首页 > 最新文献

Asia Policy最新文献

英文 中文
Essence of Indecision: Understanding Indian Security Policy Choices 优柔寡断的本质:理解印度的安全政策选择
Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a911624
Essence of Indecision:Understanding Indian Security Policy Choices Frank O'Donnell (bio) As India's decisions become more consequential to global politics, understanding the influences behind them is increasingly crucial for scholars, policy experts, and world political leaders. Rajesh Basrur's new book, Subcontinental Drift: Domestic Politics and India's Foreign Policy, deftly explains the interplay of India's internal politics, external environment, and policymaker preference hierarchies to offer a persuasive theory of Indian decision-making on foreign and defense policy. Importantly, the book includes case selections that encompass security policy decisions made not only during the current government led by Narendra Modi, which began in 2014, but also during the previous several decades. As such, this book is highly recommended for both scholars and relative newcomers to the topics of South Asia studies, rising powers, and international security. As befits one of the most thoughtful scholars of India's security policies, Basrur eloquently engages with existing theoretical schools of international relations and their explanations of Indian external conduct. He develops the neoclassical realist paradigm as a theory more permissive of domestic political explanations than the external systemic focus of structural realism. The author modifies this paradigm to introduce an analytic tool of evaluating whether policymakers make the necessary decisions within their power to protect citizens. This test inherently draws upon realist thought, dating back to Kautilya and Machiavelli, that the primary—and moral—obligation of leaders is to protect their subjects. As Basrur powerfully argues, locating responsibility for state failures in this regard is crucial not just for better policymaking but for theoretical development in bridging the "materialist/normative divide in academia," as "in important respects, the moral is the empirical when accountability is neglected in making policy" (p. xii). Democratic leaders cannot control all elements of their domestic political context and have even less influence over often fast-moving developments in regional and international politics. Reflecting this reality, [End Page 129] Basrur conceptualizes the distinct categories of involuntary and voluntary drift (pp. 9–10) to explain why "uncertainty and indecisiveness have periodically afflicted India's foreign policy in areas of critical importance to its national security" (pp. 1–2). Involuntary drift occurs when leaders cannot implement effective policy due to players with domestic veto power. In the two cases of involuntary drift exemplified in negotiating the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement (2005–8) and Indian policy toward the Sri Lankan civil war (1983–2009), these veto players were Indian political parties opposed to the prime minister's preferred course of action. The parliamentary fragility of coalition governments meant that these parties were able to variab
随着印度的决策对全球政治的影响越来越大,理解这些决策背后的影响对学者、政策专家和世界政治领导人来说变得越来越重要。拉杰什·巴斯鲁的新书《次大陆漂移:国内政治与印度外交政策》巧妙地解释了印度内部政治、外部环境和政策制定者偏好等级之间的相互作用,为印度的外交和国防政策决策提供了一个有说服力的理论。重要的是,这本书的案例选择不仅涵盖了2014年开始由纳伦德拉·莫迪领导的本届政府做出的安全政策决定,还包括过去几十年的安全政策决定。因此,本书强烈推荐给南亚研究、新兴大国和国际安全等话题的学者和新手。作为研究印度安全政策的最具思想性的学者之一,巴斯鲁尔对现有的国际关系理论流派及其对印度对外行为的解释进行了雄辩的探讨。他将新古典现实主义范式发展为一种更允许国内政治解释的理论,而不是结构现实主义的外部系统焦点。作者修改了这一范式,引入了一种分析工具来评估决策者是否在其权力范围内做出必要的决策来保护公民。这个测试本质上借鉴了现实主义思想,可以追溯到考提利亚和马基雅维利,即领导者的首要和道德义务是保护他们的臣民。正如Basrur强有力地指出的那样,在这方面找出国家失败的责任不仅对更好地制定政策至关重要,而且对弥合“学术界唯物主义/规范鸿沟”的理论发展也至关重要。因为"在重要方面,当在制定政策时忽视问责制时,道德就是经验"(第十二页)。民主领导人无法控制其国内政治背景的所有因素,对经常快速发展的区域和国际政治的影响就更小了。为了反映这一现实,Basrur将非自愿和自愿漂移的不同类别概念化(第9-10页),以解释为什么“在对国家安全至关重要的领域,不确定性和优柔优断会周期性地影响印度的外交政策”(第1-2页)。当领导人由于拥有国内否决权的参与者而无法实施有效政策时,就会发生非自愿漂移。在美印民用核协议谈判(2005-8年)和印度对斯里兰卡内战政策(1983-2009年)的两个例子中,这些否决权的参与者是反对总理首选行动方案的印度政党。联合政府在议会中的脆弱性意味着,这些政党能够以各种方式阻挠、淡化或推迟政策回应的执行。重要的是,Basrur指出,决策者最初的首选政策是“系统驱动的”,结构现实主义者将其视为改善或稳定印度国际权力地位的明智举措。美印民用核协议在当代印度外交政策的现有文献中得到了广泛的报道,这些文献还确定,机会主义的印度人民党(Bharatiya Janata Party)和反美印度共产党(马克思主义)的议会反对是印度推迟批准该协议的主要原因。然而,斯里兰卡的案例研究对印度在内战的每个阶段的政策,以及印度泰米尔纳德邦国内政治力量的变化如何使印度的反应复杂化,提供了罕见的、令人信服的、细致入微的描述。这本书展示了印度对斯里兰卡政府的犹豫和断断续续的支持,特别是在战争的后期,如何为中国填补这一空间并在科伦坡建立战略立足点创造了空间,并一直享受到今天。因此,印度无效的政策给新德里在与北京更广泛的地缘政治竞争中带来了负面的系统性后果。本书的第二部分考察了自愿漂移的案例,在这些案例中,决策者在设计和实施他们喜欢的政策时,很少或根本没有面临有意义的国内政治限制。当领导人仍然“选择避免困难和代价高昂的行动的选项,部分原因是不充分行动的政治成本并不严重……
{"title":"Essence of Indecision: Understanding Indian Security Policy Choices","authors":"","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a911624","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a911624","url":null,"abstract":"Essence of Indecision:Understanding Indian Security Policy Choices Frank O'Donnell (bio) As India's decisions become more consequential to global politics, understanding the influences behind them is increasingly crucial for scholars, policy experts, and world political leaders. Rajesh Basrur's new book, Subcontinental Drift: Domestic Politics and India's Foreign Policy, deftly explains the interplay of India's internal politics, external environment, and policymaker preference hierarchies to offer a persuasive theory of Indian decision-making on foreign and defense policy. Importantly, the book includes case selections that encompass security policy decisions made not only during the current government led by Narendra Modi, which began in 2014, but also during the previous several decades. As such, this book is highly recommended for both scholars and relative newcomers to the topics of South Asia studies, rising powers, and international security. As befits one of the most thoughtful scholars of India's security policies, Basrur eloquently engages with existing theoretical schools of international relations and their explanations of Indian external conduct. He develops the neoclassical realist paradigm as a theory more permissive of domestic political explanations than the external systemic focus of structural realism. The author modifies this paradigm to introduce an analytic tool of evaluating whether policymakers make the necessary decisions within their power to protect citizens. This test inherently draws upon realist thought, dating back to Kautilya and Machiavelli, that the primary—and moral—obligation of leaders is to protect their subjects. As Basrur powerfully argues, locating responsibility for state failures in this regard is crucial not just for better policymaking but for theoretical development in bridging the \"materialist/normative divide in academia,\" as \"in important respects, the moral is the empirical when accountability is neglected in making policy\" (p. xii). Democratic leaders cannot control all elements of their domestic political context and have even less influence over often fast-moving developments in regional and international politics. Reflecting this reality, [End Page 129] Basrur conceptualizes the distinct categories of involuntary and voluntary drift (pp. 9–10) to explain why \"uncertainty and indecisiveness have periodically afflicted India's foreign policy in areas of critical importance to its national security\" (pp. 1–2). Involuntary drift occurs when leaders cannot implement effective policy due to players with domestic veto power. In the two cases of involuntary drift exemplified in negotiating the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement (2005–8) and Indian policy toward the Sri Lankan civil war (1983–2009), these veto players were Indian political parties opposed to the prime minister's preferred course of action. The parliamentary fragility of coalition governments meant that these parties were able to variab","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136205889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
U.S.-China Great-Power Politics and Strategic Ambiguities in an Evolving Indo-Pacific Security Architecture 演变中的印太安全架构中的美中大国政治和战略歧义
Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a911618
Beverley Loke, Ralf Emmers
