Introduction: East Asia's Contested Security Order

East Asia's security environment is changing rapidly. Over the past five years or so, the security order has become increasingly unsettled as it is buffeted by a complex array of forces. The region is entering a period of growing rivalry and animosity states are uncertain over the strategic intentions of great and rising powers, nationalism is an increasingly pervasive force, and military spending has been ramping up in many countries over the past decade. That the security environment is changing is unarguable. But what is the extent of these changes? And what are the implications of these shifts for regional states? This paper introduces the special issue “East Asia's Contested Security Order”. It begins by discussing the broad contours of the changing East Asian security order and what is at stake for regional powers. It then introduces the seven articles in this edition that challenge existing conceptualisations of the East Asian security order, articulate diverse perspectives on that order held by regional, middle and smaller powers, examine their complex and different security strategies that contribute to shaping the regional order, and consider the extent to which the regional security order may be said to be “contested”.     

Arms transfer and the Asia‐Pacific region

Asia's share in total global arms imports has been increasing annually. Since 1988, it has exceeded that of the Middle East, making this region the second largest arms market after Europe. Professor Takahiro Shinyo of the Osaka School of International Public Policy notes that new threat perceptions, sources of regional instability, and modernization drives by ASEAN militaries have created an Asia‐Pacific imperative for greater transparency, self‐restraint, and cooperation in the security field. He warns that dialogue alone will not suffice and proposes concrete measures to stem the arms flow, including full ARF participation in the UN Conventional Arms Register.     

India's “Look East” Policy

A combination of economic, strategic, and domestic considerations has led India to pay greater attention to its eastern neighbours since the 1990s. India's steadily growing ties with East and Southeast Asian countries have become an increasingly important element of India's foreign policy. India is working with these countries bilaterally as well as through regional frameworks like the EAS, ASEM, and ASEAN, and sub-regional organizations like BIMSTEC and Mekong-Ganga Cooperation. The main driver remains economic, and India has many ongoing and planned FTAs with the countries of this region. Of late, defence and security ties too have grown. However, India's relations with China remain tense and troubled, with persisting differences over the border, Tibet, and China's patronage of India's South Asian neighbours, particularly Pakistan. Asia's major players will have to overcome internal rivalries and consciously evolve a cooperative paradigm for Asian security and cooperation to enable Asia to play a leading global role.     

Oil and intra-state conflict in Iraq and Syria: sub-state actors and challenges for Turkey's energy security

The continuing dependency on fossil fuels of the Middle East not only in Turkey's energy mix but also in world energy demand requires further analysis of oil and conflict in the region since the fall of Mosul in Iraq to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria in June 2014. This article addresses the relationship between oil and conflict. Then, it examines the case of Turkey's increasing energy relations with the Kurdistan Regional Government to elucidate the implications of inter-state and intra-state conflict on regional interdependence in the region. The argument asserts that risks of an abrupt regime change or revolutionary regime formation in the aftermath of civil war in Syria and ethnic or sectarian violence in Iraq, which are highly associated with intra-state conflicts, present challenges for Turkey's energy security and most importantly for human security in the region.     

U.S. hegemony and Southeast Asia

The United States has exerted a major influence on Southeast Asia, especially since World War II. As both a promoter of neoliberal reform and as the key strategic actor in the wider East Asian region, the impact of U.S. power has been immense. But both the Asian economic crisis and its aftermath, and the more recent “war on terror,” have highlighted the contradictory impact of evolving U.S. foreign policy and intervention in the region. At both an elite and a mass level there is evidence of resentment about, and hostility toward, U.S. policy and its perceived negative effects. This article outlines how U.S. foreign policy has impacted the region in the economic, political, and security spheres, and argues that not only has it frequently not achieved its goals, but it may in fact be undermining both America's long-term hegemonic position in the region and any prospects for political liberalization.     

安全预期、经济收益与东亚安全秩序

冷战后,东亚地区不仅没有进入一个充满紧张和冲突的时期,反而维持了相对长时间的和平状态。有关东亚安全秩序的既有解释主要强调的是体系结构或过程,但不足以解释东亚安全秩序内部的动力和机制,以及这种秩序蕴含的内在不稳定性的主要原因。本文提出了一种功能论的解释,认为美国和中国分别为东亚地区提供了安全预期和经济收益两项最为重要的公共产品,是维系当前东亚安全秩序的基础。然而,在中国崛起和美国重返东亚带来的冲击下,这两种地区性公共产品的供给脱节和供给矛盾使既有东亚安全秩序面临内在的不稳定性。为了应对这种不确定性,达到稳定周边环境和缓解崛起疑虑的效果,中国在为本地区提供稳定的经济收益的同时也需要在政治和军事方面采取积极的安全保障措施,营造东亚安全秩序的新基础。     

