{"title":"澳大利亚-东盟关系:特殊关系","authors":"Aries A. Arugay","doi":"10.1111/aspp.12744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Regions are social constructs. What constitutes “Asia” is an evolving label and the region's consensual name has evolved over the decades. This can be thorny debate and the current campaign to decolonize epistemic handles has led to interesting discourses on why the region is now more called “Indo-Pacific” than Asia-Pacific, for example.</p><p>Last month, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Australia commemorated its 50th year of diplomatic relations with a special summit that gathered leaders and sectoral members of these two important entities. The meeting had the increasing regional uncertainty and turbulence as its backdrop. The United States (US)-China rivalry remains a strategic challenge that both ASEAN and Australia must face together.</p><p>As a long standing partner, Australia is perceived to be one of the more reliable and dependable partners of Southeast Asian states individually and ASEAN collectively. Australia has cultivated comprehensive and strategic partnerships with ASEAN member-states, invested heavily in economic, security, and people-to-people exchanges. Unlike other major powers, its visibility and reliability was seldom questioned by ASEAN. What was notable is Australia's perspective of the relationship with ASEAN as one that is defined by equanimity, mutual respect, reciprocity, and shared values. As Australia has regularly declared, its interest and therefore identity is with the Asia-Pacific. It has consistently matched this rhetoric with concrete actions and investment in the region. Australia has also been seen as a middle power who genuinely listens to Southeast Asian states and uses them as inputs for meaningful engagement.</p><p><i>Asian Politics & Policy</i> has provided the epistemic space to probe intro Australia's relationship with Asia. For example, Kim and Raswant (<span>2023</span>) looked into Australia's relationship with South Korea as another important pillar in buttressing the former's Indo-Pacific strategy. On the other hand, Snyder (<span>2015</span>) studied the Australia-Malaysia relationship and how closer security cooperation has improved bilateral relations previously defined by thorny sociopolitical issues. Finally, Taylor (<span>2020</span>) examined Australia's Indo-Pacific concept and how it seeks to engage it as a middle power. His conclusion that Australia should strategize its engagement in the region with careful monitoring and tempered patience has been the middle power's paradigm as it seeks to further enhance its relationship with ASEAN.</p><p>Our April 2024 issue continues this scholarly gaze on Australia's engagement with the Asia-Pacific. Yoshimatsu and Maso (<span>2024</span>) differentiated between Australia and China's economic relationship with Pacific Island countries. Contrary to China, they argued that Australia employed economic statecraft defined by multilateralism and normative considerations. Dell'Era and Martín (<span>2024</span>) compared two alliances: US-Japan and ANZUS and the role played by middle powers like Australia. They found that Australia acted more as a normative power in these military alliances by mobilizing ideas that promote a particular international order and strategic vision.</p><p>Other research articles delved into topics such as the local COVID-19 response in Bangladesh and the impact of domestic party politics in Japan's defense policy in Southeast Asia. We are also featuring three Policy Reviews that covered South Korea's Official Development Assistance, philanthropy in Wuhan during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Great Eurasian Partnership.</p><p>Chinese Translation:</p><p><b>编者按</b></p><p>澳大利亚-东盟关系:特殊关系</p><p>区域是一个社会建构的概念。“亚洲”的构成是一个不断演变的标签,该地区的共识名称在过去几十年里不断演变。这可能是一场棘手的辩论,而当前对“认知工具”的去殖民化运动引发了有趣的讨论,例如为何该地区现在更多地被称为“印度-太平洋”而不是亚太地区。</p><p>上个月,东南亚国家联盟(东盟)和澳大利亚举行了一次特别峰会,纪念双边建交50周年,这两个重要实体的领导人和部门成员齐聚一堂。此次会议是在地区不确定性和动荡加剧的背景下举行的。美中竞争仍然是东盟和澳大利亚必须共同面对的战略挑战。</p><p>作为长期合作伙伴,澳大利亚被认为是更可靠的合作伙伴之一,这对各个东南亚国家如此,对作为一个整体的东盟也是如此。澳大利亚已与东盟成员国建立全面战略伙伴关系,大力投资经济交流、安全交流和人文交流。与其他大国不同,澳大利亚的可见性和可靠性很少受到东盟的质疑。值得注意的是,澳大利亚对其与东盟关系的看法是平静、相互尊重、互惠和共同价值观。正如澳大利亚经常宣称的那样,它的利益和身份与亚太地区一致。它始终将这种言辞与对该地区的具体行动和投资相结合。澳大利亚也被视为中等强国,真正倾听东南亚国家的意见,并将这些意见作为投入,以进行有意义的接触。</p><p>《亚洲政治与政策》杂志为探究澳大利亚与亚洲的关系提供了认知空间。例如,Kim和Raswant (2023)探讨了澳大利亚与韩国的关系,将其作为支撑“澳大利亚对印太战略”的另一个重要支柱。另一方面,Snyder (2015)研究了澳大利亚与马来西亚的关系,以及更密切的安全合作如何改善了先前由棘手的社会政治问题所定义的双边关系。最后,Taylor (2020)研究了澳大利亚的印度-太平洋概念以及它作为一个中等强国如何寻求接触该地区。