U.S.-China Great-Power Politics and Strategic Ambiguities in an Evolving Indo-Pacific Security Architecture Beverley Loke (bio) and Ralf Emmers (bio) A complex regional security architecture exists today in the Indo-Pacific, comprising overlapping multilateral and minilateral arrangements. Resulting from an incremental process of cooperation, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its associated forums such as the East Asia Summit (EAS), the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the ASEAN +3, and the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting–Plus (ADMM-Plus) have become important multilateral venues for regional countries to exchange strategic perspectives. However, these inclusive and multilateral ASEAN-led platforms have in recent years been challenged by the rise of exclusive minilateral arrangements driven by U.S.-China great-power politics. China's influence-building measures include the Belt and Road Initiative, the Xiangshan Forum, and, more recently, the Global Security Initiative. U.S.-led minilaterals include the Quad, which brings together Australia, India, Japan, and the United States, and AUKUS, a trilateral security pact signed in September 2021 by Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These developments have reinvigorated debates over the form, purpose, and effectiveness of the Indo-Pacific security architecture.1 They have also contributed to the emergence of additional ambiguity in the regional architecture at the level of embedded regional alignments. Institutions like the EAS are structured around ASEAN's impartiality in the rise of great-power competition and seek to institutionalize regional relations by promoting diplomatic rules of engagement that are acceptable to all. In contrast, the Quad and AUKUS are arrangements that openly exclude China and seek to balance its rising power. [End Page 52] While it might seem counterintuitive, we claim that constructive and purposeful strategic ambiguity in the regional architecture can help maintain regional stability, especially in light of the intensifying U.S.-China hegemonic ordering. Indeed, we posit that it is precisely when states are narrowly aligned on specific economic, security, or ideological grounds that perceptions become hardened, thereby cementing "us/them" binaries and heightening regional instabilities. In short, this essay argues that inclusive and exclusive forms of cooperation enhance stability by generating strategic ambiguities in an evolving Indo-Pacific security architecture. The argument is laid out in two sections. The first section describes how ASEAN's inclusive platforms—discussed here through the EAS—have lost momentum and how the regional architecture has in recent years been characterized by an exclusive approach that omits one of the great powers. The next section claims that inclusive and exclusive approaches to security cooperation are not incompatible, as they enable flexibility and fluidity in regional alignments. The Evolving Securit
美中大国政治和不断演变的印太安全架构中的战略模糊性今天,印太地区存在着一个复杂的地区安全架构,包括重叠的多边和多边安排。随着合作的逐步推进,东南亚国家联盟(ASEAN)及其相关论坛,如东亚峰会(EAS)、东盟地区论坛(ARF)、东盟+3和东盟国防部长扩大会议(ADMM-Plus),已成为地区国家交流战略观点的重要多边场所。然而,这些由东盟主导的包容性和多边平台近年来受到中美大国政治推动下排他性多边安排兴起的挑战。中国的影响力建设措施包括“一带一路”倡议、香山论坛,以及最近的全球安全倡议。由美国主导的多边对话包括由澳大利亚、印度、日本和美国组成的四方对话,以及澳大利亚、英国和美国于2021年9月签署的三边安全协议AUKUS。这些事态发展重新激发了关于印太安全架构的形式、目的和有效性的辩论它们还导致区域架构在嵌入式区域联盟一级出现更多的模糊性。像东亚峰会这样的机构是围绕着东盟在大国竞争中保持中立的原则建立起来的,并寻求通过促进各方都能接受的外交接触规则来使地区关系制度化。相比之下,四方防务对话和太平洋安全联盟是公开排除中国并寻求平衡其崛起力量的安排。虽然这似乎有悖常理,但我们认为,在地区架构中,建设性和有目的的战略模糊性有助于维护地区稳定,尤其是在美中霸权秩序日益加剧的情况下。事实上,我们认为,正是当国家在特定的经济、安全或意识形态基础上狭隘地结盟时,观念才会变得更加顽固,从而巩固了“我们/他们”的二元对立,加剧了地区不稳定。简而言之,本文认为,包容和排他性的合作形式通过在不断演变的印太安全架构中产生战略模糊性来增强稳定。这个论点分为两个部分。第一部分描述了东盟的包容性平台(这里通过东盟讨论)是如何失去动力的,以及近年来区域架构是如何以排除大国之一的排他性方式为特征的。下一节声称,包容性和排他性的安全合作方法并非不相容,因为它们使区域联盟具有灵活性和流动性。东盟在地区秩序建设中的中心地位一直备受争议。尽管一些分析人士声称,持续的大国竞争和不信任导致了东盟“默认”的中心地位,但也有人强调,东南亚国家在塑造地区安全架构方面发挥了更大的作用。尽管澳大利亚前总理陆克文(Kevin Rudd)和日本前首相鸠山由纪夫(Yukio Hatoyama)分别呼吁建立“亚太共同体”(Asia-Pacific community)和“东亚共同体”(East Asian community)等其他各种地区主义项目,但都未能成功,但东盟在向其他地区国家传播其规范并推动更广泛合作方面表现出了弹性。在此背景下,东盟的成就包括为大国接触建立包容性的制度化平台,从而确保东盟在更广泛的地区秩序建设项目中仍然发挥关键作用正如胜俣弘所指出的那样,东盟成功地“积极构建了一种社会环境,使自己成为东亚共同体建设的合法领导者”。东亚峰会于2005年首次由东盟十国(澳大利亚、中国、印度、日本、新西兰和韩国)举行,代表了建立一个区域性多边机构的一次尝试。在成立之前,印度尼西亚、日本和新加坡认为成员应该广泛和包容,而其他成员,特别是中国和马来西亚,强调东亚峰会应该仅限于东亚国家。最终将澳大利亚、印度和新西兰——这些位于东亚地区之外的国家纳入其中——因此是对更包容的合作方式的外交让步。此外……
{"title":"U.S.-China Great-Power Politics and Strategic Ambiguities in an Evolving Indo-Pacific Security Architecture","authors":"Beverley Loke, Ralf Emmers","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a911618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a911618","url":null,"abstract":"U.S.-China Great-Power Politics and Strategic Ambiguities in an Evolving Indo-Pacific Security Architecture Beverley Loke (bio) and Ralf Emmers (bio) A complex regional security architecture exists today in the Indo-Pacific, comprising overlapping multilateral and minilateral arrangements. Resulting from an incremental process of cooperation, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its associated forums such as the East Asia Summit (EAS), the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the ASEAN +3, and the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting–Plus (ADMM-Plus) have become important multilateral venues for regional countries to exchange strategic perspectives. However, these inclusive and multilateral ASEAN-led platforms have in recent years been challenged by the rise of exclusive minilateral arrangements driven by U.S.-China great-power politics. China's influence-building measures include the Belt and Road Initiative, the Xiangshan Forum, and, more recently, the Global Security Initiative. U.S.-led minilaterals include the Quad, which brings together Australia, India, Japan, and the United States, and AUKUS, a trilateral security pact signed in September 2021 by Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These developments have reinvigorated debates over the form, purpose, and effectiveness of the Indo-Pacific security architecture.1 They have also contributed to the emergence of additional ambiguity in the regional architecture at the level of embedded regional alignments. Institutions like the EAS are structured around ASEAN's impartiality in the rise of great-power competition and seek to institutionalize regional relations by promoting diplomatic rules of engagement that are acceptable to all. In contrast, the Quad and AUKUS are arrangements that openly exclude China and seek to balance its rising power. [End Page 52] While it might seem counterintuitive, we claim that constructive and purposeful strategic ambiguity in the regional architecture can help maintain regional stability, especially in light of the intensifying U.S.-China hegemonic ordering. Indeed, we posit that it is precisely when states are narrowly aligned on specific economic, security, or ideological grounds that perceptions become hardened, thereby cementing \"us/them\" binaries and heightening regional instabilities. In short, this essay argues that inclusive and exclusive forms of cooperation enhance stability by generating strategic ambiguities in an evolving Indo-Pacific security architecture. The argument is laid out in two sections. The first section describes how ASEAN's inclusive platforms—discussed here through the EAS—have lost momentum and how the regional architecture has in recent years been characterized by an exclusive approach that omits one of the great powers. The next section claims that inclusive and exclusive approaches to security cooperation are not incompatible, as they enable flexibility and fluidity in regional alignments. The Evolving Securit","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136205894","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The Survival of Mobile Firepower: An Uncertain Factor in Taiwan's Asymmetrical Defense 机动火力的生存:台湾非对称防御的不确定因素
Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a911627
Shang-su Wu
executive summary: This article considers the strategic importance of mobile firepower for Taiwan's asymmetrical defense and analyzes the geostrategic threats to the survival of Taiwan's mobile surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and standoff firepower. main argumentIn the face of China's military superiority, Taiwan has adopted an asymmetrical approach to its defense that relies significantly on mobile SAMs and standoff firepower to deny People's Liberation Army (PLA) platforms, such as transport aircraft and landing ships, access to the island. Mobility presents a tactical advantage for Taiwan, as it renders Chinese surveillance more difficult. However, Taiwan's mobile units could be constrained or rendered immobile given the geographic environment in Taiwan, especially in urban regions like the Taipei metropolitan area. At the outbreak of a potential war with China, Taiwan's mobile units could face preemptive strikes, and concealing the deployed units for an indeterminate time while awaiting a PLA invasion would also be challenging. The amount of mobile firepower that Taipei can retain after PLA attacks may determine whether Beijing's invasion is successful, but with a narrow margin for losses and an incomplete buildup, Taiwan's mobile firepower may nevertheless not be adequate to redress the island's military inferiority. To consolidate the status quo in the strait, Taipei should strengthen its mobile firepower and Washington should offer critical support. policy implications • Although there is no clear minimum level of firepower that Taipei would need to retain in an attack scenario, the current margin is narrow. If the PLA efficiently neutralizes Taiwan's mobile units, Taiwan's asymmetrical defense would be significantly undermined or even fail. • Moving and hiding mobile units around Taiwan could be challenging, given that suitable routes in urban and mountainous areas are predictable and could be cut off. To thwart a potential PLA invasion, the mobile units would also need to be hidden for an indeterminate period, which could be difficult. The necessity of defending Taipei would further reduce the tactical flexibility of the mobile units. • China has various surveillance and attack means that could be used to neutralize Taiwan's mobile units and defensive means to lower the threat from mobile firepower. The efficacy of these measures and the extent to which Beijing could concentrate them for this mission is uncertain. • Third parties, particularly the U.S., are crucial in strengthening Taiwan's mobile firepower, especially in terms of quantity and evaluation.
