for Cultural Enemies’, Third World Quarterly, 16:1 (1995), 19–38.
R. Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), pp. 217–87.
Y. Onuma, ‘Japanese War Guilt and Postwar Responsibilities of Japan’, Berkeley Journal of International Law, 20:3 (2003), 604.
Y. Mochida, ‘“Sensō sekinin sengo sekinin” mondai no suiiki’, in Awaya Kentarō, Tanaka Hiroshi, Mishima Ken’ichi, Hirowatari Seigo, Mochida Yukio, and Yamaguchi Yasushi (eds.), Sensō sekinin · sengo sekinin: nippon to doitsu wa dō chigauka (Tokyo: Asahi shinbunsha, 1994), p. 13.
Y. Yoshida, Nihonjin no sensō kan (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 2005), p. 34.
J. You, ‘East Asian Community: A New Platform for Sino-Japanese Cooperation and Contention’, Japanese Studies, 46:1 (2006), 24.
M. Malik, ‘The East Asia Summit’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 60:2 (2006), 209.
S. Suzuki, ‘The Strange Masochism of the Japanese Right: Redrawing Moral Boundaries in Sino-Japanese Relations’, in G.D. Hook (ed.) Decoding Boundaries in Contemporary Japan: The Koizumi Administration and Beyond (Abingdon: Routledge, 2006).
G. Rozman, Northeast Asia’s Stunted Regionalism: Bilateral Distrust in the Shadow of Globalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 354–9.
Amitav Acharya, ‘Ideas, Identity, and Institution-Building: From the “ASEAN Way” to the “Asia-Pacific Way”?’, The Pacific Review, 10:3 (1997), 343.
A. Tanaka, Ajia no naka no nippon. (Tokyo: NTT shuppan, 2007), p. 306.
T. Yuzawa, ‘Japan’s Changing Conception of the ASEAN Regional Forum: from an Optimistic Liberal to a Pessimistic Realist Perspective’, The Pacific Review, 18:4 (2005), 480.
A.I. Johnston, ‘Treating International Institutions as Social Environments’, International Studies Quarterly, 45 (2001), 491.
Ibid., 491.
J. Lind, Sorry States: Apologies in International Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008), pp. 11–12.
Y. Yoshida, Nihonjin no sensō kan (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 2005).
W. A. Callahan, ‘History, Identity, and Security: Producing and Consuming Nationalism in China’, Critical Asian Studies, 38:2 (2006), 179–208.
S. Suzuki, ‘The Importance of “Othering” in China’s National Identity: Sino-Japanese Relations as a Stage of Identity Conflicts’, The Pacific Review, 20:1 (2007), 23–47.
Y. He, ‘Remembering and Forgetting the War: Elite Mythmaking, Mass Reaction, and Sino-Japanese Relations, 1950–2006’, History and Memory, 19:2 (2007), 60–1.
P. H. Gries, China’s New Nationalism: Pride, Politics, and Diplomacy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004).
Ma Licheng, ‘Duiri guanxi xin siwei: Zhongri minjian zhi you’, Zhanlüe yu guanli, 6 (2002), 41–7; P.H. Gries, ‘China’s “New Thinking” on Japan’, China Quarterly, 184 (2005), 831–50.
Ge Hongbing had this entry removed from his blog, most possibly because of the adverse criticism. His arguments were reproduced in http://history.163.com/07/0619/10/3HBHN8UQ00011247.html; E. Friedman, ‘Raising Sheep on Wolf Milk: The Politics and Dangers of Misremembering the Past in China’, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 9:2 (2008), 389–409.
Y.Z. Wang, ‘Zhongguo yu duobian waijiao’, in Shijie jingji yu zhengzhi, 10 (2001), 7.
Ibid., 8.
Y. He, The Search for Reconciliation: Sino-Japanese and German-Polish Relations Since World War II (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 18–19.
Ibid., pp. 19–20.
T.J. Christensen, ‘China, the U.S.-Japan Alliance and the Security Dilemma in East Asia’, International Security, 23:4 (1999), 50.
C. Rose, Sino-Japanese Relations: Facing the Past, Looking to the Future? (London: Routledge, 2005), p. 10.
This point was made to me by social workers at the Taipei Women’s Rescue Foundation, which has been campaigning for justice on behalf of Taiwanese former ‘comfort women’. Interviews, 18 August and 7 September 2009, Taipei. It is, however, worth noting that the UN International Law Commission sees the role of apologies as ‘essentially a “fallback” remedy if more adequate ways of seeking to restore the status quo ante the wrongful conduct in question … are not available or appropriate’. R.B. Bider, ‘The Role of Apology in International Law’, in M. Gibney, R.E. Howard-Hassmann, J.-M. Coicaud, and N. Steiner (eds.), The Age of Apology: Facing Up to the Past (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), p. 19.
J. Thompson, ‘Apology, Justice, and Respect: A Critical Defense of Political Apology’, in M. Gibney, R.E. Howard-Hassmann, J.-M. Coicaud, and N. Steiner (eds.), The Age of Apology, pp. 34–8.
Lind, Sorry States, p. 181; C. Lu, ‘Shame, Guilt and Reconciliation after War’, European Journal of Social Theory, 11:3 (2008), 367–383.
D. Hundt and R. Bleiker, ‘Reconciling Colonial Memories in Korea and Japan’, Asian Perspective, 31:1 (2007), 81.
J. Torpey, ‘“Making Whole What Has Been Smashed”: Reflections on Reparations’, The Journal of Modern History, 73 (2001), 350.
M. Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998), pp. 144–5.
S. Dwyer, ‘Reconciliation for Realists’, Ethics and International Affairs, 13:1 (1999), 89.
Dongya sanguo de jin xiandai shi gongtong bianxie weiyuanhui (ed.), Dongya sanguo de jin xiandai shi (Beijing: Shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe, 2005), p. 226.
K. Saitō, Chūgoku rekishi kyōkasho to higashiajia rekishi taiwa: nitchūkan sangoku kyōtsū kyōzai zukuri no genba kara (Tokyo: Kadensha, 2008), p. 77.
G.Q. Xiao, ‘Weishenme wo fandui jijin minzu zhuyi’, in Le Shan (ed.) Qianliu: dui xiaai minzu zhuyi de pipan yu fansi (Shanghai: Huadong shifan daxue chubanshe, 2004), p. 35.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Shogo Suzuki
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Suzuki, S. (2013). Effective Multilateralism and Sino-Japanese Reconciliation. In: Prantl, J. (eds) Effective Multilateralism. St Antony’ Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137312983_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137312983_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-33488-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-31298-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)