Abstract
The rise of China is a phenomenon with global ramifications. Yet it is in its immediate neighborhood that Beijing’s newfound clout is most strongly felt. Virtually all East Asian countries are now heavily dependent on their trade with China for their own economic development, while at the same time they consider a continued US presence necessary for regional stability. This shared foreign policy dilemma is deeply engrained in the strategic outlook of Southeast Asian countries. In the face of growing regional volatility, fueled by geopolitical competition among great powers, these many countries have displayed a variety of stances and policies, most of them having in common the objective of not choosing one partner (whether China or the US) over the other. This goal of decoupling their fate from the ups and downs of the Sino-American relationship has been pursued through a series of initiatives designed to foster connections to neighboring countries through multilateral platforms such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) or bilaterally, as a way to bolster their security outlook. Inclusive strategies, however varied their modalities may be, thus seem to be the favored responses of regional countries to a changing environment. For many authors this stems from a logic of ‘hedging’,1 a concept put forward as a better way to account for recent developments in the Asia-Pacific strategic environment than the oft-favored ‘balancingbandwagoning’ dichotomy.2
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
E. Medeiros (2005/06) ‘Strategic hedging and the future of Asia-Pacific stability’, Washington Quarterly, 29/1, 145–67;
Ch. Chung (2004) ‘Southeast Asia-China relations: Dialectics of “Hedging” and “Counter-Hedging”’ in D. Singh and C.K Wah (eds.), Southeast Asian Affairs 2004 (Singapore ISEAS, 2004), pp.35–53.
R. Ross (2006) ‘Balance of power politics and the rise of China: Accommodation and balancing in East Asia’, Security Studies, 15/3, 355–95;
D. Roy (2005) ‘Southeast Asia and China: Balancing or bandwagoning?’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 27/2, 305–22.
S. Chan (2010) ‘An odd thing happened on the way to balancing: East Asian states’ reactions to China’s rise’, International Studies Review, 12/3, 387–412.
E. Goh (2007/08), ‘Great powers and hierarchical order in Southeast Asia: Analyzing regional security strategies’, International Security, 32/3, 113–57.
K. He (2008), ‘Institutional balancing and international relations theory: Economic interdependence and balance of power strategies in Southeast Asia’, European Journal of International Relations, 14/3, 489–518.
Y. F. Khong (2004) ‘Coping with strategic uncertainty: The role of institutions and soft balancing in Southeast Asia’s post-Cold War strategy’, in J. J. Suh, P. Katzenstein and A. Carlson (eds.) Rethinking Security in East Asia: Identity, Power, and Efficiency (Stanford: Stanford University Press), pp.172–208;
S. Brooks and W. Wohlforth (2005) ‘Hard times for soft balancing’, International Security, 30/1, 72–108;
B. E. Whitaker (2010) ‘Soft balancing among weak states? Evidence from Africa’, International Affairs, 86/5, 1109–27. A literature review on the reactions of East Asian states to the rise of China can be found in
I. Ts. Chen and A. H. Yang (2013) ‘A harmonized Southeast Asia? Explanatory typologies of ASEAN countries’ strategies to the rise of China’, The Pacific Review, 26/3, 265–88. See also
J. H. Chung (2009/2010) ‘East Asia responds to the rise of China: Patterns and variations’, Pacific Affairs, 82/4, 657–75.
A. Acharya (2003) Seeking Security in the Dragon’s Shadow: China and Southeast Asia in the Emerging Asian Order. Working Paper 44 (Singapore: Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies).
D. Kang (2003) ‘Getting Asia wrong: The need for new analytical frameworks’, International Security, 27/4, 57–85;
A. Acharya (2008) ‘Theoretical perspectives on international relations in Asia’, in D. Shambaugh and M. Yahuda (eds.) International Relations of Asia (Lanham: Rowan & Littlefield), pp.57–83;
A. Acharya and B. Buzan (2010) Non-Western International Relations Theory. Perspectives on and beyond Asia (Oxon: Routledge).
These are notions that contemporary researchers mainly owe to the considerable literature that emerged in the wake of John K. Fairbank’s work. See John K. Fairbank (ed.) (1968) The Chinese World Order: Traditional China’s Foreign Relations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press);
J. Fairbank (1942) ‘Tributary trade and China’s relations with the West’, Far Eastern Quarterly, 1/2, 129–49.
See Y. Wong (2005) From Deng Xiaoping to Jiang Zemin. Two Decades of Political Reform in the People’s Republic of China (Lanham: University Press of America);
Th. Heberer and G. Schubert (eds.) (2009) Regime Legitimacy in Contemporary China: Institutional Change and Stability (Oxon: Routledge);
Y. Zheng (2010) The Chinese Communist Party as Organizational Emperor. Culture, Reproduction and Transformation (Oxon: Routledge);
Sh. Zheng (2003) ‘Leadership change, legitimacy, and party transition in China’, Journal of Chinese Political Science, 8/1–2, 47–63;
B. Guo (2003) ‘Political legitimacy and China’s transition’, Journal of Chinese Political Science, 8/1–2, 1–25.
S. Golden (2011) ‘China’s perception of risk and the concept of comprehensive national power’, The Copenhagen Journal of Asia Studies, 29/2, 79–109.