摘要:本文考虑了机动火力对台湾非对称防御的战略重要性,并分析了台湾机动地对空导弹(sam)和对峙火力生存的地缘战略威胁。面对中国的军事优势,台湾采取了一种不对称的防御方式,主要依靠机动地对空导弹和对峙火力来阻止解放军(PLA)的平台,如运输机和登陆舰进入台湾。机动性为台湾提供了战术优势,因为它使中国大陆的监视变得更加困难。然而,考虑到台湾的地理环境,特别是在像台北大都市区这样的城市地区,台湾的机动部队可能会受到限制或无法移动。在与中国大陆爆发潜在战争时,台湾的机动部队可能面临先发制人的打击,在等待解放军入侵的不确定时间内隐藏部署的部队也将是一项挑战。在解放军进攻后,台北可以保留的机动火力数量可能决定北京的入侵是否成功,但由于损失幅度很小,而且建设不完全,台湾的机动火力可能仍不足以弥补台湾的军事劣势。为了巩固台海现状,台北应加强其机动火力,华盛顿应提供关键支持。•虽然没有明确的最低火力水平,台北需要在攻击情景中保持,目前的差距很小。如果解放军有效地压制台湾的机动部队,台湾的不对称防御将受到严重破坏甚至失败。•在台湾周围移动和隐藏机动部队可能具有挑战性,因为城市和山区的合适路线是可预测的,可能会被切断。为了阻止潜在的解放军入侵,机动单位也需要隐藏一段不确定的时间,这可能是困难的。保卫台北的必要性将进一步降低机动部队的战术灵活性。•中国拥有各种监视和攻击手段,可以用来压制台湾的机动部队,以及降低机动火力威胁的防御手段。这些措施的效力,以及中国政府将在多大程度上集中这些措施来完成这项任务,都是不确定的。•第三方,特别是美国,在加强台湾的移动火力方面至关重要,特别是在数量和评估方面。
{"title":"The Survival of Mobile Firepower: An Uncertain Factor in Taiwan's Asymmetrical Defense","authors":"Shang-su Wu","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a911627","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a911627","url":null,"abstract":"executive summary: This article considers the strategic importance of mobile firepower for Taiwan's asymmetrical defense and analyzes the geostrategic threats to the survival of Taiwan's mobile surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and standoff firepower. main argumentIn the face of China's military superiority, Taiwan has adopted an asymmetrical approach to its defense that relies significantly on mobile SAMs and standoff firepower to deny People's Liberation Army (PLA) platforms, such as transport aircraft and landing ships, access to the island. Mobility presents a tactical advantage for Taiwan, as it renders Chinese surveillance more difficult. However, Taiwan's mobile units could be constrained or rendered immobile given the geographic environment in Taiwan, especially in urban regions like the Taipei metropolitan area. At the outbreak of a potential war with China, Taiwan's mobile units could face preemptive strikes, and concealing the deployed units for an indeterminate time while awaiting a PLA invasion would also be challenging. The amount of mobile firepower that Taipei can retain after PLA attacks may determine whether Beijing's invasion is successful, but with a narrow margin for losses and an incomplete buildup, Taiwan's mobile firepower may nevertheless not be adequate to redress the island's military inferiority. To consolidate the status quo in the strait, Taipei should strengthen its mobile firepower and Washington should offer critical support. policy implications • Although there is no clear minimum level of firepower that Taipei would need to retain in an attack scenario, the current margin is narrow. If the PLA efficiently neutralizes Taiwan's mobile units, Taiwan's asymmetrical defense would be significantly undermined or even fail. • Moving and hiding mobile units around Taiwan could be challenging, given that suitable routes in urban and mountainous areas are predictable and could be cut off. To thwart a potential PLA invasion, the mobile units would also need to be hidden for an indeterminate period, which could be difficult. The necessity of defending Taipei would further reduce the tactical flexibility of the mobile units. • China has various surveillance and attack means that could be used to neutralize Taiwan's mobile units and defensive means to lower the threat from mobile firepower. The efficacy of these measures and the extent to which Beijing could concentrate them for this mission is uncertain. • Third parties, particularly the U.S., are crucial in strengthening Taiwan's mobile firepower, especially in terms of quantity and evaluation.","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"11 8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136205903","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
ASEAN and Ambiguity 东盟与模糊性
Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a911613
Mathew Davies
ASEAN and Ambiguity Mathew Davies (bio) Perhaps more than any other regional organization, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and ambiguity seem to go hand in hand. Since the establishment of ASEAN more than 50 years ago, it has been easy to point to the region on a map but harder to say what the organization is for, and harder still to say what it does. This essay identifies the origins, workings, and consequences of this ambiguity in Southeast Asian regionalism. While the term ambiguity has been widely and often used in discussions of ASEAN, it has not been analyzed or dissected as its own analytical lens.1 To address this issue, I identify two types of ambiguity in this essay—an ambiguity of purpose (i.e., What is ASEAN for?) and an ambiguity of meaning (i.e., What values does ASEAN embody, promote, and protect?). Further, whereas the term ambiguity is often deployed negatively or derisively as a trait ASEAN should be faulted for and endeavor to overcome, this essay adopts a more nuanced position. Ambiguity is a risk mitigation strategy, and it can be a positive factor for the realization of goals. Very often, it is far from being unintentional or uninformed. At least for some of ASEAN's core goals, ambiguity has been a productive and intentional strategy; removing ambiguity through specification, especially when accompanied by growing regulation, is a governance misstep. This is not to say, of course, that ambiguity is only ever positive, and this essay also identifies the ways in which it both weakens regional governance and produces significant overconfidence. [End Page 22] The Origins and Growth of ASEAN Meeting in Bangkok in 1967 to sign the ASEAN Declaration (also known at the Bangkok Declaration), the foreign ministers of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand most likely had the risks of failure uppermost in their minds. Previous attempts to establish a regional body, including the Association of Southeast Asia and MAPHILINDO, had been unsuccessful, and the five abovementioned states were dangerously vulnerable to the vagaries of domestic insurrection and global political competition.2 Failure would exacerbate the insecurities, material and ontological, of the region. Yet, the foreign ministers that met in Bangkok faced daunting obstacles to success. Most fundamentally, the five countries they represented neither liked nor trusted one another, and their diplomatic relations were marred by tensions, disagreements, and overlapping sovereignty claims. At least in part, these tensions were the product of centuries of colonial rule and the resulting political dislocations and silencing that accompanied first European colonialization and then, far more briefly, the Japanese occupation of the region. The ASEAN framework that was crafted was a response to the necessity of coexisting in similar circumstances, with similar economic and geopolitical needs, absent a common understanding, let alone mutual trus
东南亚国家联盟(ASEAN,简称东盟)与模糊性的关系似乎比其他任何地区组织都密切。自50多年前东盟成立以来,在地图上指出该地区很容易,但要说这个组织的目的是什么就更难了,要说它的作用就更难了。本文确定了东南亚地区主义中这种模糊性的起源、运作和后果。虽然“歧义”一词在讨论东盟时被广泛和经常使用,但它并没有作为它自己的分析视角被分析或剖析为了解决这个问题,我在本文中确定了两种类型的模糊性——目的的模糊性(即,东盟是为了什么?)和意义的模糊性(即,东盟体现、促进和保护什么价值观?)。此外,尽管“模棱两可”一词经常被消极或嘲笑地用作东盟应该受到指责并努力克服的特点,但本文采取了更微妙的立场。模糊性是一种风险缓解策略,它可以成为实现目标的积极因素。通常情况下,这远不是无意或不知情。至少对于东盟的一些核心目标来说,模棱两可是一种富有成效和有意为之的策略;通过规范消除歧义,尤其是在伴随着不断增长的监管的情况下,是一种治理失误。当然,这并不是说,模棱两可永远都是积极的,本文还指出了它既削弱了地区治理,又产生了严重的过度自信的方式。1967年在曼谷举行的签署《东盟宣言》(又称《曼谷宣言》)的会议上,印尼、马来西亚、菲律宾、新加坡和泰国的外交部长们最担心的可能是失败的风险。以前建立一个区域机构的尝试,包括东南亚联盟和南亚联盟,都是不成功的,而且上述五个国家很容易受到国内叛乱和全球政治竞争的影响失败将加剧该地区的物质和本体不安全。然而,在曼谷会晤的各国外长面临着取得成功的巨大障碍。最根本的是,他们所代表的五个国家既不喜欢也不信任对方,他们的外交关系因紧张、分歧和重叠的主权主张而受到损害。至少在某种程度上,这些紧张局势是几个世纪的殖民统治以及随之而来的政治混乱和沉默的产物,这些混乱和沉默先是伴随着欧洲殖民统治,然后是日本对该地区的占领,时间要短得多。精心设计的东盟框架是对在类似情况下共存的必要性的回应,具有类似的经济和地缘政治需求,缺乏共同的理解,更不用说相互信任了在这种情况下,特殊性是共存的障碍,因为分歧、缺乏知识和相互猜疑意味着任何实质性目标都会以无益的方式揭示这些分歧。因此,难怪《曼谷宣言》本身在目的和意义上非常含糊不清。宣言承诺五国将在一系列经济、社会和文化措施上进行合作,并将各种会议和委员会制度化在创建东盟的过程中,目的和意义的模糊性是显而易见的。就目的而言,目前尚不清楚为什么东盟本身必须存在,因为各国可以在没有区域组织促进合作的情况下,以多种方式就曼谷宣言提出的问题进行合作。同样,在与区域代表的讨论中,我最常提到的一些东盟最初的目标,尽管是该组织成立背后的关键原因,但至今仍未实现。也许,正如地区领导人和外交官所表达的那样,东盟最显著的实质性目标是促进相互理解,并使各国领导人将自己置于彼此之间的共同外交标准中,特别是不要在公开场合过分催促对方,并接受各方都有权抵制任何有问题的地区结论。然而,这个目标并没有在文本中出现。
{"title":"ASEAN and Ambiguity","authors":"Mathew Davies","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a911613","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a911613","url":null,"abstract":"ASEAN and Ambiguity Mathew Davies (bio) Perhaps more than any other regional organization, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and ambiguity seem to go hand in hand. Since the establishment of ASEAN more than 50 years ago, it has been easy to point to the region on a map but harder to say what the organization is for, and harder still to say what it does. This essay identifies the origins, workings, and consequences of this ambiguity in Southeast Asian regionalism. While the term ambiguity has been widely and often used in discussions of ASEAN, it has not been analyzed or dissected as its own analytical lens.1 To address this issue, I identify two types of ambiguity in this essay—an ambiguity of purpose (i.e., What is ASEAN for?) and an ambiguity of meaning (i.e., What values does ASEAN embody, promote, and protect?). Further, whereas the term ambiguity is often deployed negatively or derisively as a trait ASEAN should be faulted for and endeavor to overcome, this essay adopts a more nuanced position. Ambiguity is a risk mitigation strategy, and it can be a positive factor for the realization of goals. Very often, it is far from being unintentional or uninformed. At least for some of ASEAN's core goals, ambiguity has been a productive and intentional strategy; removing ambiguity through specification, especially when accompanied by growing regulation, is a governance misstep. This is not to say, of course, that ambiguity is only ever positive, and this essay also identifies the ways in which it both weakens regional