Asia, America, and the Transformation of Geopolitics

Overholt, William H.

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790775

Cited by 22 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One explanation may be that, while Washington is certainly interested in hedging against Beijing, the United States does not see Russia as an important player to have on its side in the game with China. The prevailing view is that Russia is not a significant power in the Asia‐Pacific, neither economically nor militarily (Overholt, 2008, pp. 211, 213, 264).…”

Section: Moscow and Washington Versus Beijing?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Russia and America in the Asia‐Pacific: A New Entente?

Lukin

2012

Asian Politics and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically, Russia‐U.S. political interaction in the Pacific has mostly been defined by the balance of power logic. Moscow and Washington only cooperated when they faced a common threat. In the 1860s it was the British Empire that was seen as such a threat, whereas from the 1920s through the 1940s it was Japan. Today another geopolitical entente of Russia and America might be in the offing, motivated by the rise of China. Such options are already being discussed by Russian experts and are perhaps also being contemplated by strategic planners in Washington. If Russia and the United States are to establish an effective partnership in the Asia‐Pacific, they will need to resolve, or at least moderate, their disagreements in other areas, especially in the post‐Soviet space. Furthermore, they have to do something about the lack of substantial economic ties as well as bridge the gap in their political identities.

show abstract

Section: Moscow and Washington Versus Beijing?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Russia and America in the Asia‐Pacific: A New Entente?

Lukin

2012

Asian Politics and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Literature in this regard would include, among others, Agnew (2003), Cohen (2003;, Cohen-Tanugi and Holoch (2009), Mostrous (2010), and Overholt (2007). Literature in this regard would include, among others, Agnew (2003), Cohen (2003;, Cohen-Tanugi and Holoch (2009), Mostrous (2010), and Overholt (2007).…”

Section: Cultural Differencementioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-Border Resource Management in Disputed Areas

Guo¹

2012

Developments in Environmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Regionalism in Northeast Asia (China, Japan, North and South Korea and Japan) is 'stunted' by the ongoing and historical tensions between the northern states. (Rozman 2004) China is in conflict with Taiwan (despite recent positive overtures) and it is deeply suspicious of Japanese economic power and possible military aspirations (Overholt 2008). It is also conscious of Japan and South Korea as American proxies in the region.…”

Section: Asean As Mediator: Managing Great Power Relations In East Asiamentioning

confidence: 99%

ASEAN in the twenty-first century: a sceptical review

Narine

2009

Cambridge Review of International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past few years, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has undertaken institutional reforms in the hope of rejuvenating itself for the twenty-first century. This paper utilizes the theory of subaltern realism (SR) to examine these initiatives. SR emphasizes that developing world states are weak and internally divided. As such, they formulate regional relations from the perspective of doing what is needed to further the state-building process. This paper assesses two of these reformsthe ASEAN Charter and the idea of the ASEAN Community idea-from the SR perspective and concludes that these measures are unlikely to have the desired rejuvenating effect. The ASEAN Charter envisions an ASEAN that is more intrusive than most of its members will tolerate. The ASEAN Community is not supported by a strong ASEAN identity. However, the regional environment of East Asia creates a political space wherein a unified and motivated ASEAN has the potential to exercise considerable influence. ASEAN member states are faced with the dilemma of determining how to balance their demands for sovereignty with the real advantages they will gain by supporting ASEAN. SR needs to be further developed before it can offer guidance in evaluating this situation.

show abstract

Asia, America, and the Transformation of Geopolitics

Cited by 22 publications

References 0 publications

Russia and America in the Asia‐Pacific: A New Entente?

Russia and America in the Asia‐Pacific: A New Entente?

Cross-Border Resource Management in Disputed Areas

ASEAN in the twenty-first century: a sceptical review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About