• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

MASTER’S THESIS M-750 TEPPER, EUiot Landis. THE MALAYSIA DISPUTE IN SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE. The American University, M. A ., 1965 Political Science, international law and relations University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE MALAYSIA DISPUTE IN SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE by Elliot L. Tapper Submitted to the Faculty of The School of International Service of The American University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS Signatures^f Committee: Chairman: / • J/0~ Date: Dean of th August 1964 The American University Washington, D. C. FEB 2 1965 WASHINGTON. D.C S||0 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE ................................................... iv CHAPTER SECTION I - STATEMENT OF THEORY .......... 1 I. THEORY AND THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD............... 2 II. THEORY AND THE NON-WEST ......................... 8 III. THEORY AND THE SUBORDINATE STATE SYSTEM OF SOUTHERN ASIA .............................. 16 Dominant System Pattern ......................... 22 Subordinate System Pattern .......... 3Ü Subregional Pattern .......................... 39 SECTION II - THE MALAYSIA DISPUTE .... 42 IV. BACKGROUND ........................................43 V. DOMINANT-SYSTEM PATTERN ........................... 50 1 3 VI. THE SUBORDINATE SYSTEM PATTERN......... 59 Anti-Chinese Reaction ........................... 59 Anti-Colonialist Reaction .... 65 VII. THE SUBREGIONAL P A T T E R N ........................... 78 The Philippines Claim .......... 79 M a p h i l i n d o ........................................ 88 The Azahari R e v o l t ............ 97 Indonesia............ 108 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. -- • 1 1 1 CHAPTER PAGE SECTION III - CONCLUSION.................. 128 VIII. C O N C L U S I O N ....................................... 129 BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................137 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PREFACE The study of international relations has become a discipline since World War II and spawned two lusty off­ spring. The catastrophe of global conflict wrought severe changes on the established order. Old beliefs were brought into question. Terrifying new weapons were invented; a new balance of power emerged. Scholars properly sought to com­ prehend the world about them and made a profession ôf that pursuit. Jolted by politics and technology, two distinct paths of inquiry developed. Some sought comprehension by burrowing ever deeper into foreign cultures. The field of geographical area studies gained new status and new excellence. Emphasis on language increased; programs expanded to cover greater portions of the world. No area was assumed too remote or too uninteresting to specialists. Interest was spurred by world-wide competition between the rival power blocs, and by the end of colonialism. It was assumed that by delving into the minutiae of a culture, day-to-day activities could be understood, which would lead to the explanation of specific policies. Others took the completely opposite tack of moving ever closer to pure abstraction. International relations theory underwent spectacular growth in the post-war period. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V Traditional ways of looking at the political events had proven inadequate and perhaps dangerous. It was felt that a new perspective might prove valuable. One of the more fruitful approaches shifted emphasis from the study of a single nation's policy to the total process of international relations. Nations' actions vis-à-vis one another were seen as a segment of an interlocking, overall system that was more than just the sum of its parts. Attention was focused on process, action, and interaction; the woods became visible when attention was shifted from the trees. Careful study from this point of view was intended to lead to greater understanding now and to eventual predictability. There is seldom found a study combining both micro and macro factors of a situation. The children have gone separate paths and rarely speak to each other. The area specialist has been too busy mastering voluminous detail to be concerned about conceptual methodology. The theorist has been absorbed in an abstract "billiard-ball" outlook or with the actions of the most important external forces. Nations were assumed to be identical quantities acting predictably the same; or reality was taken into account by positing bloc relations as the motivating dynamic of the international relations system. Western egocentrism on the part of theorists has produced constructions of little interest or Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. VI applicability to the non-West* Conversely, lack of interest in theory has produced few theoretical works by area spe­ cialists. Michael Brecher has recently attempted to bridge the gap somewhat. A specialist on Asia, particularly South Asia, he has taken the concepts and vocabulary of the theo­ rist and applied them to Asian international relations. As he puts it, Asian studies have long since ventured beyond the traditional limits of Orientalia to embrace history and the social sciences; they have not as yet, however, applied the insights of international relations to an area framework. Similarly, international relations specialists have all but ignored the relevance of their discipline to Asia.l This study is an attempt to further the line of in­ quiry begun by Brecher. Both branches of the discipline stand to gain by merger. Southern Asia is simply too impor­ tant to continue overlooking conceptually. International phenomena there have both inherent and wide-ranging signifi­ cance and, apparently, are undergoing a process of change. At the same time, theory needs to be concerned with non- Western political activity and in a direct manner. It should be possible to develop a theoretical construction that can be used as a framework for analysis of a situation Michael Brecher, "International Relations and Asian Studies; The Subordinate State System of Southern Asia," World Politics, Vol. XV, No. 2 (January, 1963), p. 213. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vil and integrate the knowledge gained. Theory needs further growth; Southern Asia needs study conceptually. The task is a large one, in keeping with specific encouragement from academic advisers, and there is a per­ ceived gap in the literature to date. To fulfill the task, this author has chosen the Malaysia dispute for detailed study, after a statement of theory to give it proper per­ spective, If the experiment is successful, it should bear out the contention that something meaningful can be said about international relations in Southern Asia by employing a conceptual analysis of a particular situation. It is hoped that, at best, a framework for the study on inter­ national relations in Southern Asia can be evolved from these beginnings and, at the least, an understanding of the Malaysia dispute will be provided. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SECTION I STATEMENT OF THEORY Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I THEORY AND THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD Theory made great strides after World War II. As the pre-war order collapsed and bipolarity emerged, intellectual formulation was given to the new political configuration. Pioneer work was done by Hans J. Morgenthau. Many who fol­ lowed since have partially rejected or refined his model, but most are clearly in his debt. Some approaches have been in the realm of pure theory or experimentation.^ Most are in some way related to problems and phenomena of the daily 2 world. To take into account the post-war world, interna­ tional relations theory developed its own lexicon. Rather than speaking in a traditional way about the world scene, new terminology was employed. Some have passed easily into general literature; such as, bipolarity, actor-nation, political elites, supranational units, and the word "system" Morton A. Kaplan, System and Process in Interna­ tional Politics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1957); and Richard C. Snyder, "Game Theory and the Analysis of Political Behavior," International Politics and Foreign Policy, ed, James N. Rosenau (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961), p. 381. 2 John H. Herz, International Politics in the Atomic Age (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1$58). 4 ReprocJucecJ with permission of the copyright owner. Further reprocJuction prohibitecJ without permission. itself. Others have remained for specialists— step-level 3 4 functions, General Systems Theory, and group responsi- 5 • bility principle. Familiar terms often take on much more precise meaning when used by a theorist,^ The more esoteric models would present a strange picture, indeed, to the un­ initiated. The model of most value is not the most complicated or unintelligible, however; it is the fairly simple view of the world provided by Morgenthau and developed by those building from his base. Its real value lies in the perspective

Load more

  153

Copy Link