See G. Wu and H. Lansdowne (eds.) (2008) China Turns to Multilateralism, Foreign Policy and Regional Security (London: Routledge).
E. Medeiros (2009) China’s International Behavior: Activism, Opportunism, and Diversification (Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation), pp.93–4.
W. Zhang (2010) ‘China’s cultural future: From soft power to comprehensive national power’, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16/4, 383–402;
Sh. Ding (2008) ‘To build a “Harmonious World”: China’s soft power wielding in the global South’, Journal of Chinese Political Science, 13/2, 193–213.
Y. Zheng and S. K. Tok (2008) ‘Intentions on trial: “Peaceful Rise” and Sino-ASEAN relations’, in G. Wu and H. Landsdowne (eds.) China Turns to Multilateralism. Foreign Policy and Regional Security (London: Routledge), pp.175–97.
S. Saw, L. Sheng and Ch. K. Wah (2005) ‘An overview of ASEAN-China relations’, in S. Saw, L. Sheng and Ch. K. Wah (eds.) ASEAN-China Relations: Realities and Prospects (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asia Studies), p.2.
See E. Solingen (2001) ‘Crisis and transformation: ASEAN in the New Era’, Working Paper 16 (Singapore: Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies); S. Haggard (2000) ‘The politics of the Asian financial crisis’, Journal of Democracy, 11/2, 130–44.
X. Yin (2011) ‘China’s intermediate goods trade with ASEAN: A profile of four countries’, in M. Kagami (ed.) Intermediate Goods Trade in East Asia: Economic Deepening Through FTAs/EPAs (Bangkok: Bangkok Research Center, BRC Research Report, 5).
See e.g. J. Kurlantzick (2006) ‘China’s charm: Implications of Chinese soft power’, Policy Brief, 47 (Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) http://carnegieendowment.org.files/PB_47_FINAL.pdf; J. Kurlantzick (2007) Charm Offensive. How China’s Soft Power is Transforming the World (New Haven: Yale University Press).
On the Chinese regime’s internal struggles, see D. Shambaugh (2011) ‘Coping with a conflicted China’, The Washington Quarterly, 34/1, 7–27.
Although this ‘assertive turn’ can be discussed, as A. I. Johnston (2013) ‘How new and assertive is China’s new assertiveness?’, International Security, 37/4, 7–48, made clear.
See Zh. Zhang (2007) ‘ASEAN-China relations and development of East Asian regionalism’, in H. Lai and T. S. Lim (eds.) Harmony and Development: ASEANChina Relations (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing), pp.92–7.
See B. Hellendorff (2013) ‘La relation Chine-ASEAN au coeur du nouveau multilatéralisme asiatique’, in T. Struye de Swielande and T. de Wilde d’Estmael (eds.) La Chine sur la scène internationale. Vers une puissance responsable? (Brussels: PIE-Peter Lang), pp.271–92.
K. W. Larsen (2013) ‘Comforting fictions: The tribute system, the Westphalian order, and Sino-Korean relations’, Journal of East Asian Studies, 13/2, 233–57.
See Fairbank, The Chinese World Order; J. K. Fairbank and Ss. Teng (1941) ‘On the Ch’ing tributary system’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 6/2, 135–246; Fairbank, ‘Tributary trade and China’s relations with the West’.
A. Reid (2009) ‘Negotiating asymmetry: Parents, brothers, friends and enemies’, in A. Reid and Y. Zheng (eds.) Negotiating Asymmetry: China’s Place in Asia (Honolulu: Hawaii University Press), p.3.
M. Mancall (1984) China at the Center: 300 Years of Foreign Policy (New York: The Free Press), p.15. See also the contribution by Bart Dessein in this volume.
See M. Shu (2012) ‘Balancing in a hierarchical system: Pre-colonial Southeast Asia and the tribute system’, Waseda Global Forum, 8/1, pp.227–56;
M. Shu (2011) ‘Pre-Colonial Southeast Asia and the tribute system II: Hegemon and instability’ (unpublished working paper, School of International Liberal Studies, Waseda University).
D. Lombard (1990) Le Carrefour Javanais II. Essai d’histoire globale: Les réseaux asiatiques (Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales), p.7.
D. Kang (2010) East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute (New York: Columbia University Press).
See G. Wade (2004) The Zheng He Voyages: A Reassessment. Working Papers Series 31 (Singapore: Asia Research Institute);
L. Levathes (1994) When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405–1433 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
A. Reid (1993) Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce. 1450–1680. Volume Two: Expansion and Crisis (New Haven: Yale University Press), p.203.
A. Reid (1993) Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, p.204. The emergence of the state and its characteristics in classical Southeast Asia is a topic that garnered a considerable corpus of literature falling beyond the scope of this chapter. Of interest to the present study is Oliver W. Wolters’s idea (1982) History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies) of a ‘mandala state’ that would be defined on the basis of the power of attraction of its center, not its borders.
