冷战后东盟的大国平衡战略

冷战结束后,东盟作为亚太地区唯一的由中小国家组成的国家集团,一直在寻找一种能够保证东南亚地区安全与稳定的地区战略.在东盟各国看来,单纯依靠东盟自身的力量是无法保障本地区安全的,而大国出于利益的驱动和对权力的追求,一定会在东南亚地区进行扩张和竞争.     

东南亚地区非传统安全合作机制架构与中国的策略思考

在东南亚地区的非传统安全合作中,存在3个层次的合作机制。东盟主导下的非传统安全合作机制,深化缓慢,执行乏力,主要扮演着合作的倡导者和规划者的角色;成员国间的双边或多边小范围合作机制是东盟合作计划的实施者,但合作领域单一,能力有限;区外西方大国主导的双边或多边合作机制,将传统安全与非传统安全合作相结合,发展迅速。这3个层次的非传统安全合作机制既相互支持,又相互竞争。面对东南亚非传统安全合作机制的独特架构,中国需进行策略思考。     

ASEAN and Northeast Asia: stakes and implications for the European Union–ASEAN partnership

During the immediate aftermath of the 1997 ASEAN crisis, instead of promoting a further “deepening” of the integration process, ASEAN has preferred enlarging its membership and has opened up to its Northeast Asian partners, Japan, China and South Korea. The mounting economic trade flows among those actors necessitates calls for the coherent creation of effective regional structures. China in particular, among the three mentioned countries, has come to the fore with its diplomatic strategies concerning the regional architecture. As results of these recent changes, the structure of power and the nature of the regional system are altering and ASEAN is going through a decisive transition. Taking into consideration the speed of the evolving framework with the enlargement of an East Asian Community, ASEAN would need a new political vision for the region, for the redefinition of its internal balance of power and for the elaboration of a clear approach toward external partners. Crucial problems affect the entire area such as deficit of democracy, wide development gaps among the East Asian countries, the widespread need for economic liberalisation and need for new human and regional security policies. The EU would play a fundamental role in addressing these problems and would be well inspired to avoid considering Southeast Asia as just a mere periphery of China.     

A new model of Asian regionalism: does the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation have more potential than ASEAN?

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is an established player in Southeast Asia, while the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is an emergent force in Central Asia. This article comparatively assesses ASEAN and SCO to investigate the nature of each organization's model of cooperation and their utility in the contemporary political landscape in Asia. It argues that SCO differs from ASEAN on a few significant points: its composition and level of institutionalization. At the same time, both organizations have similar agendas and models of cooperation, emphasizing a common spirit, flexibility and a focus on regime security. The paper concludes that ASEAN's model of cooperation continues to be relevant to the contemporary Asian landscape, and its brand of loosely codified, informal and norm driven multilateralism continues to be durable and robust.     

The balance of great-power influence in contemporary Southeast Asia

This article reviews and critiques recent scholarly work onSoutheast Asian relations with the great powers, examining thestrategies that ASEAN governments have used and the effectsof those strategies. The author argues that Southeast Asiangovernments have generally steered away from traditional balanceof power politics to promote a more complex ‘balance ofinfluence’ comprising military, economic, institutional,and ideational dimensions. A key feature of this balance ofinfluence strategy has been its inclusiveness. Southeast Asiangovernments have invited competing great powers to participatein the region's economic and diplomatic affairs so that theydevelop stakes in the region's peace and prosperity. The authorcontends that Southeast Asian efforts have been relatively successfulto date, contributing to a multi-dimensional balance that isrelatively resilient and places significant constraints on anyexternal power's ability to exercise unwanted dominance in theregion. Received for publication August 4, 2008. Accepted for publication September 24, 2008.     