他的结论是,澳大利亚应该在认真监测和适度耐心的情况下制定其在该地区的参与战略,这一直是该中等强国在寻求进一步加强与东盟关系时的范式。</p><p>本刊2024年4月发表的内容继续对“澳大利亚与亚太地区的接触”进行学术研究。Yoshimatsu 和 Maso(2024)区分了澳大利亚和中国分别与太平洋岛国的经济关系。与中国的看法相反,他们认为,澳大利亚采用了由多边主义和规范性考量所定义的经济治国手段。Dell'Era和Martin (2024)比较了两个联盟:美日联盟和澳新美联盟,以及澳大利亚等中等强国所扮演的角色。他们发现,澳大利亚通过动员一系列促进特定国际秩序和战略愿景的思想,进而在这些军事联盟中更多地扮演了规范性国家的角色。</p><p>其他研究文章所深入探讨的主题包括:孟加拉国地方层面的新冠肺炎响应措施,日本国内政党政治对“日本在东南亚的防御政策”的影响。我们还收录了三篇政策述评,涵盖韩国的官方发展援助、新冠肺炎大流行期间武汉的慈善事业、以及大欧亚伙伴关系。</p><p><b>参考文献</b></p><p>Dell'Era, A., & Martín, F. E. (2024). Mobilizing ideas of order: Burden-sharing in the US–Japan and ANZUS alliances. <i>Asian Politics and Policy</i>, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12741</p><p>Kim, J., & Raswant, A. (2023). Australian perspective on engaging with South Korea in the Indo-Pacific. <i>Asian Politics and Policy</i>, 15(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12672</p><p>Snyder, C.A. (2015), Australia-Malaysia Security Cooperation as a Pivotal Component for More Stable Bilateral Relations. <i>Asian Politics & Policy</i>, 7: 379-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12197</p><p>Taylor, B. (2020), Contested Concept: Unpacking Australia's Indo-Pacific Debate. <i>Asian Politics & Policy</i>, 12: 71-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12512</p><p>Yoshimatsu, H., Maso, R. (2024). Maintaining influence through economic statecraft: Australia's response to China's presence in the Pacific region. <i>Asian Politics and Policy</i>, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12739</p><p>Spanish Translation:</p><p>Introducción del editor</p><p>Relaciones Australia-ASEAN: una relación especial</p><p>Las regiones son construcciones sociales. Lo que constituye “Asia” es una etiqueta en evolución y el nombre consensuado de la región ha evolucionado a lo largo de las décadas. Este puede ser un debate espinoso y la actual campaña para descolonizar los aspectos epistémicos ha dado lugar a interesantes discursos sobre por qué la región ahora se llama más “Indo-Pacífico” que Asia-Pacífico, por ejemplo.</p><p>El mes pasado, la Asociación de Naciones del Sudeste Asiático (ASEAN) y Australia conmemoraron 50 años de relaciones diplomáticas con una cumbre especial que reunió a líderes y miembros sectoriales de estas dos importantes entidades. La reunión tuvo como telón de fondo la creciente incertidumbre y turbulencia regional. La rivalidad entre Estados Unidos y China sigue siendo un desafío estratégico que tanto la ASEAN como Australia deben afrontar juntas.</p><p>Como socio de larga data, Australia es percibida como uno de los socios más confiables de los estados del Sudeste Asiático individualmente y de la ASEAN colectivamente. Australia ha cultivado asociaciones integrales y estratégicas con los estados miembros de la ASEAN y ha invertido mucho en intercambios económicos, de seguridad y entre pueblos. A diferencia de otras potencias importantes, la ASEAN rara vez cuestionó su visibilidad y confiabilidad. Lo que fue notable es la perspectiva de Australia de que la relación con la ASEAN se define por la ecuanimidad, el respeto mutuo, la reciprocidad y los valores compartidos. Como Australia ha declarado periódicamente, su interés y, por tanto, su identidad está en Asia-Pacífico. Constantemente ha acompañado esta retórica con acciones e inversiones concretas en la región. Australia también ha sido vista como una potencia media que escucha genuinamente a los estados del sudeste asiático y permite que esto sea un aporte para un compromiso significativo.</p><p><i>Asian Politics & Policy</i> ha proporcionado el espacio epistémico para investigar la relación de Australia con Asia. Por ejemplo, Kim y Raswant (2023) investigaron la relación de Australia con Corea del Sur como otro pilar importante para apuntalar la estrategia de la primera en el Indo-Pacífico. Por otro lado, Snyder (2015) estudió la relación entre Australia y Malasia y cómo una cooperación más estrecha en materia de seguridad ha mejorado las relaciones bilaterales previamente definidas por cuestiones sociopolíticas espinosas. Finalmente, Taylor (2020) examinó el concepto del Indo-Pacífico de Australia y cómo busca involucrarlo como potencia media. Su conclusión de que Australia debería diseñar estrategias para su participación en la región con un seguimiento cuidadoso y una paciencia moderada ha sido el paradigma de la potencia media en su intento de mejorar aún más su relación con la ASEAN.