Network Connections and the Emergence of the Hub-and-Spokes Alliance System in East Asia

Abstract

Why did the so-called hub-and-spokes alliance system emerge in East Asia after World War II instead of a multilateral alliance? Realists and constructivists offer various explanations, pointing to such factors as the United States' preference for bilateral alliances, the absence of a collective identity, and historical memories of Japanese imperialism. None of these explanations is satisfactory, however. Indeed, the historical record reveals that the United States sought a multilateral alliance in East Asia until the early 1960s. A theoretical model based on a social exchange network approach explains how a specific form of network can develop among potential allies. In East Asia, three U.S. allies—Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan—contributed to the emergence and shape of the hub-and-spokes system, which came into being as an unintended consequence of their interactions. The preferences and behavior of these allies proved at least as consequential as those of the United States in shaping this system. The implications of this finding could be significant for alliance politics in contemporary East Asia.

The Report of the Van Fleet Missionas an intended blueprint for American grand strategy in the Asia‐Pacific during the early Cold War

“…The real value of the Van Fleet Report lies in its clear expression of a unique military‐oriented American grand strategy in the Asia‐Pacific Region. The report's central objective was to organize a strong anti‐communist bloc with Japan as its core and use that bloc to counter what the Van Fleet Report believed to be an expansionist tendency of Chinese communism toward East and Southeast Asia—a message which has a mixed resonance in the Asia‐Pacific today, with China's economic and military growth influencing South Korea and Japan's ambivalence toward the “hubs‐and‐spokes system” due to Seoul's pivoting between Washington and Beijing on North Korean issues and Tokyo's reluctance to anger Beijing by vigorously defending Taiwan (Izumikawa, 2020). The Report was not primarily interested in becoming a historical piece of evidence for Dokdo.…”

Australian perspective on engaging with South Korea in the Indo‐Pacific

“…The social exchange network approach suggests that South Korea's strong tie with the United States is related to its less motivation to form a multilateral security system with other allies of the United States. In a “network,” defined as a “set of interconnected actors or nodes, which can be individuals, firms, states, or any other actors,” resource‐rich actors tend to create more exchanges and try to shape the network structure that gives more benefits to them in terms of resources (Izumikawa, 2020). Network analysis pays attention to the effect of material and social relationship formation between actors on international relations beyond structural explanations based on actor attributes and static equilibria (Hafner‐Burton et al, 2009).…”

“…For example, as per the social exchange network approach, South Korea's foreign policy after the Korean War reflected its interest in multilateral security systems, especially anticommunist organizations. However, the strong alliance with the United States discouraged Korea from further seeking cooperation with Japan (another ally of the United States and not having normalized relations with South Korea) or including Japan in the proposed anticommunist organization (Izumikawa, 2020).…”

Recalibrating South Korea's role and regional network in the Indo‐Pacific: An analysis from a network‐centered approach

“…Lastly, a state with higher centrality can also set agendas, frame debates, and implement policies that benefit states in its network (Beckerfield, 2003). In that context, it is argued that the US hub‐and‐spoke alliance system resembles an empire system in East Asia (Cooley & Nexon, 2013; Nexon & Wright, 2007) and that increasing interactions enable the US to hold social power over its allies, which explains the persistence of its hub‐and‐spoke system in East Asia (Izumikawa, 2020). Meanwhile, the complex security environment after the end of the Cold War prompted US allies and partners to initiate cooperation with states other than the US to align themselves with groups of like‐minded countries and improve coordinated responses to ever‐changing security threats (Kinne, 2018).…”