21世纪的中国与俄罗斯:地区挑战与机遇—“瓦尔代”国际辩论俱乐部俄中分组讨论提纲

关于亚太地区当前格局问题,中俄双方学者均认为美国与欧洲先后陷入危机,未来5至8年将呈现收缩态势,在全球尤其是亚太地区的影响力全面衰落。俄方学者认为,在欧美因为经济危机陷入衰退的同时,以中国为代表的亚洲经济体却保持了蒸蒸日上的增长势头,国际经济中心已经向亚太地区转移,国际政治中心也将会向亚太地区转移。中方学者则认为,美国处于相对衰落的过程,而中国、俄罗斯、印度等新兴大国同时崛起,参与全球治理进程,国际权力出现扁平化,竞争的中心向亚太地区加速转移。在亚洲高速发展的现实情况下,美国主导的军事同盟体系已不适应亚洲经济一体化的进程。俄方认为,2011年,美国重返亚洲,利用中国与周边国家的领土争端,加强在本地区的军事同盟体系,大有围堵中国之势。俄罗斯融入亚太需要和平的地区形势,建议在中、俄、美之间建立三边安全机制,为本地区中小国家提供安全保障。中方认为,在新的地区形势下,应当建立与之相适应的地区政治、经济、安全秩序,欢迎并愿意协助俄罗斯在亚洲发挥积极的、建设性的作用。但是新的地区秩序应当是开放性的、包容性的,与亚洲国家多样性相适应的。在积极推动地区经济发展的基础上,逐步推进政治、安全议程。俄方学者认为,欧洲深陷金融危机,短期内不能解决,俄罗斯经济发展重心将向亚太地区转移,着力开发远东和西伯利亚地区,欢迎美国、欧洲、中国等世界各国和地区参与。中方认为,远东西伯利亚地区蕴藏着丰富的资源,并且与中国经济互补性较高,在两国政府的主导下,已经进行了一些合作。随着俄罗斯"东进"战略的逐步明确,双方可以在项目开发、投资等方面进行研究,发挥双方比较优势,深入合作。在中亚地区,美国撤出后的阿富汗将成为本地区新的安全威胁,加上原有的三股势力,中亚地区的安全形势令人担忧。俄方认为,应当发挥上海合作组织安全合作的优势,密切关注阿富汗形势,加强与印度等周边国家的合作。中方学者认为,应当发挥上合组织在安全方面的积极作用,但是解决中亚问题的根本,还在于通过经济合作使中亚国家走出贫困,从而实现长治久安。因此,应当积极推动上合组织框架下的经济合作进程,与欧亚联盟等本地区其他组织加强沟通与合作。     

Development of the Mekong Region as Part of Japan's Diplomatic Strategy for East Asia

Japan's active engagement in the development of the Mekong region since the 1990s needs to be understood not only from an economic but also from a diplomatic perspective. Japan seeks to collaborate with ASEAN in facilitating multilateral “political dialogue” in the Asia-Pacific region and building an East Asian order based on “universal values” such as democracy and the rule of law, and the Mekong region could be the “weakest link” of ASEAN. After outlining Japan's twenty-year undertaking to cultivate Mekong-Japan cooperation, the author suggests that it is time to broaden the scope of the cooperation and accelerate Japan's “proactive contribution to peace” policy to cope with the changing security environment.     

Yasuhiro Nakasone Proposal on Maritime Security in East Asia

Maritime security in East Asia is essential to the peace and prosperity of the world. Today, serious problems in this domain have arisen in the region. Resolving these problems is a pressing issue that impacts not just the region, but also the preservation of the peace and prosperity of the entire globe. Despite this urgent need, cooperative frameworks for preventing problems from arising in the first place—as opposed to mere security regimes for deterring conflicts—have yet to be organized. To preserve a maritime security order in East Asia that is based on laws and rules, mechanisms based on mutual trust must be arranged for deterring and preventing conflict.

Based on the foregoing, the Institute for International Policy Studies (IIPS) has been engaged in research on problems of maritime security in East Asia. In December 2015, IIPS held the High-Level Conference on Maritime Security in East Asia and unveiled the “Yasuhiro Nakasone Proposal on Maritime Security in East Asia” (the “Nakasone Proposal”). This paper will discuss the “Nakasone Proposal” and the background to its formulation, as well as the institute's future endeavors.     

On new rules for destroying old countries

The attacks on 11 September 2001 were not a major security threat to the United States, but they did create the political conditions for the implementation of an aggressive agenda by the Bush administration to assert U.S. dominance over the global control of oil and to establish an arc of military bases to contain China. Responding to Gowan, this article suggests that bid is unlikely to succeed because the concentration of military strength in the United States is paralleled by a concentration of financial strength in East and Southeast Asia. Though its Asian allies have been more supportive of the U.S. invasion of Iraq than their European counterparts, growing economic integration along Asia's Pacific coasts is likely to lead to a reduction in capital inflows to the United States and thereby aggravate the consequences of its high current accounts deficits and its low rates of domestic savings. The Bush administration's conservative social policies and anti-foreigner zeitgeist is also sapping the competitive edge of the U.S. economy in new technologies.     