</p><p>Nuestro número de abril de 2024 continúa con esta mirada académica sobre el compromiso de Australia con la región Asia-Pacífico. Yoshimatsu y Maso (2024) diferenciaron entre la relación económica de Australia y China con los países insulares del Pacífico. A diferencia de China, argumentaron que Australia empleó un arte de gobernar económico definido por el multilateralismo y consideraciones normativas. Dell'Era y Martin (2024) compararon dos alianzas: Estados Unidos-Japón y ANZUS y el papel desempeñado por potencias medias como Australia. Descubrieron que Australia actuó más como una potencia normativa en estas alianzas militares al movilizar ideas que promueven un orden internacional y una visión estratégica particulares.</p><p>Otros artículos de investigación profundizaron en temas como la respuesta local al COVID-19 en Bangladesh y el impacto de la política partidista interna en la política de defensa de Japón en el sudeste asiático. También presentamos tres revisiones de políticas que cubrieron la asistencia oficial para el desarrollo de Corea del Sur, la filantropía en Wuhan durante la pandemia de COVID-19 y la Gran Asociación Euroasiática.</p><p>Bibliografía</p><p>Dell'Era, A., & Martín, F. E. (2024). Mobilizing ideas of order: Burden-sharing in the US–Japan and ANZUS alliances. <i>Asian Politics and Policy</i>, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12741</p><p>Kim, J., & Raswant, A. (2023). Australian perspective on engaging with South Korea in the Indo-Pacific. <i>Asian Politics and Policy</i>, 15(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12672</p><p>Snyder, C.A. (2015), Australia-Malaysia Security Cooperation as a Pivotal Component for More Stable Bilateral Relations. <i>Asian Politics & Policy</i>, 7: 379-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12197</p><p>Taylor, B. (2020), Contested Concept: Unpacking Australia's Indo-Pacific Debate. <i>Asian Politics & Policy</i>, 12: 71-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12512</p><p>Yoshimatsu, H., Maso, R. (2024). Maintaining influence through economic statecraft: Australia's response to China's presence in the Pacific region. <i>Asian Politics and Policy</i>, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12739</p>","PeriodicalId":44747,"journal":{"name":"Asian Politics & Policy","volume":"16 2","pages":"143-144"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aspp.12744","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Australia-ASEAN relations: A special relationship\",\"authors\":\"Aries A. Arugay\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aspp.12744\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Regions are social constructs. What constitutes “Asia” is an evolving label and the region's consensual name has evolved over the decades. This can be thorny debate and the current campaign to decolonize epistemic handles has led to interesting discourses on why the region is now more called “Indo-Pacific” than Asia-Pacific, for example.</p><p>Last month, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Australia commemorated its 50th year of diplomatic relations with a special summit that gathered leaders and sectoral members of these two important entities. The meeting had the increasing regional uncertainty and turbulence as its backdrop. The United States (US)-China rivalry remains a strategic challenge that both ASEAN and Australia must face together.</p><p>As a long standing partner, Australia is perceived to be one of the more reliable and dependable partners of Southeast Asian states individually and ASEAN collectively. Australia has cultivated comprehensive and strategic partnerships with ASEAN member-states, invested heavily in economic, security, and people-to-people exchanges. Unlike other major powers, its visibility and reliability was seldom questioned by ASEAN. What was notable is Australia's perspective of the relationship with ASEAN as one that is defined by equanimity, mutual respect, reciprocity, and shared values. As Australia has regularly declared, its interest and therefore identity is with the Asia-Pacific. It has consistently matched this rhetoric with concrete actions and investment in the region. Australia has also been seen as a middle power who genuinely listens to Southeast Asian states and uses them as inputs for meaningful engagement.