governance and produces significant overconfidence. [End Page 22] The Origins and Growth of ASEAN Meeting in Bangkok in 1967 to sign the ASEAN Declaration (also known at the Bangkok Declaration), the foreign ministers of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand most likely had the risks of failure uppermost in their minds. Previous attempts to establish a regional body, including the Association of Southeast Asia and MAPHILINDO, had been unsuccessful, and the five abovementioned states were dangerously vulnerable to the vagaries of domestic insurrection and global political competition.2 Failure would exacerbate the insecurities, material and ontological, of the region. Yet, the foreign ministers that met in Bangkok faced daunting obstacles to success. Most fundamentally, the five countries they represented neither liked nor trusted one another, and their diplomatic relations were marred by tensions, disagreements, and overlapping sovereignty claims. At least in part, these tensions were the product of centuries of colonial rule and the resulting political dislocations and silencing that accompanied first European colonialization and then, far more briefly, the Japanese occupation of the region. The ASEAN framework that was crafted was a response to the necessity of coexisting in similar circumstances, with similar economic and geopolitical needs, absent a common understanding, let alone mutual trus","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136205898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The Ambiguous Architecture of Economic Integration in East Asia 东亚经济一体化的模糊架构
Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a911615
Natasha Hamilton-Hart
The Ambiguous Architecture of Economic Integration in East Asia Natasha Hamilton-Hart (bio) Regional economic integration in East Asia has been built on an architecture of ambiguity and informality. A foundational informal architecture of cross-border business ties and business-government relationships has facilitated regional commerce for many decades. Ambiguity has contributed to building formal integration through intergovernmental cooperation because commitments are often only possible due to the flexibility ambiguity provides. In the current moment of heightened tension between the United States and China, the United States is aiming to eliminate areas of ambiguity and flexibility in its growing array of export controls and other policies intended to hamper the acquisition of advanced technology by Chinese entities and "de-risk" exposure to China. This essay examines how informality and ambiguity have facilitated the development of East Asian economic regionalization and what this looks like in an environment of U.S.-China rivalry. The De Facto Economic Regional Architecture East Asia has emerged as a robust economic region over the past three decades, as evidenced by the growth of cross-border investment flows and the rise of intraregional trade. Regional trade and investment flows have been organized to reflect the logic of global value chains, sometimes referred to as global production networks, by which the production of goods is dispersed across national boundaries in an effort to realize efficiencies of scale and specialization.1 The rise in trade of intermediate products created a distinctive condition of complex interdependence: firms and national economies are enmeshed in multiple, crosscutting relationships of mutual [End Page 31] dependence that span not only critical inputs and final markets but also technology, logistics, distribution, digital services, and information flows.2 Early analyses of the emerging structure of regional integration in East Asia noted that the de facto regionalization occurring there, even by the 1990s, was different from the European experience in which integration was essentially a product of formal regionalism.3 Formal regionalism meant cooperative commitments by governments to liberalize trade and investment, harmonize standards, and remove other restrictions on the free flow of commerce and people. Regionalization, in contrast, appeared to occur in advance of formal intergovernmental agreements in East Asia and was, in this sense, informal and market-based rather than state-led. In fact, as was clear by the end of the twentieth century, the new structure of integration via global value chains was fundamentally different from that predicted by traditional trade and investment models based on the full production of finished goods, such as washing machines and automobiles.4 Instead, very specific production functions were disbursed geographically, while transactions along the value chain were governed
东亚区域经济一体化是建立在一种模糊性和非正式性的架构之上的。几十年来,跨境商业联系和工商政府关系的非正式基础架构促进了区域商业发展。模糊性有助于通过政府间合作建立正式一体化,因为承诺往往只有在模糊性提供灵活性的情况下才有可能实现。在当前美中关系紧张加剧的时刻,美国正致力于消除其日益增多的出口管制和其他旨在阻碍中国实体获取先进技术并“降低”与中国接触风险的政策中存在的模糊性和灵活性。本文考察了非正式性和模糊性如何促进了东亚经济区域化的发展,以及在中美竞争的环境下这是什么样子。过去三十年来,跨境投资流动的增长和区域内贸易的兴起证明了东亚已成为一个强劲的经济区域。区域贸易和投资流动已经被组织起来,以反映全球价值链的逻辑,有时也被称为全球生产网络,通过这种逻辑,商品的生产分散在国界之外,以实现规模和专业化的效率中间产品贸易的增长创造了复杂相互依赖的独特条件:公司和国家经济陷入相互依赖的多重横切关系中,不仅跨越关键投入和最终市场,还跨越技术、物流、分销、数字服务和信息流对东亚正在出现的区域一体化结构的早期分析指出,即使到1990年代,那里发生的事实上的区域化也不同于欧洲的经验,后者的一体化基本上是正式区域主义的产物正式的地区主义意味着各国政府的合作承诺,以实现贸易和投资自由化,协调标准,并消除对商业和人员自由流动的其他限制。相比之下,东亚的区域化似乎是在正式政府间协定之前发生的,从这个意义上说,区域化是非正式的、以市场为基础的,而不是国家主导的。事实上,正如20世纪末所清楚的那样,通过全球价值链实现一体化的新结构与基于洗衣机和汽车等制成品的全部生产的传统贸易和投资模式所预测的结构有着根本的不同相反,非常具体的生产功能是按地理位置分配的,而价值链上的交易以不同的方式进行管理,而不是由一系列独立的、基于价格的交易组成不同价值链的治理根据交易的具体属性和地点而有所不同,但最重要的一点是,全球价值链提供了参与者之间一定程度的非正式协调。个别市场参与者之间的关系和密切协调使交换和相互依赖成为可能,否则由于信息不对称、缺乏信任或其他市场不完善而不可能清理市场。早期的分析倾向于通过种族独特的商业集团结构和网络来看待这些缓和信任问题的公司间关系。然而,这些网络的种族维度并非来自任何文化主义本质,而是来自交易成本经济学。例如,在东亚背景下,台湾和许多东南亚经济体的华人商业网络在合同执行和其他市场基础设施方面为正式机构提供了功能性替代品。同样,日本的经济团体(keiretsu)和韩国的财阀(chaebol)可以被视为协调机构,它们支持市场参与者分享技术、提供信贷或签订延长合同的意愿,否则这些合同可能风险太大,无法追求。这种非正式的协调结构承担了东亚事实上的区域化的大部分负担,否则,面对经常限制或不欢迎跨境商业的政府政策,这是无法预料到的。至关重要的是,非正式的公司间网络还包括……
{"title":"The Ambiguous Architecture of Economic Integration in East Asia","authors":"Natasha Hamilton-Hart","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a911615","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a911615","url":null,"abstract":"The Ambiguous Architecture of Economic Integration in East Asia Natasha Hamilton-Hart (bio) Regional economic integration in East Asia has been built on an architecture of ambiguity and informality. A foundational informal architecture of cross-border business ties and business-government relationships has facilitated regional commerce for many decades. Ambiguity has contributed to building formal integration through intergovernmental cooperation because commitments are often only possible due to the flexibility ambiguity provides. In the current moment of heightened tension between the United States and China, the United States is aiming to eliminate areas of ambiguity and flexibility in its growing array of export controls and other policies intended to hamper the acquisition of advanced technology by Chinese entities and \"de-risk\" exposure to China. This essay examines how informality and ambiguity have facilitated the development of East Asian economic regionalization and what this looks like in an environment of U.S.-China rivalry. The De Facto Economic Regional Architecture East Asia has emerged as a robust economic region over the past three decades, as evidenced by the growth of cross-border investment flows and the rise of intraregional trade. Regional trade and investment flows have been organized to reflect the logic of global value chains, sometimes referred to as global production networks, by which the production of goods is dispersed across national boundaries in an effort to realize efficiencies of scale and specialization.1 The rise in trade of intermediate products created a distinctive condition of complex interdependence: firms and national economies are enmeshed in multiple, crosscutting relationships of mutual [End Page 31] dependence that span not only critical inputs and final markets but also technology, logistics, distribution, digital services, and information flows.2 Early analyses of the emerging structure of regional integration in East Asia noted that the de facto regionalization occurring there, even by the 1990s, was different from the European experience in which integration was essentially a product of formal regionalism.3 Formal regionalism meant cooperative commitments by governments to liberalize trade and investment, harmonize standards, and remove other restrictions on the free flow of commerce and people. Regionalization, in contrast, appeared to occur in advance of formal intergovernmental agreements in East Asia and was, in this sense, informal and market-based rather than state-led. In fact, as was clear by the end of the twentieth century, the new structure of integration via global value chains was fundamentally different from that predicted by traditional trade and investment models based on the full production of finished goods, such as washing machines and automobiles.4 Instead, very specific production functions were disbursed geographically, while transactions along the value chain were governed ","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"136 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136205902","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Introduction: Diplomacy and Ambiguity—Constructing Interests in Cooperation 导论:外交与歧义——合作中的利益建构
Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a911617
Wesley Widmaier, Mathew Davies, Lorraine Elliott, Ralf Emmers, Natasha Hamilton-Hart, Wenting He, Beverley Loke, Susan Park