区域制度变迁与中国和东盟的政治合作

自20世纪70年代中期始,东南亚区域体制发生深刻变化,中国与东盟的关系也出现微妙的调整。由于中美关系的改善,部分东盟国家开始考虑同中国建立外交关系,中国因同苏联关系的破裂及与越南的纠纷也迫切寻求改善同周边国家的关系。此外,柬埔寨问题促使双边基于战略考虑而加强了政治合作。但此时双边改善的程度有限。80年代中国与东盟的关系获得了全面的进展,这主要源于中国外交政策和国内政策发生了重要转变,这些调整改善了中国在东盟国家中的形象;同时东盟各国政治、社会的相对稳定增强了东盟与中国交往的信心。冷战结束后,双边经贸关系突飞猛…     

试析冷战后东盟与俄罗斯的关系

冷战结束后，俄罗斯与东盟的关系在政治、经济、安全等各方面都得到了较快的发展，这种发展态势是伴随俄罗斯外交政策的转变和东亚区域合作的兴起，以及国际、国内、双边一系列有利因素推动下形成的。但双边关系仍面临种种困难与挑战。以俄罗斯目前总体实力，在短期内还难以打破中美日在东南亚的力量平衡状态。     

美国高调拉近与东盟关系及其影响

受阿富汗和伊拉克战争等问题的牵制,美国对东南亚地区事务无暇过多顾及。虽然美国通过反恐加强了与一些东盟国家的合作,但在东南亚的影响却在削弱。然而,2009年以来,奥巴马政府采取了一系列外交动作,高调重返东南亚。美国此举对今后中国与东盟国家关系会带来多大影响尚待观察。     

亚太格局视角下俄罗斯的东南亚政策

冷战后随着俄罗斯国家定位的变化,其对外战略相应发生调整,亚太地区成为基本方向之一。进入新世纪,俄罗斯外交的平衡性和多向性不断加强;在其亚太战略中,东盟被看作参与亚太地区多边合作的重要支点。在变动的亚太格局中,东南亚是大国竞逐的重要对象;俄罗斯从自身利益出发,积极发展与东盟及其成员国的关系,以加强对亚太地区事务的参与。而在东盟的大国平衡战略中,俄罗斯被视为制约其他大国的关键性因素。     

霸权的逻辑：美国亚太安全战略的多边转向

二战后,美国在亚太地区构筑起双边联盟体系,但近年来对于加强多边安全合作更为积极。美国近几届政府在亚太安全战略方面作出了重大调整,从奥巴马政府到拜登政府都在推动双边合作转向多边合作,而为何发生这一转变值得探讨。美国在权力优势明显时,倾向于采取双边合作;当美国权力优势缩小时,更加重视多边合作,其安全合作形式是接近于联盟还是相对松散的安全合作,则取决于外部威胁性质和内部分歧大小。美国亚太安全合作形式的调整取决于中美实力差距、外部威胁变化和成员国分歧,多边形式可以更大范围地进行国际动员,最大程度地维护自身的霸权地位。美国在亚太地区的多边安全合作拥有稳固的合作基础、灵活的多边形式和共同的身份认同,有助于美国调动战略资源和联合应对共同关注的威胁。亚太多边安全合作增强了美国的安全动员能力,冲击了亚太地区秩序,给中国带来较大的安全压力。但不同合作机制也面临合作程度不一、成员战略分歧和合作议题分散的影响,合作进程存在着不确定性。     

Chinese Strategic Thinking on Multilateral Regional Security in Northeast Asia

This article argues that multilateral mechanisms for addressing security issues in East Asia are weak and that a key reason is the hollowness of China's ostensible and much-touted commitment to multilateralism. This is especially troubling when the region faces major security challenges and regional relations (and China's approach to them) appear to be moving from “economics in command” to “security in command.” The article concludes with a prediction that “A coordinated approach to combining alliances and quasi-alliances exclusive of China with multilateralism inclusive of it will best test China's intentions during this decade.”     

东盟管理争端规范及其作用

东盟的产生源于减弱地区安全不确定性，缓解各国之间的安全困境与领土争端。东盟发表了一系列文件，并制定了相应的行为规范，建立了管理和解决成员国间冲突的机制。东盟在克服诸多挑战的过程中，在制定冲突管理规范方面取得了一些进展。东盟在建立安全共同体的过程中强调应对和管理冲突的东盟模式，虽然其贡献和作用受到质疑，但在管理东南亚地区冲突方面却得到了普遍认可。     

The Biden Administration's Policy Toward Southeast Asia: Momentum,Motivation and Challenges

After Biden took office,the United States,on the basis of inheriting the main framework of the Trump administration's Southeast Asia policy,has gradually increased its strategic input in Southeast Asia to expand the depth and breadth of cooperation with Southeast Asian countries.First,consolidate its diplomatic influence.     