Neomercantilism and Energy Interdependence: Russian Strategies in East Asia

Abstract

This article examines the potential for Russia's Siberian and Far East energy projects to create webs of interdependence with the major energy-importing countries of East Asia. Energy policy toward Asia is analyzed with reference to Europe's problematic energy dependence on Russia, where Moscow has supported attempts by state-owned companies like Gazprom to extend control over energy supply and distribution. This analysis finds that Moscow's neomercantilist energy strategy, designed to advance Russian state power, has been marginally more successful with the weaker, more energy-dependent states of Japan and South Korea. China, Asia's major rising power, is more sensitive to the prospect of becoming too dependent on Russia as a supplier of oil and gas, because dependence could constrain Beijing's global ambitions.     

Beyond Countering Iran: A Political Economy of Azerbaijan-Israel Relations

In recent years, Azerbaijan–Israel relations have come to the foreground of politics in the Middle East and Caucasus region. Ties between Baku and Tel Aviv have been directly interlinked with their relations with Iran. The nature of the Azerbaijan–Israel partnership must be analysed in order to comprehend the balance of powers and energy security in the region. Even though there have been a number of works analysing the relationship by focusing on its role in regional military security, there is a gap in the discourse in terms of understanding the economic drivers of relations and the implications of the ties for regional energy security. Particular attention will be given to discussing Azerbaijan’s emerging role as a major energy producer that has already made a profound impact on the region as an ‘alternative’ to Iran in the aftermath of the recently imposed sanctions on Tehran's energy exports. It will be argued that the Azerbaijan–Israel relationship is built on solid economic grounds and it would be reasonable to expect the strength of the ties to be further intensified in the future. The article will also demonstrate that new developments in the energy security of the wider Middle Eastern region will affect the evolution of Azerbaijan–Israel ties and their rivalry with Iran in the next decade.     

危机幕后的东亚地区秩序分析

本文认为,东亚当前出现"大战不犯,小乱不断"状况的根源在于新旧嬗变中的地区秩序远未就域内各国的政治安排形成制度化设计,在于东亚地区秩序的"有气无力"。历史上,东亚地区秩序曾经历了天朝礼治秩序、条约秩序和冷战下"自主"秩序三种形态。依据历史脉络的梳理,本文认为有美国、中国、日本等七个要素影响着东亚地区秩序。为明确这些要素的特征及相互作用,本文提出了反映国家和国家关系总体形态的"锥体"模型。美国是影响东亚地区秩序的决定性变量,利用"锥体"模型,本文认为,美国现实主义的热情与贪婪,地缘战略的坚持与冷静,相互依赖的推动与困惑等特征共同勾画着东亚战略。中国的复兴是影响东亚地区秩序的突出变量,其显著特征在于整体性的成长。日本"正常化"是影响东亚地区秩序的另一主要变量,其特征在于日本自身的"二重性"。朝鲜半岛、台湾、东南亚由于其关键性和不稳定性而成为东亚地区秩序的缝合口。此外,俄罗斯要素也不可或缺。在美国要素与中国、日本等要素的复杂互动中,中美关系是东亚地区秩序的主轴,作为其中一方的中国,如何把握自身不断增长的力量至关重要。     

China and Northeast Asia’s Regional Security Architecture: The Six-Party Talks as a Case of Chinese Regime-Building?

China, as host of the six-party talks first convened in August 2003, has been one of the major players in dealing with the North Korean nuclear crisis that began in October 2002. China??s role in the talks has helped to start shaping a stable regional security architecture in Northeast Asia. Beijing??s leadership in building a new security regime in the region suggests a change on Chinese perspectives regarding its role within the broader East Asia??s regional security architecture. After years of passiveness with regards to involvement in security regime building in the region, China has evolved into an active leader seeking to shape a more institutionalized security. Despite the obstacles to building a functioning regime in Northeast Asia, China seems poised to continue working towards creation of a more stable and institutionalized security architecture.     

Saudi Arabia's rapprochement with Israel: the national security imperatives

The purpose of this article is to examine the evolution of Israel's relations with Saudi Arabia since the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948. The author explains how the major events in the Middle East affected Saudi Arabia's foreign policy orientation. It shows how Saudi Arabia's policy toward Israel was affected by the deterioration in Saudi-Egyptian relations, by its quest for security in the Arabian Gulf region and by its aspiration to hegemony in the Middle East. The author argues that Saudi Arabia's policy toward Israel remained far less hostile than that of the Arab states surrounding Israel. In addition, it argues that it was not until 1973 that Saudi Arabia became seriously involved in the attempt to pressure Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupied in the Six-Day War. The author concludes by showing that neither Saudi Arabia's acquisition of the intelligence-gathering AWACS aircraft, nor Israel's invasion of Lebanon or the massacre of Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila had a serious impact on the bilateral relations, and that it was not until the emergence of the Iranian nuclear threat that Saudi Arabia's relations with Israel began to improve.     