</p><p><i>Asian Politics & Policy</i> has provided the epistemic space to probe intro Australia's relationship with Asia. For example, Kim and Raswant (<span>2023</span>) looked into Australia's relationship with South Korea as another important pillar in buttressing the former's Indo-Pacific strategy. On the other hand, Snyder (<span>2015</span>) studied the Australia-Malaysia relationship and how closer security cooperation has improved bilateral relations previously defined by thorny sociopolitical issues. Finally, Taylor (<span>2020</span>) examined Australia's Indo-Pacific concept and how it seeks to engage it as a middle power. His conclusion that Australia should strategize its engagement in the region with careful monitoring and tempered patience has been the middle power's paradigm as it seeks to further enhance its relationship with ASEAN.</p><p>Our April 2024 issue continues this scholarly gaze on Australia's engagement with the Asia-Pacific. Yoshimatsu and Maso (<span>2024</span>) differentiated between Australia and China's economic relationship with Pacific Island countries. Contrary to China, they argued that Australia employed economic statecraft defined by multilateralism and normative considerations. Dell'Era and Martín (<span>2024</span>) compared two alliances: US-Japan and ANZUS and the role played by middle powers like Australia. They found that Australia acted more as a normative power in these military alliances by mobilizing ideas that promote a particular international order and strategic vision.</p><p>Other research articles delved into topics such as the local COVID-19 response in Bangladesh and the impact of domestic party politics in Japan's defense policy in Southeast Asia. We are also featuring three Policy Reviews that covered South Korea's Official Development Assistance, philanthropy in Wuhan during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Great Eurasian Partnership.</p><p>Chinese Translation:</p><p><b>编者按</b></p><p>澳大利亚-东盟关系:特殊关系</p><p>区域是一个社会建构的概念。“亚洲”的构成是一个不断演变的标签,该地区的共识名称在过去几十年里不断演变。这可能是一场棘手的辩论,而当前对“认知工具”的去殖民化运动引发了有趣的讨论,例如为何该地区现在更多地被称为“印度-太平洋”而不是亚太地区。</p><p>上个月,东南亚国家联盟(东盟)和澳大利亚举行了一次特别峰会,纪念双边建交50周年,这两个重要实体的领导人和部门成员齐聚一堂。此次会议是在地区不确定性和动荡加剧的背景下举行的。美中竞争仍然是东盟和澳大利亚必须共同面对的战略挑战。</p><p>作为长期合作伙伴,澳大利亚被认为是更可靠的合作伙伴之一,这对各个东南亚国家如此,对作为一个整体的东盟也是如此。澳大利亚已与东盟成员国建立全面战略伙伴关系,大力投资经济交流、安全交流和人文交流。与其他大国不同,澳大利亚的可见性和可靠性很少受到东盟的质疑。值得注意的是,澳大利亚对其与东盟关系的看法是平静、相互尊重、互惠和共同价值观。正如澳大利亚经常宣称的那样,它的利益和身份与亚太地区一致。它始终将这种言辞与对该地区的具体行动和投资相结合。澳大利亚也被视为中等强国,真正倾听东南亚国家的意见,并将这些意见作为投入,以进行有意义的接触。</p><p>《亚洲政治与政策》杂志为探究澳大利亚与亚洲的关系提供了认知空间。例如,Kim和Raswant (2023)探讨了澳大利亚与韩国的关系,将其作为支撑“澳大利亚对印太战略”的另一个重要支柱。另一方面,Snyder (2015)研究了澳大利亚与马来西亚的关系,以及更密切的安全合作如何改善了先前由棘手的社会政治问题所定义的双边关系。最后,Taylor (2020)研究了澳大利亚的印度-太平洋概念以及它作为一个中等强国如何寻求接触该地区。他的结论是,澳大利亚应该在认真监测和适度耐心的情况下制定其在该地区的参与战略,这一直是该中等强国在寻求进一步加强与东盟关系时的范式。</p><p>本刊2024年4月发表的内容继续对“澳大利亚与亚太地区的接触”进行学术研究。Yoshimatsu 和 Maso(2024)区分了澳大利亚和中国分别与太平洋岛国的经济关系。与中国的看法相反,他们认为,澳大利亚采用了由多边主义和规范性考量所定义的经济治国手段。Dell'Era和Martin (2024)比较了两个联盟:美日联盟和澳新美联盟,以及澳大利亚等中等强国所扮演的角色。他们发现,澳大利亚通过动员一系列促进特定国际秩序和战略愿景的思想,进而在这些军事联盟中更多地扮演了规范性国家的角色。</p><p>其他研究文章所深入探讨的主题包括:孟加拉国地方层面的新冠肺炎响应措施,日本国内政党政治对“日本在东南亚的防御政策”的影响。我们还收录了三篇政策述评,涵盖韩国的官方发展援助、新冠肺炎大流行期间武汉的慈善事业、以及大欧亚伙伴关系。</p><p><b>参考文献</b></p><p>Dell'Era, A., & Martín, F. E. (2024). Mobilizing ideas of order: Burden-sharing in the US–Japan and ANZUS alliances. <i>Asian Politics and Policy</i>, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12741</p><p>Kim, J., & Raswant, A. (2023). Australian perspective on engaging with South Korea in the Indo-Pacific. <i>Asian Politics and Policy</i>, 15(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12672</p><p>Snyder, C.A. (2015), Australia-Malaysia Security Cooperation as a Pivotal Component for More Stable Bilateral Relations. <i>Asian Politics & Policy</i>, 7: 379-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12197</p><p>Taylor, B. (2020), Contested Concept: Unpacking Australia's Indo-Pacific Debate. <i>Asian Politics & Policy</i>, 12: 71-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12512</p><p>Yoshimatsu, H., Maso, R. (2024). Maintaining influence through economic statecraft: Australia's response to China's presence in the Pacific region. <i>Asian Politics and Policy</i>, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12739</p><p>Spanish Translation:</p><p>Introducción del editor</p><p>Relaciones Australia-ASEAN: una relación especial</p><p>Las regiones son construcciones sociales. Lo que constituye “Asia” es una etiqueta en evolución y el nombre consensuado de la región ha evolucionado a lo largo de las décadas. Este puede ser un debate espinoso y la actual campaña para descolonizar los aspectos epistémicos ha dado lugar a interesantes discursos sobre por qué la región ahora se llama más “Indo-Pacífico” que Asia-Pacífico, por ejemplo.