东南亚安全合作构想

本文着重对东南亚安全合作相关问题进行探讨,并就我国在东南亚安全合作背景下面临的挑战提出相应对策,认为中国作为东亚地区的大国应顺应经济全球化和区域一体化的发展趋势,主动融入和积极推动地区安全合作的发展,为新时期我国国家目标的实现创造良好的国际环境。     

The challenge of institution-building in Asia and its implications for Asia-Europe relations

  East Asia, including Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia, has developed tightly-linked production/distribution networks through globalizing corporate activities. The vertical chain of production in East Asia has been even more sophisticated than economic integration in East Europe or Latin America. However, the political environment of East Asia for trade and investment has been far from borderless. The integration effort at the policy level has been very much limited so far, due to the historical background as well as geopolitics surrounding East Asia. The Asian currency/financial crisis provided these countries a historical turning point. After the burst of the crisis, East Asians realized that they have to take care of themselves in their difficulties, not depending on outside forces. A natural choice for them was to step into the realm of regionalism. In 1998, Japan and Korea officially announced that they would discard the long-lasting GATT/WTO-only approach and adapt the multi-layered approach, including both regionalism and multilateralism. The ultimate goal of regionalism would be a region-wide integration including ASEAN+3. As a steppingstone, Japan signed the Japan-Singapore Economic Partnership Agreement (JSEPA) in January 2002. In a parallel move, the ASEAN and China Leaders announced in November 2001 the establishment of an ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA) within 10 years. This article will follow up the most recent advancement of regional institutional building in East Asia with the emphasis on peculiar characteristics of economic integration in the region and discuss its implications for Asia-Europe relations. This paper is heavily drawn from Kimura (2002, 2003).     

东亚峰会吸收美俄参加及其影响

东盟外长会议决定邀请美国和俄罗斯加入东亚峰会,这是东亚区域合作的重要变化,也使美国加快实现其“重返东南亚”的战略。近年来美国遏制中国的倾向比较突出,斯坦伯格的“战略再保证”与当年杜勒斯的“岛链战略”一脉相承;美国务卿希拉里在东盟地区论坛会议上大谈南海问题,表明美国高调介入南海主权争端,这将使南海问题更加复杂化。当前中国的周边环境较为严峻,须冷静观察,沉着应对。     

Myanmar in EU–ASEAN relations

The aim of this paper is to discuss and examine the regional projects of institutionalism in Europe and Southeast Asia. The main focus is on Myanmar, a regional ‘outcast’ whose membership in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 1997 has helped it to gain international legitimacy and be able to stand relatively strong against Western sanctions. The military regime is riding on the wave of ASEAN norms and a communitarian culture. The question remains as to how long the country can continue to do so. A rather skeptical view is emphasized on the ‘ASEAN Way’ in dealing with the military regime, and for the overall political dialogue with the European Union. Many ambitious objectives such as sovereign equality in institutionalism are widely questioned, and the European Union has gone against many of its treaties in order to keep its relationship with Southeast Asia. The paper puts prominence on the political and security relationship rather than on the economic aspect, which has been far more successful. The role of values and the human rights debate will be highlighted and described as the greatest obstacle for any future political cooperation.

---

The New Economic Bilateralism in Southeast Asia: Region-Convergent or Region-Divergent?

