Great Powers and Hierarchical Order in Southeast Asia: Analyzing Regional Security Strategies

Abstract

The small and medium-sized states in Southeast Asia have faced significant geostrategic changes with the end of the Cold War and the rise of China. Over the last decade, scholars have debated how these countries would cope with growing Chinese power, and how their relations with the other major powers in the region would change. Some analysts have suggested that the region is shifting toward a more China-centered order, but this view is premature. Eschewing the simple dichotomy of balancing versus bandwagoning, Southeast Asian countries do not want to choose between the two major powers, the United States and China. This avoidance strategy is not merely tactical or time-buying; instead, Southeast Asian states have actively tried to influence the shape of the new regional order. Key Southeast Asian states are pursuing two main pathways to order in the region: the “omni-enmeshment” of major powers and complex balance of influence. They have helped to produce an interim power distribution outcome, which is a hierarchical regional order that retains the United States' dominant superpower position while incorporating China in a regional great power position just below that of the United States.

U.S. Policy in Asia — Perspectives for the Future: Proceedings from a RAND Corporation Conference in Early 2017

“…Scholars have described these strategies of regional architecture-building and efforts to keep the United States engaged while ensuring other regional powers are involved as "omni-enmeshment" and "soft balancing." 169 There is indeed some empirical evidence for the growth of multilateralism and even defense regionalism in the postCold War and post-Asian financial crisis periods. 170 In other words, Southeast Asian states simply gave up on trying to militarily balance against China in the post-Cold War era and instead opted to focus on diplomatic engagement strategies.…”

Power Politics and Securitization: The Emerging Indo-Japanese Nexus in Southeast Asia

“…The re-emergence of China as a great power in the Indo-Pacific motivated nearly every state in the region to attempt to socialize China into the existing normative order (Goh 2007;Johnston 2008). ASEAN was among the principal players in this socializing effort, particularly as the Chinese military modernization was perceived as being destabilizing for the region.…”

The Politics of Contestation in Asia: How Japan and Pakistan Deal with Their Rising Neighbors

“…These strategies can operate simultaneously and are not mutually exclusive. In fact, many authors have recently demonstrated that states employ a set of partially contradictory "hedging" strategies by diversifying their options and pursuing different approaches at the same time in order to decrease their security risks (Goh 2005(Goh , 2008(Goh , 2011aHeginbotham and Samuels 2002;Kuik 2008;Medeiros 2005;Tessman and Wolfe 2011).…”

“…Binding (Ikenberry 2003;Rock 2000) Blackmailing (Lapp 2012;Walt 2005) Buck-passing (Chan 2010;Christensen and Snyder 1990;Mearsheimer 2001;Mochizuki 2007) Buffering (Gries 2005) Chain ganging (Christensen and Snyder 1990) Delegitimation (Walt 2005) Economic prebalancing (Layne 2006) Evasion (Bobrow 2008) Everyday and rightful resistance (Bobrow 2008;Destradi 2010;Ikenberry 2003;Ikenberry et al 2009;Prys 2010;Schweller and Pu 2011) Hedging (Goh 2005(Goh , 2008(Goh , 2011aHeginbotham and Samuels 2002;Kuik 2008;Medeiros 2005) Leash-slipping (Layne 2006) Log rolling (Ikenberry 2003) Niche diplomacy (Cooper 1997) Modification (Bobrow 2008) Omni-balancing (David 1991) Omni-enmeshment (Goh 2008) Pulling and hauling (Ikenberry 2003) Soft and indirect balancing (Goh 2008;Pape 2005;Paul 2005a)…”

“…Accommodation (Ross 2006) Acquiescence (Ikenberry 2003) Allying (Walt 2005) Appeasement (Mearsheimer 2001;Rock 2000) Bandwagoning (Kaufman 1992;Labs 1992;Schweller 1994) Bonding (Ikenberry 2003) Compliance (Walt 2005) Diverting (Chan 2010;Goh 2008) Engagement (Acharya 1999Goh 2005;Medeiros 2005) Followership (Cooper et al 1991) Free riding (Gilpin 1981;Kindleberger 1981) Hiding (Ikenberry et al 2009;Rajagopalan and Sahni 2008) Norm entrapment (Cooper et al 1991) Transcending (Chan 2010) Withdrawal (Wei 2006) Source: Authors' compilation. We understand "contestation" as comprising all "conflictive" and "competitive" strategies listed above.…”