</p><p>El mes pasado, la Asociación de Naciones del Sudeste Asiático (ASEAN) y Australia conmemoraron 50 años de relaciones diplomáticas con una cumbre especial que reunió a líderes y miembros sectoriales de estas dos importantes entidades. La reunión tuvo como telón de fondo la creciente incertidumbre y turbulencia regional. La rivalidad entre Estados Unidos y China sigue siendo un desafío estratégico que tanto la ASEAN como Australia deben afrontar juntas.</p><p>Como socio de larga data, Australia es percibida como uno de los socios más confiables de los estados del Sudeste Asiático individualmente y de la ASEAN colectivamente. Australia ha cultivado asociaciones integrales y estratégicas con los estados miembros de la ASEAN y ha invertido mucho en intercambios económicos, de seguridad y entre pueblos. A diferencia de otras potencias importantes, la ASEAN rara vez cuestionó su visibilidad y confiabilidad. Lo que fue notable es la perspectiva de Australia de que la relación con la ASEAN se define por la ecuanimidad, el respeto mutuo, la reciprocidad y los valores compartidos. Como Australia ha declarado periódicamente, su interés y, por tanto, su identidad está en Asia-Pacífico. Constantemente ha acompañado esta retórica con acciones e inversiones concretas en la región. Australia también ha sido vista como una potencia media que escucha genuinamente a los estados del sudeste asiático y permite que esto sea un aporte para un compromiso significativo.</p><p><i>Asian Politics & Policy</i> ha proporcionado el espacio epistémico para investigar la relación de Australia con Asia. Por ejemplo, Kim y Raswant (2023) investigaron la relación de Australia con Corea del Sur como otro pilar importante para apuntalar la estrategia de la primera en el Indo-Pacífico. Por otro lado, Snyder (2015) estudió la relación entre Australia y Malasia y cómo una cooperación más estrecha en materia de seguridad ha mejorado las relaciones bilaterales previamente definidas por cuestiones sociopolíticas espinosas. Finalmente, Taylor (2020) examinó el concepto del Indo-Pacífico de Australia y cómo busca involucrarlo como potencia media. Su conclusión de que Australia debería diseñar estrategias para su participación en la región con un seguimiento cuidadoso y una paciencia moderada ha sido el paradigma de la potencia media en su intento de mejorar aún más su relación con la ASEAN.</p><p>Nuestro número de abril de 2024 continúa con esta mirada académica sobre el compromiso de Australia con la región Asia-Pacífico. Yoshimatsu y Maso (2024) diferenciaron entre la relación económica de Australia y China con los países insulares del Pacífico. A diferencia de China, argumentaron que Australia empleó un arte de gobernar económico definido por el multilateralismo y consideraciones normativas. Dell'Era y Martin (2024) compararon dos alianzas: Estados Unidos-Japón y ANZUS y el papel desempeñado por potencias medias como Australia. Descubrieron que Australia actuó más como una potencia normativa en estas alianzas militares al movilizar ideas que promueven un orden internacional y una visión estratégica particulares.</p><p>Otros artículos de investigación profundizaron en temas como la respuesta local al COVID-19 en Bangladesh y el impacto de la política partidista interna en la política de defensa de Japón en el sudeste asiático. También presentamos tres revisiones de políticas que cubrieron la asistencia oficial para el desarrollo de Corea del Sur, la filantropía en Wuhan durante la pandemia de COVID-19 y la Gran Asociación Euroasiática.</p><p>Bibliografía</p><p>Dell'Era, A., & Martín, F. E. (2024). Mobilizing ideas of order: Burden-sharing in the US–Japan and ANZUS alliances. <i>Asian Politics and Policy</i>, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12741</p><p>Kim, J., & Raswant, A. (2023). Australian perspective on engaging with South Korea in the Indo-Pacific. <i>Asian Politics and Policy</i>, 15(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12672</p><p>Snyder, C.A. (2015), Australia-Malaysia Security Cooperation as a Pivotal Component for More Stable Bilateral Relations. <i>Asian Politics & Policy</i>, 7: 379-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12197</p><p>Taylor, B. (2020), Contested Concept: Unpacking Australia's Indo-Pacific Debate. <i>Asian Politics & Policy</i>, 12: 71-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12512</p><p>Yoshimatsu, H., Maso, R. (2024). Maintaining influence through economic statecraft: Australia's response to China's presence in the Pacific region. <i>Asian Politics and Policy</i>, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12739</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44747,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Politics & Policy\",\"volume\":\"16 2\",\"pages\":\"143-144\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aspp.12744\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Politics & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aspp.12744\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Politics & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aspp.12744","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