Introduction:Diplomacy and Ambiguity—Constructing Interests in Cooperation Wesley Widmaier (bio), Mathew Davies (bio), Lorraine Elliott (bio), Ralf Emmers (bio), Natasha Hamilton-Hart (bio), Wenting He (bio), Beverley Loke (bio), and Susan Park (bio) [End Page 1] "Diplomacy requires constant adjustment to changing circumstance; it must leave a margin for the unexpected; the unpredictable is what always happens in foreign affairs. Nuance, flexibility, and sometimes ambiguity are the tools of diplomacy." Henry Kissinger1 Scholars and practitioners of Asian diplomacy are well acquainted with notions of "constructive ambiguity," a concept associated most prominently with U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger. Indeed, Kissinger's use of ambiguous language—capable of being interpreted in a range of fashions—enabled what was arguably the most important geopolitical shift of the past half-century.2 Specifically, the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué, issued by the governments of the United States and the People's Republic of [End Page 2] China (PRC), saw the United States affirm "that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China."3 By expressing U.S. views in this fashion, Kissinger elided disagreements over who might govern the "one China" and enabled the United States and the PRC to establish a de facto partnership opposing Soviet influence in Asia. This ambiguity also served to instill a degree of caution in the PRC and Taiwanese governments, leaving U.S. policy regarding any conflict opaque. Even as Kissinger should be faulted for pursuing an amoral realism in regional contexts, his pragmatic courting of interpretive "slack" enabled an era of geopolitical stability. Indeed, one might argue more broadly that key elements of the wider rules-based international order that arose after World War II were themselves based in a pragmatic acceptance of ambiguity, as such ambiguity might ease the process of responding to shifts in security and economic "fundamentals." For example, in place of the classical gold standard that had exacerbated deflationary pressures over the interwar decades, the fixed exchange rates of the Keynesian Bretton Woods framework had a normative component, reflecting a shared commitment to cooperation in pursuit of increased demand and growth. Even where it was recognized that a "fundamental disequilibrium" might compel devaluation, this criterion itself remained ambiguous, providing policymakers a zone of discretion in efforts to maintain growth.4 In this way, policymakers sought less to eliminate ambiguities than to manage them in ways that could buffer security or economic pressures. Nevertheless, such possibilities for the use of constructive ambiguity have been increasingly overlooked in recent decades. Rather than manage ambiguities, policymakers have sought to promote clarity and transparency in a way that can limit or eliminate the scope for interpretive nuance.5 Co
简介:外交与歧义——构建合作中的利益韦斯利·威德迈尔(传记)、马修·戴维斯(传记)、洛林·艾略特(传记)、拉尔夫·埃默斯(传记)、娜塔莎·汉密尔顿-哈特(传记)、何文霆(传记)、贝弗利·洛克(传记)和苏珊·帕克(传记)“外交需要不断调整以适应不断变化的环境;它必须为意外事件留有余地;外交事务中总是发生不可预测的事情。细微差别、灵活性,有时模棱两可是外交的工具。”亚洲外交的学者和实践者对“建设性模糊”的概念非常熟悉,这个概念与美国国务卿亨利·基辛格联系在一起。事实上,基辛格使用的模棱两可的语言——能够以各种方式进行解释——促成了可以说是过去半个世纪最重要的地缘政治转变具体来说,1972年由美国和中华人民共和国政府发表的《上海公报》申明,“台湾海峡两岸的所有中国人都认为只有一个中国,台湾是中国的一部分。”通过以这种方式表达美国的观点,基辛格回避了关于谁可以管理“一个中国”的分歧,并使美国和中国能够建立一种事实上的伙伴关系,反对苏联在亚洲的影响。这种模棱两可也给中国和台湾政府灌输了一定程度的谨慎,使美国对任何冲突的政策都不透明。尽管基辛格在地区背景下追求一种非道德的现实主义应该受到指责,但他对解释性“松弛”的务实追求,使一个地缘政治稳定的时代成为可能。事实上,人们可能会更广泛地认为,二战后出现的更广泛的基于规则的国际秩序的关键要素本身就是基于对模糊性的务实接受,因为这种模糊性可能会缓解应对安全和经济“基本面”变化的过程。例如,凯恩斯布雷顿森林框架的固定汇率取代了在两次世界大战之间的几十年里加剧通缩压力的经典金本位制,它有一个规范的组成部分,反映了共同致力于合作以追求增加的需求和增长。即使在认识到“根本失衡”可能迫使货币贬值的地方,这一标准本身仍然模棱两可,为政策制定者在努力维持增长方面提供了一个自由裁量的空间通过这种方式,政策制定者寻求的不是消除歧义,而是以能够缓冲安全或经济压力的方式管理它们。然而,近几十年来,这种使用建设性歧义的可能性越来越被忽视。政策制定者不是管理含糊不清,而是设法以一种可以限制或消除解释细微差别的范围的方式促进清晰度和透明度考虑一下从基辛格到乔·拜登(Joe Biden)总统对美中关系的态度变化,拜登政府已经从长期以来对美国干预潜在的两岸冲突的模棱两可转向了与台湾日益明确结盟的政策。缺乏模棱两可和不确定性可能导致错误的确定性和过度的冒险,使冲突更有可能发生。同样,冷战后的经济政策制定者将透明度视为市场稳定的关键。例如,前美联储主席艾伦·格林斯潘回忆说,战后的美联储“试图通过使用我们所谓的建设性模糊来培育高流动性的债务市场”,理由是“市场对利率方向的不确定性将创造一个理想的买卖双方的巨大缓冲。”然而,到20世纪90年代初,格林斯潘改变了这一观点,他认为,明确将使“市场参与者……能够预测美联储未来的行动……[从而]稳定债务市场。”当然,这种预期会因2007 - 2009年的全球金融危机而受挫,这表明,错误的市场和政策确定性可能会加剧危机的蔓延和自我强化。可以肯定的是,这并不是说,在某些情况下,透明度可能会有好处。的确,正如杰奎琳·贝斯特(Jacqueline Best)所指出的那样,“太多的模糊性可能会破坏稳定”,因为没有……
{"title":"Introduction: Diplomacy and Ambiguity—Constructing Interests in Cooperation","authors":"Wesley Widmaier, Mathew Davies, Lorraine Elliott, Ralf Emmers, Natasha Hamilton-Hart, Wenting He, Beverley Loke, Susan Park","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a911617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a911617","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction:Diplomacy and Ambiguity—Constructing Interests in Cooperation Wesley Widmaier (bio), Mathew Davies (bio), Lorraine Elliott (bio), Ralf Emmers (bio), Natasha Hamilton-Hart (bio), Wenting He (bio), Beverley Loke (bio), and Susan Park (bio) [End Page 1] \"Diplomacy requires constant adjustment to changing circumstance; it must leave a margin for the unexpected; the unpredictable is what always happens in foreign affairs. Nuance, flexibility, and sometimes ambiguity are the tools of diplomacy.\" Henry Kissinger1 Scholars and practitioners of Asian diplomacy are well acquainted with notions of \"constructive ambiguity,\" a concept associated most prominently with U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger. Indeed, Kissinger's use of ambiguous language—capable of being interpreted in a range of fashions—enabled what was arguably the most important geopolitical shift of the past half-century.2 Specifically, the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué, issued by the governments of the United States and the People's Republic of [End Page 2] China (PRC), saw the United States affirm \"that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.\"3 By expressing U.S. views in this fashion, Kissinger elided disagreements over who might govern the \"one China\" and enabled the United States and the PRC to establish a de facto partnership opposing Soviet influence in Asia. This ambiguity also served to instill a degree of caution in the PRC and Taiwanese governments, leaving U.S. policy regarding any conflict opaque. Even as Kissinger should be faulted for pursuing an amoral realism in regional contexts, his pragmatic courting of interpretive \"slack\" enabled an era of geopolitical stability. Indeed, one might argue more broadly that key elements of the wider rules-based international order that arose after World War II were themselves based in a pragmatic acceptance of ambiguity, as such ambiguity might ease the process of responding to shifts in security and economic \"fundamentals.\" For example, in place of the classical gold standard that had exacerbated deflationary pressures over the interwar decades, the fixed exchange rates of the Keynesian Bretton Woods framework had a normative component, reflecting a shared commitment to cooperation in pursuit of increased demand and growth. Even where it was recognized that a \"fundamental disequilibrium\" might compel devaluation, this criterion itself remained ambiguous, providing policymakers a zone of discretion in efforts to maintain growth.4 In this way, policymakers sought less to eliminate ambiguities than to manage them in ways that could buffer security or economic pressures. Nevertheless, such possibilities for the use of constructive ambiguity have been increasingly overlooked in recent decades. Rather than manage ambiguities, policymakers have sought to promote clarity and transparency in a way that can limit or eliminate the scope for interpretive nuance.5 Co","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"136 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136205892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Ambiguity and Decarbonization Pathways in Southeast Asia 东南亚地区的模糊性与脱碳途径
Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a911614
Lorraine Elliott
Ambiguity and Decarbonization Pathways in Southeast Asia Lorraine Elliott (bio) In a 2023 keynote address on Southeast Asian energy transitions, Asian Development Bank vice president Ahmed Saeed argued that the complexity of climate change mitigation and adaptation would require the region to become "comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity."1 This essay examines what that uncertainty and ambiguity looks like as members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) commit to transition to low-carbon economies under the provisions of the 2015 Paris Agreement that was adopted under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). While the "plurality of meanings" that created space for "more than one interpretation"2—i.e., constructive ambiguity—was strategically important for reaching international consensus on the Paris Agreement, it has at times proved counterproductive in the determination and governance of decarbonization modalities across ASEAN. As this essay will demonstrate, decarbonization ambiguity in Southeast Asia can be characterized as "the type of uncertainty that emerges from complexity,"3 in this case the bio-physical complexity of climate systems and the technological, social, and economic complexities and uncertainties of climate mitigation pathways and outcomes. Constructive ambiguity as a diplomatic strategy and possible governance modality is implicated in pathway and outcome ambiguities. This runs the risk of sending conflicting messages to both public- and private-sector stakeholders that can result in risk-averse responses, ineffective policy measures, or even policy paralysis in the face of complexity and uncertainty.4 [End Page 11] Constructive Ambiguity in the Climate Governance Context Under the Paris Agreement, parties committed, in principle, to ambitious efforts to keep global average temperatures "well below" 2ºC degrees above pre-industrial levels with the hope of limiting this to 1.5ºC.5 In pursuit of that goal, Article 4 of the agreement calls for a "global peaking" of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and a "balance between anthropogenic emissions…and removals" in the second half of this century, a goal that is usually referred to as "net-zero."6 Several provisions in the Paris Agreement are deliberately or strategically ambiguous on how that ambition—itself a conceptually elusive term—might be operationalized and governed. This is relevant, for example, to Article 4 on whether a weakening or rollback of individual country mitigation commitments is permissible (though most commentators suggest that it is not),7 Article 6 on environmental integrity and voluntary cooperation on non-market approaches to internationally transferred mitigation outcomes,8 Article 9.1 on climate finance,9 and to the more general UNFCCC provisions on loss and damage.10 Aysha Fleming and Mark Howden make the case for embracing this kind of ambiguity, seeing value in "multiple knowledge spheres
