Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:42:18.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Southeast Asia in the Global Political System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2011

Richard W. Mansbach
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

History may regard the summer of 1976 as a watershed of sorts in the evolution of Southeast Asia's place in world politics. Following the official reunification of the two Vietnams, there occurred in rapid succession the removal of the last American combat troops from the Southeast Asian mainland and the first positive stirrings by Vietnamese officials in response to ASEAN overtures for a normalization of relations. Although it is too early to determine the ultimate consequences of these events, their combined symbolic significance is unmistakable.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 1978 , pp. 115 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This author does not accept the argument that the Vietnam War at least permitted the region additional time to prepare itself for the vicissitudes of world politics. Or, one must say there has been precious little preparation.

2 Fisher, Charles A., “Geographical Continuity and Political Change in Southeast Asia,” Conflict and Stability in Southeast Asia, ed. Zacher, Mark W. and Milne, R. Stephen (New York, 1974), p. 4Google Scholar.

3 Ibid., p. 3.

4 See Deutsch, Karl W. et al. , Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (Princeton. 1957)Google Scholar.

5 The American Society of International Law, International Legal Materials (Washington, D.C., Jan. 1972), pp. 183–84Google Scholar. For an analysis of neutralization in the context of Southeast Asia, see Ott, Marvin C., The Neutralization of Southeast Asia: An Analysis of the Malaysian/ASEAN Proposal, Papers in International Studies, Southeast Asia Series No. 33, Ohio University (Athens, Ohio, 1974)Google Scholar.

6 See Black, Cyril E. et al. , Neutralization and World Politics (Princeton, 1968), pp. 18–33Google Scholar.

7 See Rothstein, Robert L., “Alignment, Nonalignment, and Small Powers: 1945–1965.” International Organization, 20 (Summer 1966), pp. 402–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Ott, op. cit., pp. 4–11.

9 Ibid., p. 14.

10 “Call For Support for Zone of Peace,” The Straits Times (Singapore), 28 June 1976Google Scholar.

11 For Southeast Asia, detente, paradoxically, could usher in a period of decreased manoeuvrability because the region would be considered so unimportant that its demands could be disregarded.

12 See Ott, op. cit., pp. 24–29.

13 Haq, Obaid ul, “The Changing Balance of Power in the Pacific and Its Implications for Southeast Asia,” Pacjfic Community, Apr. 1975, p. 389Google Scholar.

14 Coral Bell, “Security Preoccupations and Power Balances After Vietnam,” Zacher and Milne, eds., op. cit., p. 469.

15 Michael Leifer, “Great Intervention and Regional Order,” Zacher and Milne, eds., op. cit., p. 183. See also Huntington, Samuel P., Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven, 1968)Google Scholar and Huntington, “The Change to Change: Modernization, Development and Politics,” Comparative Politics, 3 (Apr. 1971), 283–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Nixon, Richard M., “Asia After Viet Nam,” Foreign Affairs, LXVI, 1 (Oct. 1967), 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 See Nye, Joseph S. Jr., “Comparing Common Markets: A Revised Neofunctionalist Model,” International Organization, 24 (Autumn 1970), 815CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 See Etzioni, Amitai, Political Unification: A Comparative Study of Leaders and Forces (New York, 1965), pp. 296 ffGoogle Scholar.

19 See Stockwin, Harvey, “ASEAN free trade gathers momentum,” Far Eastern Economic Review, 21 Nov. 1975Google Scholar and Stockwin, “Indonesia frustrating ASEAN ambitions,” Ibid., 23 Jan. 1976.

20 Osborn, George. “Southeast Asia: The Problem of American Credibility.” Foreign Policy and U.S. National Security, ed. Whitson, William, (New York, 1976), p. 127Google Scholar. See also Pfaltzgraff, Robert L. Jr., “Asia and the Great Powers.” Southeast Asian Spectrum, Jan. 1975, p. 1–7Google Scholar.

21 Osborn, op. cit., pp. 127–28.

22 Kahin, George McT., “The Role of the United States in Southeast Asia,” New Directions in the International Relations of Southeast Asia: The Great Powers and Southeast Asia, ed. Soon, Lau Teik (Singapore, 1973), p. 76Google Scholar.

23 Ibid., p. 79.

24 Ravenal, Earl C., “The End Game in Vietnam,” Foreign Affairs, LIII, 4 (July 1975), 656Google Scholar.

25 See Olson, Lawrence, Japan in Postwar Asia (New York, 1970), pp. 185–96Google Scholar.

26 See Gregory, Gene, “Ocean carve-up leaves Japan in deep water,” Far Eastern Economic Review, 6 June 1975, pp. 45–48Google Scholar.