Regions are social constructs. What constitutes “Asia” is an evolving label and the region's consensual name has evolvedover the decades. This can be thorny debate and the current campaign to decolonize epistemic handles has led to interesting discourses on why the region isnow more called “Indo-Pacific” than Asia-Pacific, for example.Last month, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Australia commemorated its 50th year of diplomatic relations with a special summit that gathered leaders and sectoral members of these twoimportant entities. The meeting had the increasing regional uncertainty and turbulence as its backdrop. The United States (US)-China rivalry remains astrategic challenge that both ASEAN and Australia must face together.As a long standing partner, Australia is perceived to be one of the more reliable anddependable partners of Southeast Asian states individually and ASEAN collectively. Australia has cultivated comprehensive and strategicpartnerships with ASEAN member-states, invested heavily in economic, security, and people-to-people exchanges. Unlike other major powers, itsvisibility and reliability was seldom questioned by ASEAN. What was notable is Australia's perspective of the relationship with ASEAN as one that isdefined by equanimity, mutual respect, reciprocity, and shared values. As Australia has regularly declared, its interest and therefore identity iswith the Asia-Pacific. It has consistently matched this rhetoric with concrete actions and investment in the region. Australia has also been seen as amiddle power who genuinely listens to Southeast Asian states and uses them as inputs for meaningful engagement.Asian Politics & Policy has providedthe epistemic space to probe intro Australia's relationship with Asia. For example, Kim and Raswant (2023) looked into Australia's relationship withSouth Korea as another important pillar in buttressing the former's Indo-Pacific strategy. On the other hand, Snyder (2015) studied the Australia-Malaysia relationship and how closer security cooperation has improved bilateral relations previously defined by thorny sociopolitical issues.Finally, Taylor (2020) examined Australia's Indo-Pacific concept and how it seeks to engage it as a middle power. His conclusion that Australia shouldstrategize its engagement in the region with careful monitoring and tempered patience has been the middle power's paradigm as it seeks to further enhanceits relationship with ASEAN.Our April 2024 issue continues this scholarly gaze on Australia's engagement with the Asia-Pacific. Yoshimatsu and Maso (2024) differentiated between Australia and China's economic relationship with Pacific Island countries. Contrary to China, they argued thatAustralia employed economic statecraft defined by multilateralism and normative considerations. Dell'Era and Martín (2024) compared two alliances:US-Japan and ANZUS and the role played by middle powers like Australia. They found that Australia acted more as a normative power in these militaryalliances by mobilizing ideas that promote a particular international order and strategic vision.Other research articles delved into topics such asthe local COVID-19 response in Bangladesh and the impact of domestic party politics in Japan's defense policy in Southeast Asia. We are also featuringthree Policy Reviews that covered South Korea's Official Development Assistance, philanthropy in Wuhan during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the GreatEurasian Partnership.Chinese Translation:编者按澳大利亚-东盟关系:特殊关系区域是一个社会建构的概念。“亚洲”的构成是一个不断演变的标签,该地区的共识名称在过去几十年里不断演变。这可能是一场棘手的辩论,而当前对“认知工具”的去殖民化运动引发了有趣的讨论,例如为何该地区现在更多地被称为“印度-太平洋”而不是亚太地区。上个月,东南亚国家联盟(东盟)和澳大利亚举行了一次特别峰会,纪念双边建交50周年,这两个重要实体的领导人和部门成员齐聚一堂。此次会议是在地区不确定性和动荡加剧的背景下举行的。美中竞争仍然是东盟和澳大利亚必须共同面对的战略挑战。作为长期合作伙伴,澳大利亚被认为是更可靠的合作伙伴之一,这对各个东南亚国家如此,对作为一个整体的东盟也是如此。澳大利亚已与东盟成员国建立全面战略伙伴关系,大力投资经济交流、安全交流和人文交流。与其他大国不同,澳大利亚的可见性和可靠性很少受到东盟的质疑。值得注意的是,澳大利亚对其与东盟关系的看法是平静、相互尊重、互惠和共同价值观。正如澳大利亚经常宣称的那样,它的利益和身份与亚太地区一致。