Power and International Relations

Geopolitical shifts are under way in the Asia Pacific. The simultaneous rise to great power status of two dominant civilizations of ancient Asia—China and India—kindles a great sense of uncertainty, and therefore concern. Other big powers and smaller powers are hard put adjusting their positions in response to these emerging forces and in anticipation of radical transformations that are likely to affect the future security dynamics as well as economic relationships in the region. Among those who need to understand the consequences well is the United States, which has long considered itself the keeper of the balance of power and the guarantor of stability in the region. China and India are both significant actors in their own right—potential game changers capable of shaping international politics and influencing the role of the United States, particularly within their respective neighborhoods. How the United Sates perceives them and sees its own relationship with the two are the subject of Vincent Wei-cheng Wang's article titled “The Eagle Eyes the Dragon and the Elephant: American Perspectives on the Rise of China and the Rise of India.” Wang's review focuses on popular and elite perceptions by Americans; beyond these, the trajectory of the triangular relations among United States, China, and India—anticipated to become the three most important players in the international system before long—will be crucial. The current relations between China and India have the makings of both strong partnership and classic power rivalry. Whether it is predominantly the former outcome or the latter outcome that may best serve American interests is an important question. However, no less important is how the rest of the countries in the Asia-Pacific (or the Indo-Pacific, if you will) envision their future alongside these two resurgent civilization-states. Also fascinating are the general coping strategies that middle powers like Australia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and other Southeast Asian countries, adopt in pursuit of their foreign policy interests. In his contribution, “Australia-Malaysia Security Cooperation as a Pivotal Component for More Stable Bilateral Relations,” Craig A. Snyder discusses how close defense cooperation had, in the 1980s and 1990s, continuously undergirded this dyadic relationship. This gainsays the expectations of observers who may recall the verbal tussles and tantrums that marked their ties during that period. Snyder attributes such defense cooperation to a shared commitment to regional security, with “high politics” trumping “low politics” each time. High politics may be of greater importance, and hard power may be more reliable in attaining preferred outcomes in international relations, but in the eyes of Vu Lam, author of our next article, soft power exercised through the instrument of public diplomacy also plays its part. This article asks: “Public diplomacy: why is it rudimentary yet relevant to Vietnam's politics?” Lam traces how the Vietnamese leadership had embarked on an image-building campaign to support foreign policy shifts following doi moi. The 2011 Vietnamese Communist Party Congress decided that Vietnam should project itself as “a friend and reliable partner of all countries,” actively taking part in international and regional cooperation efforts. But Lam shows that Vietnam's public diplomacy and image building were directed at domestic political concerns as well—primarily the need for public support for the regime—even as they were trying to shape foreign policy. The effects of power asymmetry on foreign relations behavior is also a subject of growing interest in the International Relations community. Those who believe that power asymmetry itself does not always and necessarily lead to the more powerful state dominating and dictating upon the weaker one need only look at U.S.-Iran relations for validation. In his article “Iran and the United States: A Conflict Resolution Perspective,” Mohammad Soltaninejad uses Zartman's theories of conflict resolution to show how reaching a nuclear “asymmetric hurting stalemate” created a ripeness for the two countries to enter into negotiations over Iran's nuclear ambitions. The jury is still out on this one, though, as events continue to unfold, and the outcomes are still quite uncertain. Japan is also a major actor in the geopolitical shifts that we are seeing develop in the Asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific. In the more recent past it was clearly punching below its weight, unable to weigh in or engage effectively in regional security affairs due to the constraints embedded in its pacifist constitution. Today, Japan seems well on the way to “normalization,” and has sought out a number of new security partnerships with regional states, especially in light of China's new assertiveness. However, slow economic recovery and political malaise may continue to challenge Japan's efforts to shine as a regional leader or even as an independent player. Coincidentally, the last two original articles in this issue are more focused on the internal politics and policy reform issues in Japan. Hiroaki Watanabe looks at “Institutional Change Under Neoliberal Pressure: Japanese Regulatory Reforms in Labor and Financial Markets,” while Ko Mishima examines why the ruling Democratic Party of Japan miserably failed to deliver promised reforms in the country's policymaking system. Great powers, middle powers. Balance of power. Hard versus soft power. Asymmetric power. Anaemic powers. We hope this issue of APP interests you and helps inspire your research

Anticipation (artificial intelligence · Balance (ability · China · Development economics · Economics · Elite · General partnership · Geopolitics · Great power · International relations · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Rivalry · Sociology · Sovereignty · Territorial integrity · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East

• Country-of-Origin Relationship (CoOR)

  Open Access•Lisa Tam, Myoung-Gi Chon et al.•International Journal of…•2024

  Add to list

• Alliances, Arms Buildups and Recurrent Conflict

  Michael Colaresi, Michael P Colaresi et al.•The Journal of Politics•2005

  Add to list