Russia's “turn to the east”: a study in policy making

Russia's recent reorientation “to the East” has gained increased urgency given events in Ukraine. Here the policymaking process surrounding the “turn to the East” is examined. The focus is on the economic dimension – the economic development of the Russian Far East and engagement with the Asia-Pacific region – rather than geostrategic and security issues. Policymaking is evaluated in terms of general approach and process, with the implications of the evaluation for Russian policymaking more generally then being explored. “Turn to the East” policymaking exhibits a strong commitment to strategic planning that is characteristic of Putin, and which in this case struggles not only with process issues but also with contradictions within the strategy and the challenging realities of the region. Regarding process, a far more institutionalized policy process than the currently dominant personalist view would lead us to expect is found, with relevant bureaucratic and non-state actors well represented in an elaborate and relatively formal process. However a considerable weakening of sign-off procedures is noted, which has lead to policy inconsistency and indeed “policy irresponsibility” among participants. The author attributes the weakening of sign-off procedures to Putin's frustration with the gridlock tendencies of strict sign-off regimes, rather than a desire to create a personalist regime of hands-on management. This suggests that improvement of the Russian policy process requires structural and procedural change, rather than simply leadership change.     

A Post-American Middle East? US Realities Vs. Chinese and Russian Alternatives

For the past 15 years, there have been increasing calls for the United States to reduce its overseas force structure and to bring troops home. Such discussion accelerated during the Trump administration, and perceptions of American retrenchment were heightened by President Joe Biden's decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. This article asks the key question: Is Washington really engaging in a systematic pullout from the Middle East? Based on publicly available evidence, I argue that, contrary to common perceptions, the American military is actually increasing its forward presence in the Arabian Peninsula and Gulf region. In addition, I contend that the two other states that have the potential to replace the United States in the Middle East, Russia and China, are for multiple reasons incapable of doing so. In addition to puncturing the myths, the article contributes to the ongoing policy debates and theoretical literatures regarding Middle East security and great-power competition.     

东亚经济地区主义的终结?——制度过剩与经济整合的困境

冷战结束以来,东亚的经济地区主义虽然取得了一些进展,但至今仍然没有发展出一个成熟稳定的区域制度框架来推动区域经济进行深度整合。该地区多重制度框架相互竞争,造成了一种"制度过剩"的特殊格局。这导致东亚地区在经济整合的过程中,缺乏有力的制度推动和有效的区域治理,具体表现为该地区至今仍难以建立有助于提高经济绩效的经济要素完全自由流动的统一经济区;难以采取集体行动,共同应对来自外部的各种经济风险和冲击。本文认为,东亚地区多重制度竞争的背后,是由于与该区域相关的主要行为体对塑造东亚经济秩序有着不同的利益偏好和战略诉求,他们各自极力推动对自身有利的区域机制,从而形成"制度过剩"。主要行为体在东亚的主导权竞争以区域制度竞争的形式展开。随着金融危机之后中国经济的加速崛起以及美国决心重返东亚,东亚经济整合中制衡与反制衡的矛盾将日益突出,从而带来更加激烈的制度竞争,这是东亚经济地区主义遭遇挫折而非取得成功的标志,东亚地区将因此继续沦为经济全球化进程中的"碎片"。     

Security in Asia: Roles and tasks for Japan and the US

Beyond any doubt, Japan and the United States share common security interests in Asia and must take active measures to strengthen their alliance, because their alliance is the foundation for Asia's peace and prosperity, argues Motohide Hashimoto. Hashimoto is a senior research fellow at IIPS who was seconded from the Ministry of Finance, where he is a specialist in fiscal and monetary policy. He worked at the Defense Agency's Bureau of Defense Policy from 1990–1992.     

East Timor's Emerging National Security Agenda: Establishing “Real” Independence

Abstract

This article focuses on the steps East Timor has taken to bolster its defense sector following its attainment of independence in 2002. In International Relations, scholars have often argued that the ability to defend territory and population from external threat is an essential component of sovereign statehood. Literature on post-colonial sovereignty, however, suggests that the external sovereignty of “weak” post-colonial states is more likely to be protected through international legal recognition. In recent years, East Timor has sought to develop their defense capacities in line with conventional thinking about security and “real” independence. This influences the foreign relations of East Timor and also has broader implications for understanding security and independence in post-colonial states.