它始终将这种言辞与对该地区的具体行动和投资相结合。澳大利亚也被视为中等强国,真正倾听东南亚国家的意见,并将这些意见作为投入,以进行有意义的接触。《亚洲政治与政策》杂志为探究澳大利亚与亚洲的关系提供了认知空间。例如,Kim和Raswant (2023)探讨了澳大利亚与韩国的关系,将其作为支撑“澳大利亚对印太战略”的另一个重要支柱。另一方面,Snyder (2015)研究了澳大利亚与马来西亚的关系,以及更密切的安全合作如何改善了先前由棘手的社会政治问题所定义的双边关系。最后,Taylor (2020)研究了澳大利亚的印度-太平洋概念以及它作为一个中等强国如何寻求接触该地区。他的结论是,澳大利亚应该在认真监测和适度耐心的情况下制定其在该地区的参与战略,这一直是该中等强国在寻求进一步加强与东盟关系时的范式。本刊2024年4月发表的内容继续对“澳大利亚与亚太地区的接触”进行学术研究。Yoshimatsu 和 Maso(2024)区分了澳大利亚和中国分别与太平洋岛国的经济关系。与中国的看法相反,他们认为,澳大利亚采用了由多边主义和规范性考量所定义的经济治国手段。Dell'Era和Martin (2024)比较了两个联盟:美日联盟和澳新美联盟,以及澳大利亚等中等强国所扮演的角色。他们发现,澳大利亚通过动员一系列促进特定国际秩序和战略愿景的思想,进而在这些军事联盟中更多地扮演了规范性国家的角色。其他研究文章所深入探讨的主题包括:孟加拉国地方层面的新冠肺炎响应措施,日本国内政党政治对“日本在东南亚的防御政策”的影响。我们还收录了三篇政策述评,涵盖韩国的官方发展援助、新冠肺炎大流行期间武汉的慈善事业、以及大欧亚伙伴关系。参考文献Dell'Era, A., & Martín, F. E. (2024). Mobilizing ideas of order: Burden-sharing in the US–Japan and ANZUS alliances. Asian Politics and Policy, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12741Kim, J., & Raswant, A. (2023). Australian perspective on engaging with South Korea in the Indo-Pacific.
Regions are social constructs. What constitutes “Asia” is an evolving label and the region's consensual name has evolved over the decades. This can be thorny debate and the current campaign to decolonize epistemic handles has led to interesting discourses on why the region is now more called “Indo-Pacific” than Asia-Pacific, for example.
Last month, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Australia commemorated its 50th year of diplomatic relations with a special summit that gathered leaders and sectoral members of these two important entities. The meeting had the increasing regional uncertainty and turbulence as its backdrop. The United States (US)-China rivalry remains a strategic challenge that both ASEAN and Australia must face together.
As a long standing partner, Australia is perceived to be one of the more reliable and dependable partners of Southeast Asian states individually and ASEAN collectively. Australia has cultivated comprehensive and strategic partnerships with ASEAN member-states, invested heavily in economic, security, and people-to-people exchanges. Unlike other major powers, its visibility and reliability was seldom questioned by ASEAN. What was notable is Australia's perspective of the relationship with ASEAN as one that is defined by equanimity, mutual respect, reciprocity, and shared values. As Australia has regularly declared, its interest and therefore identity is with the Asia-Pacific. It has consistently matched this rhetoric with concrete actions and investment in the region. Australia has also been seen as a middle power who genuinely listens to Southeast Asian states and uses them as inputs for meaningful engagement.
Asian Politics & Policy has provided the epistemic space to probe intro Australia's relationship with Asia. For example, Kim and Raswant (2023) looked into Australia's relationship with South Korea as another important pillar in buttressing the former's Indo-Pacific strategy. On the other hand, Snyder (2015) studied the Australia-Malaysia relationship and how closer security cooperation has improved bilateral relations previously defined by thorny sociopolitical issues. Finally, Taylor (2020) examined Australia's Indo-Pacific concept and how it seeks to engage it as a middle power. His conclusion that Australia should strategize its engagement in the region with careful monitoring and tempered patience has been the middle power's paradigm as it seeks to further enhance its relationship with ASEAN.
Our April 2024 issue continues this scholarly gaze on Australia's engagement with the Asia-Pacific. Yoshimatsu and Maso (2024) differentiated between Australia and China's economic relationship with Pacific Island countries. Contrary to China, they argued that Australia employed economic statecraft defined by multilateralism and normative considerations. Dell'Era and Martín (2024) compared two alliances: US-Japan and ANZUS and the role played by middle powers like Australia. They found that Australia acted more as a normative power in these military alliances by mobilizing ideas that promote a particular international order and strategic vision.
Other research articles delved into topics such as the local COVID-19 response in Bangladesh and the impact of domestic party politics in Japan's defense policy in Southeast Asia. We are also featuring three Policy Reviews that covered South Korea's Official Development Assistance, philanthropy in Wuhan during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Great Eurasian Partnership.