A new pattern of bilateralism is evident in Southeast Asianeconomic diplomacy, and this may be broadly viewed from extra-regionaland intra-regional perspectives. Regarding the former, an increasingnumber of states from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) group have engaged in the Asia-Pacific's new bilateralfree trade agreement project trend, and two ASEAN member states– Singapore and Thailand – have been at its forefront.Regarding the latter dimension, recent developments in intra-ASEANdiplomacy have revealed the emergence of a Singapore–Thailandbilateral axis or alliance on matters of Southeast Asian economicregionalism. These two dimensions of economic bilateralism arestudied in relation to their implications for Southeast Asianor ASEAN-led regionalism. In this context, region-convergentbilateralism can make positive contributions to the developmentof regionalism, whereas region-divergent bilateralism essentiallyundermines regional community-building endeavours. This formsthe conceptual framework for studying the impact of Singaporeand Thailand's active bilateral economic diplomacy upon ASEAN'sown regional economic projects, such as the ASEAN Free TradeArea (AFTA), and also on ASEAN as an organization for fosteringSoutheast Asian economic regionalism generally. It is contendedthat based on both the deeper strategic intentions behind Singapore'sand Thailand's foreign economic policies and wider internationalpolitical economy considerations the region-divergent outcomesare more likely to arise within Southeast Asia from the economicbilateralism they are currently championing.     

Strategic considerations in the US–China relationship and the role of European soft power

This paper analyses strategic considerations within the conceptual, the policy and the systemic dimension of US–Sino relations. Furthermore, the role of the EU’s soft power in the context of US–China relations will be assessed. It will be argued that current US–China relations are mainly a function of the current US foreign policy towards China, which doesn’t take into account that an engagement policy towards China needs to be paralleled by an engagement policy towards the East Asian region. A functional equivalent of the EU’s soft power and its approach of bilateral and multilateral engagement of East Asian actors is a missing element in US–China relations. The thinking on China affairs in the USA can be broadly structured into two different schools of thought. On the one side there are those who favour an engagement policy vis-à-vis China. The engagement school argues that bilateral and multilateral cooperation with China needs to be intensified. Traditionally members of this school are found in the Department of State and the Bureau of the US Trade Representative. On the other side there are those who think of China as a threat that needs to be contained. The politicians and experts that belong to the threat school (e.g. in the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute) emphasize their fears of China’s future role on the regional and global level. Though China has supported the US’s “war on terrorism” after the attacks of 9/11, Beijing’s increasing military budget, its neglect of non-proliferation agreements (e.g. in its relations with Pakistan) and its behaviour within the Six-Party Talks are taken as examples of the China threat. Security policies do not solely determine the relationship between the USA and China. The US China policy is a function of both the US’s economic and security interests. This explains why Washington follows a dual policy of simultaneous engagement and containment, i.e. a policy of hedged engagement. But the current state of affair of the Sino–US relationship does not reflect the rise of China as a de facto hegemon of an East Asian community. It is the inherent danger of the current US China policy that the missing regional component in US–China relations could facilitate the formation of a fortress Asia. Since Beijing holds the key to Asian regionalism, China should be the main target of European soft power in Asia by exporting the principles of regionalism and multilateralism to Asia. To what extent the EU and its model of intraregional cooperation and integration can influence the objective and trajectory of Asian regionalism will demonstrate partly the extent of Europe’s soft power in the international system.

---

Deconstructing the ASEAN security community: a review essay

Once viewed as a bastion of stability and economic growth, theAssociation of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is now besetwith a variety of seemingly intractable problems ranging fromterrorism to internal secessionist conflict and economic stagnation.The central and evolving role of ASEAN in the internationalrelations of Southeast Asia since 1967 raises the question ofhow we should conceptualize the organization. This review articleargues that Amitav Acharya's recent claim that a nascent securitycommunity is emerging in Southeast Asia is flawed for at leastfour reasons. First, a variety of problems surround the independentvariable – norms – that Acharya uses to explainASEAN's emergence as a security community. The author failsto adequately explain why the norms he privileges emerged asASEAN's dominant norms. The lack of a convincing explanationfor the origins of the author's favored ASEAN norms is damagingbecause, prima facie, other kinds of norms – ‘perversenorms’ – appear to give us greater purchase in understandingthe organization. Second, a critical flaw in Acharya's argumentrelates to its tautological nature. Third, from an empiricalperspective, the dependent variable, the nascent ASEAN securitycommunity has arguably never existed. Finally, alternative explanationsfor ASEAN are not fully explored. While Acharya examines neo-liberalinstitutionalism and neo-realism, he overlooks the possibilitythat a form of realist institutionalism may most accuratelyexplain ASEAN's history, and perhaps even predict its future.