27 See Wu, Yuan-li, “The Economic, Political and Strategic Implications of Japan's Search for Oil,” Southeast Asian Spectrum, Jan. 1975, p. 27–38Google Scholar; and Hornsby, Michael, “The Plan to Link Two Oceans,” The Times (London), 3 Aug. 1972Google Scholar. For a general review of Japanese economic interests in Southeast Asia, see Frank Langdon, “Japanese Policy Toward Southeast Asia.” Zacher and Milne, eds., op. cit., pp. 327–37.

28 See van der Kroef, Justus M., “Southeast Asia: New Patterns of Conflict and Cooperation,” World Affairs, CXXXVII, 3 (Winter 1975/1976), 180–83Google Scholar.

29 See Nuechterlein, Donald E., “Southeast Asia in International Politics,” Asian Survey, July 1975, p. 583Google Scholar; and Nuechterlein, , “The Emerging Sino-Soviet Contest in Southeast Asia,” Southeast Asian Spectrum, Jan. 1975, pp. 11–13Google Scholar.

30 Sheldon W. Simon, “Cambodia in the Vortex: The Actors' Perceptions, Goals, and Settlement Prospects,” Zacher and Milne, eds., op. cit., p. 154.

31 See Melvin Gurtov, “The Soviet Presence in Southeast Asia: Growth and Implications,” Ibid., pp. 283–87.

32 See Girling, J.L.S., “A Neutral Southeast Asia?” Australian Outlook, 27 (Aug. 1973), 130CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Jerry M. Silverman, “Historic National Rivalries and Interstate Conflict in Mainland Southeast Asia,” Zacher and Milne, eds., op. cit., p. 67.

34 See Turley, William S., “The Political Role and Development of the People's Army of Vietnam,” Communism in Indochina: New Perspectives, ed. Masloff, J.J. and Brown, MacAlister (Lexington, Mass., 1975)Google Scholar.

35 Internal conflict may become linked to interstate conflict when one domestic faction seeks or is offered external assistance as in the case of the Vietnam War. See Modelski, George, “The International Relations of Internal War,” International Aspects of Civil Strife, ed. Rosenau, James N. (Princeton, 1964), pp. 14–44Google Scholar.

36 Chee-meow, Seah, “The Muslim Issue and Implications for ASEAN,” Pacific Community, Oct. 1974, pp. 154–55Google Scholar.

37 Some observers now believe that ethnic-secessionist issues pose greater dangers to the region than does communism. See Kattenburg, Paul M., “South-East Asia Reconsidered,” Southeast Asian Spectrum, Jan.-Mar. 1976, pp. 17–19Google Scholar.

38 For data on the demographic distribution of the overseas Chinese, see Fisher, op. cit., p. 36 and R. Stephen Milne, “The Influence on Foreign Policy of Ethnic Minorities with External Ties,” Zacher and Milne, eds., op. cit., p. 88.

39 Victor C. Funnell, “The Development of Relations between China and the ASEAN Countries,” Southeast Asian Spectrum, July 1975, p. 23.

40 For a description of various government practices, see R. Stephen Milne, op. cit., pp.90–93.

41 Cited in Boyd, R.G.. Communist China's Foreign Policy (New York, 1962), p. 20Google Scholar.

42 See “Asean's Nanyang,” Far Eastern Economic Review, 21 Mar. 1975. p. 9.

41 Funnell, op. cit., p. 22.

44 Milne, op. cit., p. 100.

45 Fisher, op. cit., p. 38.

46 See Rosecrane, Richard N., Action and Reaction in World Politics (Boston, 1963)Google Scholar.

47 Krasner, Stephen D., “Oil is the Exception,” Foreign Policy, 14 (Spring 1974), 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The issue is largely one of commodity substitution.

48 Martin, Edwin W., “Burma in 1975: New Dimension to Non-Alignment,” Asian Survey, Feb. 1976, p. 176Google Scholar. The other articles in this volume reach similar conclusions.

49 Although the countries of Southeast Asia share many of the interests and perceptions of the members of the so-called Group of 77 in the United Nations, they have so far shown considerable restraint in collaborating in the pursuit of a global redistribution of wealth and the “new economic order”.

50 See Young, Oran R., “Political Discontinuities in the International System,” World Politics, 20 (Apr. 1968), 369–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Bell, op. cit., p. 488. Emphasis in original.

52 Kattenburg, op. cit., p. 20. See also Chee-meow, Seah, “ASEAN and Regionalism in Southeast Asia,” Southeast Asian Spectrum, Apr. 1974, pp. 1–5Google Scholar.

53 A.W. Stargardt, “Neutrality within the Asian System of Powers,” Lau Teik Soon, ed., op. cit., p. 111.

54 For the alternative emphasis on balance of power, see the text of a speech by Singapore's foreign minister, Rajaratnam, S., “The Power Game in Southeast Asia,” The Straits Times (Singapore), 29 June 1976Google Scholar.

55 Mount, Frank, “South-East Asia's Global Strategic Context.” Southeast Asian Spectrum, July 1974, p. 49Google Scholar.