在2023年关于东南亚能源转型的主题演讲中,亚洲开发银行副行长艾哈迈德·赛义德(Ahmed Saeed)认为,减缓和适应气候变化的复杂性要求该地区“适应不确定性和模糊性”。本文考察了东南亚国家联盟(东盟)成员国在《联合国气候变化框架公约》(UNFCCC)主持下通过的2015年《巴黎协定》的规定下承诺向低碳经济过渡时,这种不确定性和模糊性是什么样子的。而“多重意义”为“不止一种解释”创造了空间。建设性的模棱两可——对于就《巴黎协定》达成国际共识具有重要的战略意义,但有时在东盟各国确定和治理脱碳模式方面被证明是适得其反的。正如本文将展示的那样,东南亚脱碳的模糊性可以被描述为“从复杂性中产生的不确定性类型”,3在这种情况下,气候系统的生物物理复杂性以及气候缓解途径和结果的技术、社会和经济复杂性和不确定性。建设性歧义作为一种外交策略和可能的治理方式,涉及路径歧义和结果歧义。这有可能向公共和私营部门利益攸关方传递相互矛盾的信息,从而导致风险规避反应、政策措施无效,甚至在复杂性和不确定性面前导致政策瘫痪。在《巴黎协定》框架下,各方原则上承诺做出雄心勃勃的努力,将全球平均气温保持在比工业化前水平“远低于”2摄氏度的水平,并希望将其限制在1.5摄氏度以内为了实现这一目标,《巴黎气候协定》第四条要求温室气体排放尽快达到“全球峰值”,并在本世纪下半叶达到“人为排放与消除之间的平衡”,这一目标通常被称为“净零排放”。“《巴黎协定》中的一些条款有意或策略性地模糊了如何实现和管理这一雄心——这本身就是一个难以捉摸的概念。例如,第四条关于是否允许削弱或回调个别国家的减缓承诺(尽管大多数评论员认为不允许),第七条关于环境完整性和以非市场方法实现国际转让的减缓成果的自愿合作,第八条关于气候资金,第九条,以及更一般的《联合国气候变化框架公约》关于损失和损害的规定都是相关的艾莎·弗莱明(Aysha Fleming)和马克·豪登(Mark Howden)提出了接受这种模糊性的理由,认为“多种知识领域和不同价值观的合法性”具有价值,在气候治理的背景下,这种价值可以带来新的、多种的行动方式其他人则不那么肯定。Florian Rabitz等人担心,模棱两可的技术——那些不清楚它们是否会产生跨界环境危害或提供管理环境风险的能力的技术——将涉及治理的不确定性和制度的漂移,这反过来可能导致政治上的不作为和疏忽Vegard Tørstad和Vegard Wiborg对缔约方减排承诺的深入研究表明,“模糊性导致[减排]目标降低”13,David Ciplet等人认为,“气候融资规范如何制度化的模糊性”削弱了问责机制14迈克尔·梅林(Michael Mehling)甚至更直言不讳:他认为,《巴黎协定》中“措辞稀疏、……未定义或模糊的概念”的程度“毫无帮助”。2018年在卡托维兹举行的《联合国气候变化框架公约》第24次缔约方会议通过了所谓的《巴黎规则手册》,其中包含了实施《巴黎协定》减缓目标的指导方针,这是一个官僚程序,可以被解读为类似于贝斯特的“减少模糊性的机器”。16《巴黎协定》的关键模式之一是国家自主贡献(NDC),它要求缔约方以五年滚动周期通报其2020年后的气候承诺,包括减少温室气体排放。《巴黎规则手册》呼吁国家自主贡献包括……
{"title":"Ambiguity and Decarbonization Pathways in Southeast Asia","authors":"Lorraine Elliott","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a911614","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a911614","url":null,"abstract":"Ambiguity and Decarbonization Pathways in Southeast Asia Lorraine Elliott (bio) In a 2023 keynote address on Southeast Asian energy transitions, Asian Development Bank vice president Ahmed Saeed argued that the complexity of climate change mitigation and adaptation would require the region to become \"comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity.\"1 This essay examines what that uncertainty and ambiguity looks like as members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) commit to transition to low-carbon economies under the provisions of the 2015 Paris Agreement that was adopted under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). While the \"plurality of meanings\" that created space for \"more than one interpretation\"2—i.e., constructive ambiguity—was strategically important for reaching international consensus on the Paris Agreement, it has at times proved counterproductive in the determination and governance of decarbonization modalities across ASEAN. As this essay will demonstrate, decarbonization ambiguity in Southeast Asia can be characterized as \"the type of uncertainty that emerges from complexity,\"3 in this case the bio-physical complexity of climate systems and the technological, social, and economic complexities and uncertainties of climate mitigation pathways and outcomes. Constructive ambiguity as a diplomatic strategy and possible governance modality is implicated in pathway and outcome ambiguities. This runs the risk of sending conflicting messages to both public- and private-sector stakeholders that can result in risk-averse responses, ineffective policy measures, or even policy paralysis in the face of complexity and uncertainty.4 [End Page 11] Constructive Ambiguity in the Climate Governance Context Under the Paris Agreement, parties committed, in principle, to ambitious efforts to keep global average temperatures \"well below\" 2ºC degrees above pre-industrial levels with the hope of limiting this to 1.5ºC.5 In pursuit of that goal, Article 4 of the agreement calls for a \"global peaking\" of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and a \"balance between anthropogenic emissions…and removals\" in the second half of this century, a goal that is usually referred to as \"net-zero.\"6 Several provisions in the Paris Agreement are deliberately or strategically ambiguous on how that ambition—itself a conceptually elusive term—might be operationalized and governed. This is relevant, for example, to Article 4 on whether a weakening or rollback of individual country mitigation commitments is permissible (though most commentators suggest that it is not),7 Article 6 on environmental integrity and voluntary cooperation on non-market approaches to internationally transferred mitigation outcomes,8 Article 9.1 on climate finance,9 and to the more general UNFCCC provisions on loss and damage.10 Aysha Fleming and Mark Howden make the case for embracing this kind of ambiguity, seeing value in \"multiple knowledge spheres ","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"127 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136205890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Ambiguity and National Interests: Foreign Policy Frames and U.S.-China Relations 模棱两可与国家利益:外交政策框架与美中关系
Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a911616
Wenting He, Wesley Widmaier
Ambiguity and National Interests:Foreign Policy Frames and U.S.-China Relations Wenting He (bio) and Wesley Widmaier (bio) In early 2023, one might have been excused for expecting that a downward turn in U.S.-China relations would only accelerate. Indeed, two years earlier in January 2021, despite Joe Biden's 2020 presidential campaign having cast Donald Trump as a threat to the "soul of this nation,"1 Biden's nominee for secretary of state, Antony Blinken, singled out Trump's China policy for praise. In his confirmation hearings, Blinken declared that "Trump was right in taking a tougher approach to China."2 Over the Biden administration's first two years, U.S.-China relations accordingly maintained a broadly confrontational tone. While the administration dropped the crudely nativist language of the Trump administration, it substituted instead the crusading narrative of a global struggle between democratic and authoritarian regimes. This approach would be reinforced by an initially cool diplomatic tone toward China, spanning a tense bilateral meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, in March 2021 to the postponement of Blinken's February 2023 visit to China, prompted by the dispatch of a Chinese spy balloon into U.S. airspace. Nevertheless, one could go too far in anticipating an accelerating decline. Despite tensions over specific technological exchanges, the Biden administration has also persistently rejected wider arguments for a "decoupling" of the U.S. and Chinese economies, seeking to place a floor under any broader decline in relations. Indeed, in April 2023, [End Page 41] Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen attracted considerable attention with a speech at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies that, while acknowledging the primacy of security concerns, warned against any attempt to decouple the two economies, even holding out hope for the possibility of economic and environmental cooperation.3 Further, in July 2023, Yellen visited Beijing, where she stressed the need for joint U.S.-China leadership in addressing common interests concerning the global macroeconomy, developing country debt, and climate change. This essay suggests that the coexistence of Blinken-styled tensions and Yellen-styled accommodation encapsulates a more enduring feature of U.S.-China relations. Throughout interpretations of policy challenges, "zero-sum" framings, which draw on security discourses and trade metaphors to highlight concerns for relative position, have existed in tension with oft-overlooked "positive-sum" framings that reflect Keynesian perspectives that stress the need for cooperation in the face of uncertainty and instability. To enable an understanding of these tensions, this essay offers an analysis highlighting the ambiguity of national interests, which are in turn shaped by agents acting as interpretive practitioners who construct events in ways that shape interests in cooperation or conflict.4 To draw attention to the overlooked
在2023年初,人们可能会有理由期待美中关系的下滑只会加速。事实上,两年前的2021年1月,尽管乔·拜登(Joe Biden)在2020年的总统竞选中将唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)描绘成对“这个国家灵魂”的威胁,但拜登提名的国务卿安东尼·布林肯(Antony Blinken)还是单独称赞了特朗普的中国政策。在他的确认听证会上,布林肯宣称“特朗普对中国采取更强硬的态度是正确的。”在拜登政府的头两年里,美中关系相应地保持了一种广泛的对抗性基调。虽然奥巴马政府放弃了特朗普政府粗暴的本土主义语言,但取而代之的是民主与威权政权之间全球斗争的十字军叙事。从2021年3月在阿拉斯加州安克雷奇举行的紧张双边会议,到布林肯总统2023年2月因中国向美国领空发射间谍气球而推迟对中国的访问,最初对中国的冷淡外交基调将加强这种做法。然而,预测经济加速下滑可能有些过头了。尽管在具体的技术交流问题上存在紧张关系,但拜登政府也一直拒绝接受有关中美经济“脱钩”的更广泛的论点,试图为两国关系的任何更广泛的恶化设定底线。事实上,在2023年4月,美国财政部长珍妮特·耶伦在约翰霍普金斯大学高级国际研究学院的一次演讲引起了相当大的关注,她承认安全问题是首要的,但警告不要试图使两国经济脱钩,甚至对经济和环境合作的可能性抱有希望此外,在2023年7月,耶伦访问了北京,在那里她强调了美中在解决全球宏观经济、发展中国家债务和气候变化等共同利益方面的联合领导的必要性。本文认为,布林肯式的紧张和耶伦式的妥协并存,概括了美中关系的一个更持久的特征。在对政策挑战的解读中,利用安全话语和贸易隐喻来强调相对地位的“零和”框架与经常被忽视的“正和”框架存在矛盾,后者反映了凯恩斯主义的观点,强调在面对不确定性和不稳定时需要合作。为了能够理解这些紧张关系,本文提供了一个分析,强调了国家利益的模糊性,而国家利益反过来又由作为解释实践者的代理人塑造,他们以塑造合作或冲突中的利益的方式构建事件为了使人们注意到美中合作被忽视的潜力,我们特别提到持久的凯恩斯主义框架,该框架引导各国认识到合作应对共同威胁的共同利益。此外,即使这种倾向起源于经济领域,我们认为这种合作潜力可能超越经济学,因为凯恩斯主义思想导致各国在全球经济治理中确定共同利益,也可能影响全球环境治理的利益。追踪这些动态,本文叙述了美国与中国合作的辩论,强调了“新凯恩斯主义”经济学家和长期政策制定者珍妮特耶伦在经济和环境问题上的作用。美国国家利益的模糊性是不同政策制定者偏好的结果,这可以从耶伦在全球问题上与中国合作的凯恩斯主义方法中看出。特别是与最近的经济外交方法形成对比,这些方法跨越了特朗普政府重商主义式的对国际收支的强调,以及拜登政府人物(如国务卿布林肯和国家安全顾问杰克·沙利文)更有针对性的以安全为重点的方法。首先,本文研究了20世纪90年代中期关于亚洲金融危机、《京都议定书》和中国加入世界贸易组织(WTO)的辩论。关注耶伦的凯恩斯主义立场,强调潜在全球公共产品的存在;其次,它解决了2008年全球金融危机,耶伦认为这可能是美国联合行动的动力……
