58 Samuel S. Kim 51. Selden, "China, Japan and the Regional Political Economy of East Asia," 313. 52. Robert Legvold, "Sino-Soviet Relations: The American Factor," in China, the United States, and the Soviet Union: Tripolarity and Policy Making in the Cold War, ed. Robert S. Ross (Armonk, NY; M. E. Sharpe, 1993), 87. 53. Kang, "Hierarchy in Asian International Relations," 174. Chapter Three 54. Cohen, East Asia at the Center, 480. 55. Harold James, A German Identity, 1770-1990 (New York: Routledge, 1989). 56. For a cogent analysis challenging the applicability of power-transition balance of Thinking Theoretically about Asian IR power theory in today's Asia, see Steve Chan, Looking for Balance: China, the United States, and Power Balancing in East Asia (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, AMITAV ACHARYA 2012). 57. See David Shambaugh, ed.. Power Shift: China and Asia's New Dynamics (Berke­ ley: University of California Press, 2005); David M. Lampton, The Three Faces of Chi­ nese Power: Might. Money, and Minds (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008); and Samuel S. Kim, "China and Globalization: Confronting Myriad Challenges and Opportunities," Asian Perspective 33, no. 3 (2009): 41-80. 58. Amitav Acharya, "Will Asia's Past Be Its Future?," International Security 28, no. 3 (Winter 2003/2004): 164. See also Amitav Acharya, "How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism," International Any discussion of theoretical perspectives on the international relations (IR) Organization 58 (Spring 2004): 239-75; Samuel S. Kim, "Regionalization and Regional­ in Asia confronts the paradox that much of the available literature on the sub­ ism in East Asia," Journal of East Asian Studies 4, no. 1 (January-April 2004): 39-67; ject had, until quite recently, remained largely atheoretical. Whether from and Kent E. Calder and Francis Fukuyama, eds., East Asian Multilateralism: Prospects within or outside the region, many analysts of Asia were largely unconvinced for Regional Stability (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008). that theory was either necessary or useful for studying Asian international 59. Kim, "Regionalization and Regionalism in East Asia," 43. relations.' Although interest in it is growing in the region, particularly in 60. For the text of the speech, see UN Doc. A/60/PV.5, September 15, 2005, 19-20. 61. Kim, "China and Globalization," 54-56. China,^ where efforts to develop a "Chinese School" of IR are gathering 62. Gilbert Rozman, ed., East Asian National Identities: Common Roots and Chinese steam, theory is still seen as too abstract or too divorced from the day-to-day Exceptionalism (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2012). concerns of governments and peoples to merit serious and sustained pursuit. 63. Jae Ho Chung, "East Asia Responds to the Rise of China: Patterns and Variations," Moreover, theory is criticized by many in Asia as too "Western." Thus, Pacific Affairs 82, no. 4 (Winter 2009/2010): 659. even among those writers on Asian IR who are theoretically oriented, dis­ 64. Robert Jervis, "The Future of World Politics: Will It Resemble the Past?," Interna­ agreement persists as to whether IR theory is relevant to studying Asia given tional Security 16, no. 3 (Winter 1991/92): 39-45. its origin in, and close association with, Western historical traditions, intellec­ tual discourses, and foreign policy practices. International relations theory, like the discipline itself, remains, an "American social science," to quote Stanley Hoffman.' The recent advances made by the "English School" and continental Euro­ pean Constructivism have not made IR theory "universal ; indeed, they have \ further entrenched and broadened the Western theoretical dominance. The question of how relevant IR theory is to the study of Asian security has evoked strikingly different responses. On the one hand, David Kang has seized upon the non-realization of Realist warnings of post-war Asia being "ripe for rivaky" to critique not just Realism, but Western IR theory in general, for "getting Asia wrong."'' In analyzing Asian regionalism, Peter Katzenstein comments, "Theories based on Western, and especially West 59 60 Amitav Acharya Thinking Theoretically about Asian IR 61 European experience, have been of little use in making sense of Asian region­ and important dimension of the debate on, and analysis of, Asian IR. In the alism."