Middle Power Theory, Change and Continuity in the Asia-Pacific
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MIDDLE POWER THEORY, CHANGE AND CONTINUITY IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC by ANTON BEZGLASNYY B.A. Simon Fraser University, 2010 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Political Science) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) April 2013 ©Anton Bezglasnyy, 2013 Abstract This paper recalibrates the definition of ‘middle power’ and applies it to a comparative case study of Canadian and Australian foreign policies in the most dynamic region in the world, the Asia-Pacific. It is argued that the middle power concept remains a useful analytical tool in understanding the foreign policy behavior of states with a particular subset of material, institutional and identify characteristics. According to the refocused definition developed here, middle powers are states that possess all three of the following attributes: (i) medium sized material capabilities; (ii) perceive multilateralism and soft power as the optimal ways to maximize their foreign policy interests; and (iii) self identify as middle powers to domestic and international audiences. The particular value of the middle power concept advanced here, is the explanatory power it provides in the case of Canada and Australia in the contemporary Asia- Pacific: two states formerly classified as middle powers, possessing similar material capabilities, yet behaving in fundamentally different ways. This foreign policy divergence is accounted for by differences in ideational factors between the two states. Canada, it is argued, has socially deconstructed its own status as a middle power in the Asia-Pacific region, while Australia has bolstered its middle power identity. ii Table of Contents Table of Contents Abstract.................................................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................iii List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ iv Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................v Dedication ............................................................................................................................................... vi 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Systemic Changes in the Asia-Pacific Region.............................................................................. 4 2.1 Global Rebalancing and the Emergence of a ‘Super-region’ ........................................................... 4 2.2 Relative American Decline....................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 China’s Rise: Relative and Absolute...................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Emergence of Additional Players .........................................................................................................12 3 Middle Power Theory and Practice ..............................................................................................17 3.1 Traditional Understandings of Middle Powers .................................................................................17 3.2 Recalibrating the Middle Power Concept...........................................................................................22 3.2.1 Capability............................................................................................................................................................... 22 3.2.2 Behavior................................................................................................................................................................. 25 3.2.3 Identity.................................................................................................................................................................... 28 4. Testing the Approach: Canada-Australia Case Study ............................................................33 5. Conclusions........................................................................................................................................46 Bibliography..........................................................................................................................................48 iii List of Figures Figure I: GDP at PPP in the Asia-Pacific………………………………………………………....7 Figure II: Proportions of Regional Defence Spending in 1990 and 2011………………….…….10 Figure III: Asia-Pacific Power Ranking Based on GDP at PPP in 2011…………………….…..24 Figure IV: Middle Powers in the Asia-Pacific……………………………………..…………….30 iv Acknowledgements I am grateful to the faculty, staff and fellow students at the University of British Columbia, for creating a true community of scholarship. I owe particular thanks to Dr. Brian L. Job for his analytic rigour, the adroitness of his guidance and the tenacity of his patience. I thank Dr. Arjun Chowdhurry for his forthright advice and his zeal for teaching. Special thanks to my family for their never-ending support. v Dedication To my parents. vi 1. Introduction After 60 years of American preeminence in the Asia-Pacific, Chinese economic growth and military modernization are changing the regional balance of power and altering the San Francisco System in fundamental ways.1 This regional transformation is complemented by, what Joseph Nye refers to as a global power shift from West to East, whereby Asia’s share of influence in international economic, security and institutional affairs, is on the rise.2 It is no surprise then, that much of the recent IR scholarship has centered around the Asia-Pacific and that most of the Asia-Pacific literature itself, has concentrated on the major power dynamics within the region.3 Only a select few have written on the medium-sized states in the region, largely focusing on how states – traditionally classified as ‘middle powers’ – like Canada and Australia, are adapting to the shifting strategic environment in the Asia-Pacific.4 1 Dan Blumenthal, ‘US Response to China’s Military Modernization,’ in Strategic Asia 2012-13: China’s Military Challenge, ed. Ashley J. Tellis and Travis Tanner, (Washington, National Bureau of Asian Research, 2013), 308. 2 Joseph Nye, ‘Twenty First Century Will Not be a ‘Post American’ World,’ International Studies Quarterly 56, 1 (2012): 216. Asia Pacific Foundation, Securing Canada’s Place in Asia, 10-11, Accessed 1 March 2013, http://www.asiapacific.ca/sites/default/files/filefield/securing_canadas_place_in_asia_taskforce_ report.pdf. 3 For example: Barry Buzan and Ole Weaver, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Peter Katzenstein, A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in he American Imperium, (Cornell: Cornell University Press, 2005); David A. Lake, ‘Regional hierarchy: authority and local international order,’ Review of International Studies 35 (2009); John Mearsheimer, ‘The Gathering Storm: China’s Challenge to US Power in Asia,’ The Chinese Journal of International Politics 3 (2010): 381- 396); Barry Buzan, ‘The Inaugural Kenneth N. Waltz Annual Lecture A World Order Without Superpowers: Decentred Globalism,’ International Relations 25, 3 (2011); Barry Buzan, ‘The South Asian Security Complex in a Decentralizing World Order: Reconsidering Regions and Powers Ten Years On,’ International Studies 48, 1 (2011); Randall L. Schweller and Pu Xiaoyu, ‘After Unipolarity: China’s Visions of International Order in an Era of US Decline,’ International Security 36, 1 (2011): 41-72. 4 See Wilkins, ‘Middle Power Diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific Region,’ Accessed 1 March 2013, http://www.nbr.org/research/activity.aspx?id=186; Bruce Gilley, ‘Middle powers during great 1 David Cooper highlights that the more conceptual debate on how the power transition occurring globally and in Asia might impact middle power theory, tends to also be ‘perpetually overlooked’ by the academe.5 Cooper further posits that contemporary middle power theory itself is, ‘mired and without a clear path forward.’ This paper recalibrates the definition of ‘middle power’ and applies it to a comparative case study of Canadian and Australian foreign policies in the most dynamic region in the world, the Asia-Pacific. It is argued that the middle power concept remains a useful analytical tool in understanding the foreign policy behavior of states with a particular subset of material, institutional and identify characteristics. According to the refocused definition developed here, middle powers are states that possess all three of the following attributes: (i) medium sized material capabilities; (ii) perceive multilateralism and soft power as the optimal ways to maximize their foreign policy interests; and (iii) self identify as middle powers to domestic and international audiences, and are recognized as such by the international community. The particular value of the middle power concept advanced here, is the explanatory power it provides in the case of Canada and Australia in the contemporary Asia-Pacific: two states formerly classified as middle powers, possessing