{"title":"Ambiguity and National Interests: Foreign Policy Frames and U.S.-China Relations","authors":"Wenting He, Wesley Widmaier","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a911616","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a911616","url":null,"abstract":"Ambiguity and National Interests:Foreign Policy Frames and U.S.-China Relations Wenting He (bio) and Wesley Widmaier (bio) In early 2023, one might have been excused for expecting that a downward turn in U.S.-China relations would only accelerate. Indeed, two years earlier in January 2021, despite Joe Biden's 2020 presidential campaign having cast Donald Trump as a threat to the \"soul of this nation,\"1 Biden's nominee for secretary of state, Antony Blinken, singled out Trump's China policy for praise. In his confirmation hearings, Blinken declared that \"Trump was right in taking a tougher approach to China.\"2 Over the Biden administration's first two years, U.S.-China relations accordingly maintained a broadly confrontational tone. While the administration dropped the crudely nativist language of the Trump administration, it substituted instead the crusading narrative of a global struggle between democratic and authoritarian regimes. This approach would be reinforced by an initially cool diplomatic tone toward China, spanning a tense bilateral meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, in March 2021 to the postponement of Blinken's February 2023 visit to China, prompted by the dispatch of a Chinese spy balloon into U.S. airspace. Nevertheless, one could go too far in anticipating an accelerating decline. Despite tensions over specific technological exchanges, the Biden administration has also persistently rejected wider arguments for a \"decoupling\" of the U.S. and Chinese economies, seeking to place a floor under any broader decline in relations. Indeed, in April 2023, [End Page 41] Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen attracted considerable attention with a speech at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies that, while acknowledging the primacy of security concerns, warned against any attempt to decouple the two economies, even holding out hope for the possibility of economic and environmental cooperation.3 Further, in July 2023, Yellen visited Beijing, where she stressed the need for joint U.S.-China leadership in addressing common interests concerning the global macroeconomy, developing country debt, and climate change. This essay suggests that the coexistence of Blinken-styled tensions and Yellen-styled accommodation encapsulates a more enduring feature of U.S.-China relations. Throughout interpretations of policy challenges, \"zero-sum\" framings, which draw on security discourses and trade metaphors to highlight concerns for relative position, have existed in tension with oft-overlooked \"positive-sum\" framings that reflect Keynesian perspectives that stress the need for cooperation in the face of uncertainty and instability. To enable an understanding of these tensions, this essay offers an analysis highlighting the ambiguity of national interests, which are in turn shaped by agents acting as interpretive practitioners who construct events in ways that shape interests in cooperation or conflict.4 To draw attention to the overlooked","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136205893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
India's Foreign Policy and the Ethic of Responsibility 印度的外交政策与责任伦理
Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a911622
India's Foreign Policy and the Ethic of Responsibility Ian Hall (bio) Classical realism was formulated in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s to tackle a pressing problem: how to reconcile democratic politics with power politics. Most classical realists valued democracy as the form of government most likely to protect rights, uphold freedoms, and enable a majority of citizens to flourish.1 But at the same time, they observed that democracies often pursue foreign policies that are ill-conceived or downright dangerous.2 For this reason, classical realists lamented that democratic leaders are frequently outmaneuvered by authoritarians better schooled in the dark arts of international relations. Rajesh Basrur's excellent book Subcontinental Drift: Domestic Politics and India's Foreign Policy responds to a similar challenge. This time, however, it is faced by India, a rising power whose foreign policy is "periodically afflicted" by "uncertainty and indecisiveness" (p. 1). Basrur's concern is the mismatch between India's ambition and its mixed record of success in the post–Cold War world. He argues the problems stem from domestic political constraints and the "limitations" of India's policies and policymakers (p. xi). If the postwar classical realists looked at India today, they would likely agree. They also blamed subpar foreign policies on domestic politics, which in democracies can empower poor leaders and flimsy ideas. They pointed to strategies like isolationism and appeasement, championed by popular politicians and widely supported in the interwar years but which undermined the capacity of democratic states to deter aggression and defend [End Page 116] their citizens when conflict eventually erupted.3 Even when it comes to their own security, the classical realists complained, democratic leaders and peoples can be feckless and reckless. Sometimes they were naive. At other times, they were prone to crusading moralism and ideological dogmatism, which could have even worse effects on national security and international order than simple idealism.4 For Basrur, the shortcomings with foreign policymaking in India—in particular, the causes of "policy drift," in which necessary action is not taken or is performed suboptimally—are more quotidian. He shows how they can and do arise from the messiness of coalition politics, the complexities of federalism, and elite irresponsibility. But the consequences of these shortcomings, as his book shows, are still serious, and analysts and policymakers need to understand them properly if they are to remedy them effectively. Subcontinental Drift contributes to this effort by examining four episodes in India's foreign policy with the help of neoclassical realism, which draws inspiration from its classical forebear to explain state behavior in international relations.5 Each case study is impeccably argued. Basrur finds evidence for what he terms "involuntary drift" in the long struggle to secure support for the U.S
经典现实主义在20世纪40年代和50年代在美国形成,以解决一个紧迫的问题:如何调和民主政治与强权政治。大多数古典现实主义者认为民主是最有可能保护权利、维护自由和使大多数公民富裕的政府形式但与此同时,他们也注意到,民主国家的外交政策往往考虑不周,甚至是彻头彻尾的危险出于这个原因,古典现实主义者哀叹,民主领导人经常被在国际关系的黑暗艺术中受过更好教育的独裁者所打败。拉杰什•巴斯鲁的优秀著作《次大陆漂移:国内政治与印度外交政策》回应了类似的挑战。然而,这一次,它面对的是印度,一个正在崛起的大国,其外交政策“周期性地受到”“不确定性和优柔寡断”的折磨(第1页)。Basrur关注的是印度的雄心与其在后冷战世界中喜忧参半的成功记录之间的不匹配。他认为,这些问题源于国内政治约束以及印度政策和决策者的“局限性”。如果战后的古典现实主义者看看今天的印度,他们可能会同意这一观点。他们还将低劣的外交政策归咎于国内政治,因为在民主国家,国内政治可能会让糟糕的领导人和脆弱的想法获得权力。他们指出了孤立主义和绥靖政策等策略,这些策略受到流行政治家的拥护,并在两次世界大战之间的年代得到广泛支持,但当冲突最终爆发时,这些策略削弱了民主国家遏制侵略和保护公民的能力古典现实主义者抱怨说,即使涉及到自己的安全问题,民主国家的领导人和人民也可能无能为力,不计后果。有时他们很天真。在其他时候,他们倾向于十字军般的道德主义和意识形态教条主义,这对国家安全和国际秩序的影响比单纯的理想主义更严重对于Basrur来说,印度外交政策制定的缺点——特别是“政策漂移”的原因,即没有采取必要的行动或执行得不够理想——是司空见惯的。他展示了这些问题是如何从混乱的联合政治、复杂的联邦制和精英的不负责任中产生的。但正如他在书中所指出的,这些缺陷的后果仍然很严重,分析师和政策制定者如果要有效地补救这些问题,就需要正确地理解它们。《次大陆漂移》在新古典现实主义的帮助下研究了印度外交政策的四个片段,从而有助于这一努力,新古典现实主义从其古典前辈那里获得灵感,以解释国际关系中的国家行为每个案例研究都有无可挑剔的论证。巴斯鲁发现了他所说的“非自愿漂移”的证据,包括在争取美印核协议获得支持的长期斗争中,以及在斯里兰卡内战后期,新德里对与科伦坡的双边关系处理不当。他认为,在这两种情况下,新德里的行动自由都受到了很大程度上超出其控制范围的环境的限制:主要是一个四分五裂的议会,给了小党派过大的影响力。在后两个案例中,Basrur发现了印度核战略悬而未决的故事中“自愿漂移”的迹象,以及在2008年11月孟买袭击之前,印度未能为大规模伤亡的恐怖袭击做好充分准备。他认为,在这里,领导者有足够的控制权来进行必要的变革,但未能负责任地行事(第111页)。他认为,印度的政客们早就有办法建立一个明确的核战略,但却没有这样做,这导致了既定原则与不断发展的能力之间出现了不一致。同样,Basrur声称,印度领导人可以也应该注意到藏在巴基斯坦的激进伊斯兰组织所构成的威胁的警告。然而,他们并没有采取行动解决国内安全的明显弱点,而是把精力集中在迫使伊斯兰堡停止秘密支持恐怖主义的徒劳尝试上。这些论点精雕细琢,令人信服。然而,次大陆漂移的理论创新也值得探讨。特别是,Basrur重新引入了对政策制定和执行的分析的规范维度,这是工作中一直存在的……
