International Society and the Contest Over ‘East Asia’

1. International Society and the Contest Over ‘East Asia’ Barry Buzan & Yongjin Zhang (eds.) Cambridge University Press 2014

2. Overview • General questions and assumptions underlying the study • Other cases of regional international society: EU, Middle East • The East Asian case • Background • Membership • Differentiation from the West • Institutions and practices • Conclusions • For the English School, East Asianists, and Comparative Regionalists

3. General Questions • Do distinctive international societies exist at the regional level? • If so, what differentiates them from Western-global international society? and • How do they relate to the global level international society defined by the Western core?

4. Assumptions • International society is not homogenous at the global level • There is a Western core that generated the global level international society and is still hegemonic is setting its norms • Peripheries relate to this core partly by assimilation to it, partly by resistance and this can be tracked by looking at primary institutions • It is a reasonable hypothesis that the periphery can be defined in regional terms

5. Cases Already Studied: EU Part of the Western core Possesses its own distinctive regional international society centred on the EU • Much more heavily institutionalized than the core • Much stronger norms and rules on human rights • Much higher acceptance of divided sovereignty An experiment in postmodern, post-Westphalian international relations

6. Cases Already Studied:The Middle East Buzan and Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009 • Contains many post-colonial weak states and is a strong site of resistance to Western values at the same time as many elites remain dependent on outside support • Softer interpretation of sovereignty and nonintervention than in West • Dynasticism retains more legitimacy than elsewhere • Pan Arabism and Pan Islam provide a strong transnational domain and shared identity • Conflict with Israel as an institution?

7. The East Asian Case:Overview The idea of an East Asian regional international society is politically active in a major way, but This idea is manifested mainly in contestation over what such a regional international society should look like. There is no consensus on: • membership • legitimate behaviour/rightful conduct • whether, in what ways, and by how much, East Asia should differentiate itself from Western-global international society

8. The East Asian Case:Background History • Five historical periods: • 1. Pre-Qin China (up to 221 BC) • Some study of warring states as int. soc. • 2. Sino-centric East Asian order (221BC-1815) • Increasing study of the ‘tribute system’ • 3. The encounter period (1815-1945) • Much study of the encounter, little of the Japan centred Asian international society • 4. Cold War suppression (1945-1970s) • 5. Re-emergence (1970s-) • Re-establishing diplomatic relations

9. The East Asian Case:Background Factors No dominant type of state • Advanced industrial to developing; democratic to authoritarian; strong to weak. Multiple cultures and religions • Confucian, Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, Shinto A shared regional security complex • NEA and SEA merged during 1990s • Emerging Asian Sino-centric supercomplex

10. The East Asian Case:Membership I Narrow conception: • Favoured by China • More differentiated from the West, more authoritarian • ASEAN + 3 Wide conception: • Favoured by Japan • Closer to the West, more democratic • Bringing in India, Australia, New Zealand: EAS

11. The East Asian Case:Membership II No exclusive, comprehensive East Asian IGO Secondary Institutions mirror membership struggles of inclusion and exclusion: • North: SCO and SPT • East: APEC and TP • Southwest: SARC • South (and global): ASEAN and ARF

12. The East Asian Case:Membership III Outside states brought into East Asia : • Russia: in ARF, APEC, EAS, SCO, SPT • US: in ARF, APEC, EAS, SPT, TPP • India: in ARF, ASEM, EAS, observer in SCO • Pakistan: in ARF, ASEM, observer in SCO • Australia and New Zealand: in ARF, APEC, EAS, TPP • EU: in ARF. China, Japan, South Korea, Burma and Australia are observers in SARC, and Burma wants to become a full member.

13. The East Asian Case:Differentiation from West High integration • Japan, South Korea, Taiwan Mixed • Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia High alienation • North Korea, China, Burma? Vietnam? Cambodia? Laos?

14. The East Asian Case:Distinctive Primary Institutions Two distinctive primary institutions: • The Developmental State: East Asian states intertwine politics and economics in a close way, placing a high priority on rapid economic development as the key to political stability and regime security both domestically and regionally • Regional Production Structures: ‘Asian markets do not consist of myriads of private individual transactions. Markets express instead institutional and political relationships that in their operations implicate deeply both business and government.’ (Katzenstein,1996: 135)

15. The East Asian Case:Distinctive Institutional Practices I Great power management • ASEAN: an inversion of the usual rule that local great powers lead the regional order. • Local hegemony is firmly resisted (common to many regions: Middle East, Europe, South Asia, Latin America). • Strongly linked to that, a widespread acceptance of US hegemony in the region. • Mediated by secondary regional institutions: ARF, EAS

16. The East Asian Case:Distinctive Institutional Practices II High Restraint on War • Differentiates the region from South Asia and the Middle East, but not from Latin America, and more in line with the Western-global level. • A puzzle given East Asia’s relatively weak security institutions. • Strong and widespread commitment to joint development • the influence of the US presence.

17. The East Asian Case:Distinctive Institutional Practices III Unusually intense diplomatic culture • Link to the institutional leadership of the smaller powers in the region. • ‘the ASEAN way’, combining frequent ‘dialoguing’ and an aversion to confrontation. • Possible relation to East Asian culture where attention to ‘face’ is both distinctive and important

18. The East Asian Case:Distinctive Institutional Practices IV Strong sovereignty and nonintervention? • Strong sovereignty is a noted feature of China, ASEAN, and also of Japan and the two Koreas. • But strong sovereignty is not distinctively East Asian • a necessary feature of the developmental state? • Strong sovereignty claims are common in other regions (Middle East, FSU, Latin America, South Asia): even Europe (e.g. France, Norway, Britain), and the US is sovereigntist to a fault.

19. The East Asian Case:Contested Primary Institutions Mixed differentiation from the West = Mixed attitudes to contested institutions Overall, East Asian states are most comfortable with Westphalian institutions plus nationalism and the market They are highly divided about the more liberal solidarist institutions: • Human rights and Democracy • Environmental stewardship?

20. The East Asian Case:Outlook A highly diverse region in many ways • Regional homogenization is unlikely • More so the bigger the region is deemed to be Any regional international society is therefore likely to be thin • Divisions about how to relate to the West are likely to remain • No consensus on either rightful membership or rightful conduct

21. Conclusions for the English School There are limits to unpacking ‘global level international society’ into regions But the ‘global level’ is not homogenous and does embody significant variation of institutions and practices Tension between the regional and Western-global levels of international society is substantial and widespread, and co-constitutes both levels.

22. Conclusions for East Asian Specialists The utility of the international society approach for understanding the formative history of East Asia • E.g. the encounter as key to Sino-Japanese relations The limits of Western dominance • How East Asia adapted Western institutions to its own needs and cultures • The developmental state The importance of great power management to understanding contemporary East Asian IR The utility of bringing IR theory to Area Studies

23. Conclusions for Comparative Regionalists The societal approach as a distinctive way to define and compare regions Although the co-constitution of regional and global international societies is a universal feature, particularities vary a lot. • Local agency always mediates external inputs A deep historical perspective is essential for understanding present regional dynamics Primary institutions provide a useful toolkit for comparing regions with each other and with the Western-global international society