See M. L. Smith (1999) ‘“Indianization” from the Indian point of view: Trade and cultural contacts with Southeast Asia in the early first millennium C.E.’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 42/1, 1–26.
G. Coedès (1948) Les états hindouisés d’Indochine et d’Indonésie (Paris: Boccard).
A. Acharya (2013) Civilizations in Embrace. The Spread of Ideas and the Transformation of Power. India and Southeast Asia in the Classical Age (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies).
M. Stuart-Fox (2003) A Short History of China and Southeast Asia: Tribute, Trade and Influence (Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin), p.72.
Ch. Kuik (2008) ‘The essence of hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s response to a rising China’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 30/2, 159–85.
T. J. Pempel (2010) ‘Soft balancing, hedging, and institutional Darwinism: The economic-security nexus and East Asian regionalism’, Journal of East Asian Studies, 10/2, 209–38.
Ch. A. Fisher (1962) ‘Southeast Asia: The Balkans of the Orient? A study in continuity and change’, Geography, 47/4, 347–67.
Sh. Narine (1998) ‘ASEAN and the management of regional security’, Pacific Affairs, 71/2, 195–214.
L. Jones (2009) ‘ASEAN and the norm of non-interference in Southeast Asia: A quest for social order’ (Nuffield College Politics Group Working Paper, Oxford: Nuffield College).
A. Acharya (2001) Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia. ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order (London: Routledge), p.47.
See e.g. H. Katsumata (2009) ASEAN’s Cooperative Security Enterprise. Norms and Interests in the ASEAN Regional Forum (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).
See e.g. M. J. Green and G. Bates (2009) ‘Unbundling Asia’s New multilateralism’, in M. J. Green and G. Bates Gill (eds.) Cooperation, Competition, and the Search for Community. Asia’s New Multilateralism (New York: Columbia University Press), p.13; He, ‘Institutional Balancing and International Relations Theory’.
A. Acharya (2009) ‘The strong in the world of the weak. Southeast Asia in Asia’s regional architecture’, in Green and Bates Gill (eds.) Asia’s New Multilateralism: Cooperation, Competition, and the Search for Community (New York: Columbia University Press), p.184.
J. D. Ciorciari (2010) The Limits of Alignment. Southeast Asia and the Great Powers since 1975 (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press).
R. Emmers (2003) Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and the ARF (London: Routledge).
M. Haas (1989) The Asian Way to Peace: A Story of Regional Cooperation (New York: Praeger), p.282.
See Saw, Sheng and Wah, ASEAN-China Relations. Realities and Prospects (Singapore: ISEAS); J. Zhang (2012) ‘ASEAN Plus Three (APT) as a socializing environment: China’s approach to the institutionalization of APT’, Asian Regional Integration Review, 4 (Tokyo: Global Institute for Asian Regional Integration), pp.46–65.
N. M. Morada (2007) ‘Institutionalization of regional order: Between norms and balance of power’, in T. Jun (ed.) Regional Order in East Asia: ASEAN and Japan Perspectives (Tokyo: National Institute for Defense Studies), pp.31–53.
A. Acharya (2005) ‘Do norms and identity matter? Community and power in Southeast Asia’s regional order’, The Pacific Review, 18/1, 95–118.
Quoted in A. Camarena Perez (2009) Prospects for the Formation of a Pluralistic Security Community between China and ASEAN (PhD dissertation, University of Leeds — School of Modern Languages and Cultures: Department of East Asian Studies), p.152.
A. Acharya (2004) ‘How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism’, International Organization, 58/2, 239–75.
D. M. Jones and M. L. R. Smith (2007) ‘Making process, not progress: ASEAN and the evolving East Asian regional order’, International Security, 32/1,150.
On the broader implications of the tsunami on Indonesia’s foreign policy and domestic issues, see R. Sukma (2006) ‘Indonesia and the tsunami: Responses and foreign policy implications’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 60/2, 213–28.
R. Sukma (2010) ‘Indonesia’s security outlook, defence policy and regional cooperation’, in Asia Pacific Countries’ Security Outlook and Its Implications for the Defense Sector (Tokyo: NIDS Joint Research Series 5), pp.3–24.
See H. Crouch (2007) The Army and Politics in Indonesia, 3rd ed. (Singapore: Equinox Publishing).
International Institute for Strategic Studies (2013) The Military Balance 2013 (London: Routledge), p.265.
S. Wezeman (2012) ‘The maritime dimension of arms transfers to South East Asia, 2007–11’, in SIPRI Yearbook 2012 (: Zhongguo jianshe zazhi chuban), p.281.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2014 Bruno Hellendorff
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hellendorff, B. (2014). Hiding behind the Tribute: Status, Symbol, and Power in Sino-Southeast Asian Relations, Past and Present. In: Dessein, B. (eds) Interpreting China as a Regional and Global Power. Politics and Development of Contemporary China Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137450302_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137450302_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-49697-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-45030-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Intern. Relations & Development CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)