Dell'Era, A., & Martín, F. E. (2024). Mobilizing ideas of order: Burden-sharing in the US–Japan and ANZUS alliances. Asian Politics and Policy, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12741
Kim, J., & Raswant, A. (2023). Australian perspective on engaging with South Korea in the Indo-Pacific. Asian Politics and Policy, 15(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12672
Snyder, C.A. (2015), Australia-Malaysia Security Cooperation as a Pivotal Component for More Stable Bilateral Relations. Asian Politics & Policy, 7: 379-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12197
Taylor, B. (2020), Contested Concept: Unpacking Australia's Indo-Pacific Debate. Asian Politics & Policy, 12: 71-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12512
Yoshimatsu, H., Maso, R. (2024). Maintaining influence through economic statecraft: Australia's response to China's presence in the Pacific region. Asian Politics and Policy, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12739
Spanish Translation:
Introducción del editor
Relaciones Australia-ASEAN: una relación especial
Las regiones son construcciones sociales. Lo que constituye “Asia” es una etiqueta en evolución y el nombre consensuado de la región ha evolucionado a lo largo de las décadas. Este puede ser un debate espinoso y la actual campaña para descolonizar los aspectos epistémicos ha dado lugar a interesantes discursos sobre por qué la región ahora se llama más “Indo-Pacífico” que Asia-Pacífico, por ejemplo.
El mes pasado, la Asociación de Naciones del Sudeste Asiático (ASEAN) y Australia conmemoraron 50 años de relaciones diplomáticas con una cumbre especial que reunió a líderes y miembros sectoriales de estas dos importantes entidades. La reunión tuvo como telón de fondo la creciente incertidumbre y turbulencia regional. La rivalidad entre Estados Unidos y China sigue siendo un desafío estratégico que tanto la ASEAN como Australia deben afrontar juntas.
Como socio de larga data, Australia es percibida como uno de los socios más confiables de los estados del Sudeste Asiático individualmente y de la ASEAN colectivamente. Australia ha cultivado asociaciones integrales y estratégicas con los estados miembros de la ASEAN y ha invertido mucho en intercambios económicos, de seguridad y entre pueblos. A diferencia de otras potencias importantes, la ASEAN rara vez cuestionó su visibilidad y confiabilidad. Lo que fue notable es la perspectiva de Australia de que la relación con la ASEAN se define por la ecuanimidad, el respeto mutuo, la reciprocidad y los valores compartidos. Como Australia ha declarado periódicamente, su interés y, por tanto, su identidad está en Asia-Pacífico. Constantemente ha acompañado esta retórica con acciones e inversiones concretas en la región. Australia también ha sido vista como una potencia media que escucha genuinamente a los estados del sudeste asiático y permite que esto sea un aporte para un compromiso significativo.
Asian Politics & Policy ha proporcionado el espacio epistémico para investigar la relación de Australia con Asia. Por ejemplo, Kim y Raswant (2023) investigaron la relación de Australia con Corea del Sur como otro pilar importante para apuntalar la estrategia de la primera en el Indo-Pacífico. Por otro lado, Snyder (2015) estudió la relación entre Australia y Malasia y cómo una cooperación más estrecha en materia de seguridad ha mejorado las relaciones bilaterales previamente definidas por cuestiones sociopolíticas espinosas. Finalmente, Taylor (2020) examinó el concepto del Indo-Pacífico de Australia y cómo busca involucrarlo como potencia media. Su conclusión de que Australia debería diseñar estrategias para su participación en la región con un seguimiento cuidadoso y una paciencia moderada ha sido el paradigma de la potencia media en su intento de mejorar aún más su relación con la ASEAN.
Nuestro número de abril de 2024 continúa con esta mirada académica sobre el compromiso de Australia con la región Asia-Pacífico. Yoshimatsu y Maso (2024) diferenciaron entre la relación económica de Australia y China con los países insulares del Pacífico. A diferencia de China, argumentaron que Australia empleó un arte de gobernar económico definido por el multilateralismo y consideraciones normativas. Dell'Era y Martin (2024) compararon dos alianzas: Estados Unidos-Japón y ANZUS y el papel desempeñado por potencias medias como Australia. Descubrieron que Australia actuó más como una potencia normativa en estas alianzas militares al movilizar ideas que promueven un orden internacional y una visión estratégica particulares.
Otros artículos de investigación profundizaron en temas como la respuesta local al COVID-19 en Bangladesh y el impacto de la política partidista interna en la política de defensa de Japón en el sudeste asiático. También presentamos tres revisiones de políticas que cubrieron la asistencia oficial para el desarrollo de Corea del Sur, la filantropía en Wuhan durante la pandemia de COVID-19 y la Gran Asociación Euroasiática.
Bibliografía
Dell'Era, A., & Martín, F. E. (2024). Mobilizing ideas of order: Burden-sharing in the US–Japan and ANZUS alliances. Asian Politics and Policy, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12741
Kim, J., & Raswant, A. (2023). Australian perspective on engaging with South Korea in the Indo-Pacific. Asian Politics and Policy, 15(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12672
Snyder, C.A. (2015), Australia-Malaysia Security Cooperation as a Pivotal Component for More Stable Bilateral Relations. Asian Politics & Policy, 7: 379-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12197
Taylor, B. (2020), Contested Concept: Unpacking Australia's Indo-Pacific Debate. Asian Politics & Policy, 12: 71-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12512
Yoshimatsu, H., Maso, R. (2024). Maintaining influence through economic statecraft: Australia's response to China's presence in the Pacific region. Asian Politics and Policy, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12739