^ Although Katzenstein's remarks specifically concern the study of sections that follow, I examine three major perspectives on Asian interna­ Asian regionalism, they can be applied to Asian IR in general. And it is a tional relations: Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism, along with some view widely shared among Asian scholars. On the other side, John Hcenberry reflections on the merits of "analytical eclecticism"' (see table 3.1). and Michael Mastanduno defend the relevance of Western theoretical frame­ None of these theories are coherent, singular entities. Each contains a works in studying the international relations of Asia. David Shambaugh's range of perspectives and variations, some of which overlap with those of the introduction to this volume also illustrates the partial applicabihty of various others, although this complexity is seldom acknowledged in academic IR theories—^but the impossibihty of any single one—to explain international relations in the region. While intra-Asian relationships might have had some distinctive features historically, this distinctiveness had been diluted by the Table 3.1. Three Perspectives on International Relations progressive integration of the region into the modem international system. The international relations of Asia have acquired the behavioral norms and Realism Liberalism Constructivism attributes associated with the modern interstate system that originated in Main Actors States States, multinational States, transnational Europe and still retains many of the features of the Westphalian model. corporations, and knowledge Hence, the core concepts of international relations theory such as hegemony, international communities, and organizations moral entrepreneurs the distribution of power, international regimes, and political identity are as relevant in the Asian context as anywhere else.® Primary Goals of Pursuit of national Cooperation and Community building To this observer, this debate is a healthy caveat, rather than a debilitating States interest; power coordination to through interactions constraint, on analyzing Asian international relations with the help of an maximization achieve collective and shared normative admittedly Western theoretical literature. To be sure, theoretical paradigms (offensive Realism); goals; world peace frameworks developed from the Western experience do not adequately capture the full survival and security (defensive Realism) range of ideas and relationships that drive international relations in Asia. But IR theories and approaches—Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism, and ana­ Preferred A balance of power A collective security Global and regional lytic eclecticism—are relevant and useful in analyzing Asian IR, provided International Order system underpinned system underpinned security communities they do not encourage a selection bias in favor of those phenomena (ideas, by self-help and by free trade, liberal forged through shared events, trends, and relationships) that fit with them and against those that do alliances to maintain democracy, and norms and collective international order institutions identity not. IR scholars should feel free to identify and study phenomena that are either ignored or given scarce attention by these perspectives. They should Primary Mode of Strategic interaction Two-level (domestic Socialization through also develop concepts and insights from the Asian context and experience not Interaction between backed by causal and international) principled ideas and just to study Asian developments and dynamics, but also other parts of the Units ideas and military and bargaining backed by institutions world. In other words. Western IR theory, despite its ethnocentrism, is not to economic power causal ideas; trade and other forms of be dismissed or expunged from Asian classrooms or seminars, but universal­ functional ized with the infusion of Asian histories, personahties, philosophies, trajecto­ institutionalization ries, and practices. To do so, one must look beyond the contributions of those who write in an A Major Variation Neo-Realism: Neo-Liberal Critical overtly theoretical fashion, explicitly employing theoretical jargon and mak­ distribution of power institutionalism: Constructivism: decides outcome international system challenges the state- ing references to the theoretical literature of IR. A good deal of empirical or anarchic, but centric policy-relevant work may be regarded as theoretical for analytical purposes institutions created by Constructivism of because it, like the speeches and writings of policy makers, reflects mental or states in their self- Wendt social constructs that side with different paradigms of international relations.' interest do constrain To ignore these in any discussion of theory would be to miss out on a large anarchy 60 Amitav Acharya Thinking Theoretically about Asian IR 61 European experience, have been of little use in making sense of Asian region­ and important dimension of the debate on, and analysis of, Asian IR. In the alism."^ Although Katzenstein's remarks specifically concern the study of