{"title":"India's Foreign Policy and the Ethic of Responsibility","authors":"","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a911622","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a911622","url":null,"abstract":"India's Foreign Policy and the Ethic of Responsibility Ian Hall (bio) Classical realism was formulated in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s to tackle a pressing problem: how to reconcile democratic politics with power politics. Most classical realists valued democracy as the form of government most likely to protect rights, uphold freedoms, and enable a majority of citizens to flourish.1 But at the same time, they observed that democracies often pursue foreign policies that are ill-conceived or downright dangerous.2 For this reason, classical realists lamented that democratic leaders are frequently outmaneuvered by authoritarians better schooled in the dark arts of international relations. Rajesh Basrur's excellent book Subcontinental Drift: Domestic Politics and India's Foreign Policy responds to a similar challenge. This time, however, it is faced by India, a rising power whose foreign policy is \"periodically afflicted\" by \"uncertainty and indecisiveness\" (p. 1). Basrur's concern is the mismatch between India's ambition and its mixed record of success in the post–Cold War world. He argues the problems stem from domestic political constraints and the \"limitations\" of India's policies and policymakers (p. xi). If the postwar classical realists looked at India today, they would likely agree. They also blamed subpar foreign policies on domestic politics, which in democracies can empower poor leaders and flimsy ideas. They pointed to strategies like isolationism and appeasement, championed by popular politicians and widely supported in the interwar years but which undermined the capacity of democratic states to deter aggression and defend [End Page 116] their citizens when conflict eventually erupted.3 Even when it comes to their own security, the classical realists complained, democratic leaders and peoples can be feckless and reckless. Sometimes they were naive. At other times, they were prone to crusading moralism and ideological dogmatism, which could have even worse effects on national security and international order than simple idealism.4 For Basrur, the shortcomings with foreign policymaking in India—in particular, the causes of \"policy drift,\" in which necessary action is not taken or is performed suboptimally—are more quotidian. He shows how they can and do arise from the messiness of coalition politics, the complexities of federalism, and elite irresponsibility. But the consequences of these shortcomings, as his book shows, are still serious, and analysts and policymakers need to understand them properly if they are to remedy them effectively. Subcontinental Drift contributes to this effort by examining four episodes in India's foreign policy with the help of neoclassical realism, which draws inspiration from its classical forebear to explain state behavior in international relations.5 Each case study is impeccably argued. Basrur finds evidence for what he terms \"involuntary drift\" in the long struggle to secure support for the U.S","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136205901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Meeting in the Middle? Multilateral Development Finance, China, and Norm Harmonization 在中间开会?多边发展金融、中国与规范协调
Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a911619
Susan Park
Meeting in the Middle?Multilateral Development Finance, China, and Norm Harmonization Susan Park (bio) International norms are strong when they are taken for granted and followed automatically.1 Through contestation, norms may erode over time as challengers focus on how to procedurally follow the norm or substantively interrogate the idea itself.2 Some scholars have observed that norms may be contested because actors can seek to reject, revise, or deny the purpose of the norm.3 Yet norms can prove resilient and robust even in the face of opposition, highlighting the importance of structural factors as they relate to a norm's embeddedness, institutionalization, and legal character.4 In the 1990s, China was viewed as a novice in multilateral forums, and it was hoped that China would be socialized into international norm adherence through engagement in multilateral economic and security settings.5 Decades on, China is now promoting and changing international norms within multilateral institutions that may fundamentally reshape how finance, trade, development, and energy policy are practiced.6 [End Page 61] The scholarship on China and norms has emphasized its role shifting from being a norm-taker to a norm-maker.7 This essay examines how China's changing role in multilateral development finance is opening an ambiguous space for the reconciliation of a variety of development finance norms with Chinese practices, specifically through inside and outside pathways that could lead to norm harmonization. The first section looks at how China is fundamentally reshaping traditional, Western-led multilateral development finance. The section examines the institutions created by China to pursue Beijing's own international development agenda. The essay then unpacks how responses to Chinese development finance are reshaping Western activities that open the way for harmonizing some multilateral development norms, such as environmental protection. The question remains as to whether this harmonization process will lead to China leveling up to meet international norms, whether certain norms may weaken to enable China to follow them, or whether China and these norms may meet somewhere in the middle. For decades, international development was driven by the Western-led Bretton Woods institutions—the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Highlighting how policy norms could be taken up and diffused to borrowers,8 the IMF and World Bank promoted neoliberal "Washington Consensus" policies in the 1980s, which morphed into the post–Washington Consensus approach in the 1990s to incorporate good governance, gender, development, environmental, and social protection norms, among others. Although this approach experienced some decline following the global financial crisis,9 the IMF and World Bank remain engaged in maintaining the neoliberal economic paradigm they constructed in their activities.10 International political economy scholars have noted how China's promo
在中间开会?多边发展金融、中国和规范协调Susan Park(生物)当国际规范被视为理所当然并自动遵循时,它是强大的通过争论,规范可能会随着时间的推移而削弱,因为挑战者关注的是如何在程序上遵循规范或从实质上质疑理念本身一些学者观察到,规范可能会受到质疑,因为行为者可以试图拒绝、修改或否认规范的目的然而,即使面对反对,规范也可以证明是有弹性和强健的,这突出了结构性因素的重要性,因为它们与规范的嵌入性、制度化和法律特征有关在20世纪90年代,中国被视为多边论坛的新手,并希望通过参与多边经济和安全环境,中国能够融入社会,遵守国际规范几十年来,中国正在推动和改变多边机构内的国际准则,这些准则可能从根本上重塑金融、贸易、发展和能源政策的实施方式。关于中国和规范的研究强调了其角色从规范接受者到规范制定者的转变本文考察了中国在多边发展金融中的角色变化如何为各种发展金融规范与中国实践的调和打开了一个模糊的空间,特别是通过可能导致规范协调的内部和外部途径。第一部分着眼于中国如何从根本上重塑传统的、西方主导的多边发展金融。本节探讨了中国为追求自己的国际发展议程而创建的机构。然后,文章揭示了对中国发展融资的反应如何重塑了西方的活动,这些活动为协调一些多边发展规范(如环境保护)开辟了道路。问题仍然是,这种协调过程是否会导致中国升级以符合国际规范,某些规范是否会削弱以使中国能够遵循它们,或者中国是否会在中间的某个地方与这些规范相遇。几十年来,国际发展是由西方主导的布雷顿森林机构——国际货币基金组织(IMF)和世界银行——推动的。国际货币基金组织和世界银行在20世纪80年代推广了新自由主义的“华盛顿共识”政策,强调了政策规范如何被接受并传播给借款人8,这些政策在20世纪90年代演变成后华盛顿共识方法,将善治、性别、发展、环境和社会保护规范等纳入其中。虽然这种方法在全球金融危机之后有所下降,但国际货币基金组织和世界银行仍然致力于维护他们在其活动中构建的新自由主义经济范式国际政治经济学学者已经注意到,中国对国际发展的推动与国际货币基金组织和世界银行提供的新自由主义处方在根本上是不一致的,而这些处方得到了西方的大力支持。从本质上讲,中国在强调资本主义模式的同时,推行了一种强有力的新国家主义发展方式,这种发展方式以中国倡导南南合作、不干涉和国家主权的准则为基础。当然,这只是中国如何促进国际发展的表面描述。除了北京提出的“一带一路”倡议(BRI)之外,中国银行的开发贷款的绝对数量和不同模式远远超过了多边开发金融机构所推动的贷款此外,被Gregory Chin和Kevin Gallagher称为“协调信贷空间”的推广方法展示了中国如何向发展项目以及债权人和项目供应商提供信贷。13 .中国全面、全面的发展贷款模式与布雷顿森林机构的条件限制有着根本的不同(批评人士认为这助长了中国的债务陷阱外交)中国的支持不仅涵盖单一的、现有的项目,还可能将这些国家锁定在尚未可行的进一步项目中,从而导致资源协议贷款。更广泛地说,中国可能会向从未成为西方贷款目标的国家提供贷款中国的开发贷款活动产生了三方面的影响:首先,它们影响了现有的多边开发机构改变其开发贷款做法;其次,他们……
{"title":"Meeting in the Middle? Multilateral Development Finance, China, and Norm Harmonization","authors":"Susan Park","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a911619","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a911619","url":null,"abstract":"Meeting in the Middle?Multilateral Development Finance, China, and Norm Harmonization Susan Park (bio) International norms are strong when they are taken for granted and followed automatically.1 Through contestation, norms may erode over time as challengers focus on how to procedurally follow the norm or substantively interrogate the idea itself.2 Some scholars have observed that norms may be contested because actors can seek to reject, revise, or deny the purpose of the norm.3 Yet norms can prove resilient and robust even in the face of opposition, highlighting the importance of structural factors as they relate to a norm's embeddedness, institutionalization, and legal character.4 In the 1990s, China was viewed as a novice in multilateral forums, and it was hoped that China would be socialized into international norm adherence through engagement in multilateral economic and security settings.5 Decades on, China is now promoting and changing international norms within multilateral institutions that may fundamentally reshape how finance, trade, development, and energy policy are practiced.6 [End Page 61] The scholarship on China and norms has emphasized its role shifting from being a norm-taker to a norm-maker.7 This essay examines how China's changing role in multilateral development finance is opening an ambiguous space for the reconciliation of a variety of development finance norms with Chinese practices, specifically through inside and outside pathways that could lead to norm harmonization. The first section looks at how China is fundamentally reshaping traditional, Western-led multilateral development finance. The section examines the institutions created by China to pursue Beijing's own international development agenda. The essay then unpacks how responses to Chinese development finance are reshaping Western activities that open the way for harmonizing some multilateral development norms, such as environmental protection. The question remains as to whether this harmonization process will lead to China leveling up to meet international norms, whether certain norms may weaken to enable China to follow them, or whether China and these norms may meet somewhere in the middle. For decades, international development was driven by the Western-led Bretton Woods institutions—the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Highlighting how policy norms could be taken up and diffused to borrowers,8 the IMF and World Bank promoted neoliberal \"Washington Consensus\" policies in the 1980s, which morphed into the post–Washington Consensus approach in the 1990s to incorporate good governance, gender, development, environmental, and social protection norms, among others. Although this approach experienced some decline following the global financial crisis,9 the IMF and World Bank remain engaged in maintaining the neoliberal economic paradigm they constructed in their activities.10 International political economy scholars have noted how China's promo","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136205897","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Asia Policy
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1