Search

Copyright of Asian Politics & Policy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on the role of think tanks in the foreign and security policy-making at Japan. It mentions that the foreign policy think tanks in Japan includes the Japan Institute for International Affairs (JIIA) and the Institute for International Policy Studies (IIPS). It mentions that the U.S. think tanks including the Brookings Institute or the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) plays a vital role in the foreign policy-making of Washington and hosting members of outgoing administrations. It mentions that during the Cold War, the JIIA developed a domestic and international reputation for determing the politics in the Communist party.

This study conducts the first systematic review of major United States (US) think tank policy and strategy positions regarding defense of the Senkaku Islands. An analytical framework for content analysis is created and then applied to 76 documents spanning the 2010–2020 period. The policy orientations of 10 leading think tanks are identified, as is the strategic rationale behind their arguments. Because think tanks in the US exert tremendous influence on policymaking, the thick description conducted in this study can shed a great deal of light not only on the past but also the future scope of potential US policy options in the East China Sea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reviews several web sites including Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF), located at http://www.fpif.org/, Japan Policy Research Institute (JPRI) at http://www.jpri.org/ and the Close the Base at http://closethebase.org/.

Copyright of Asian Politics & Policy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on the concept of Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership that reflect the U.S. rebalance and regional responses. It offers information on various sites that focuses on the rebalancing and foreign policies in the U.S. It focuses on the international relationship between China and the U.S. It focuses on the need to increase public understanding of regional organizations including Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). It mentions that the Singaporean contact Chinese migrant labor with the suppression of incomes and wealthy investment immigrants related to the rising costs of living.

This article examines South Korea's foreign policy behaviors, focusing on its policy related to the issue of troop dispatches abroad. The analysis begins with an overview of troop dispatch overseas in international politics. After careful consideration of troop dispatch policies of other countries and the policy of South Korea, the study concludes that although there are various forms and declared objectives for Seoul's troop dispatch policy, the policy exhibits a consistent pattern: South Korea's relationships with and concern about the U. S. alliance is important; gaining economic benefits, especially winning construction projects, is an essential motivation; securing energy sources is also imperative; and Seoul's concern about its image and reputation around the world-and hence the promotion of soft power-is becoming increasingly important. The findings are both theoretically and empirically important given the lack of satisfactory research on nonmajor powers' troop dispatch policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last two decades, Indonesia has been swiftly maneuvering between China and the United States in the context of the great powers' contest in the region. But a look further into history shows deeper dynamics of Indonesia- China relations, in which Indonesia demonstrates paradigm shifts of its China policy on the verge of China's rise toward great power status. This article argues for the best use of theoretical eclecticism to comprehend Indonesia's policy perspective toward China's rise as a great power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that the U.S.-Southeast Asia relations under Obama have been driven and limited by a 'partially converged hedging' process between the two sides. On the one hand, the United States has sought to push back and hedge against the longer-term risks of a rising challenger by mobilizing its alignment and diplomatic assets in Asia. The structural imperative, however, has been conditioned by a calculation of not wanting to be rigidly locked in any regional problems. On the other hand, the ASEAN states have correspondingly hedged against the uncertainty surrounding China's rise by leveraging on the United States' enhanced engagement. This driver, nonetheless, has also been conditioned by a fundamental concern of not wanting to confront the rising power in an outright manner. Unless China's actions have posed an immediate threat that leaves the states no choice but balancing, such a partially converged hedging process is likely to endure in the years to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current debate over China's rise and the future of international primacy is polarized between two prevalent views: one foresees China becoming the world's largest economy and taking over the position of international primacy from the United States, whereas the other believes that the Chinese economy will falter as a result of structural imbalances and China will not become a superpower. Both predictions miss the mark. This study argues that notwithstanding the political will to rebalance the economy, China will continue to follow an investment-intensive growth path, and despite the structural imbalances, this path will still be able to lead to Chinese economic primacy. But sheer economic size is not a good indicator of hard power. Using an organic combination of wealth and productivity as an indicator of hard power, the article shows how close the power competition between China and the United States will likely be and that Beijing may not be able to surpass Washington as a superpower. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historically, Russia-U.S. political interaction in the Pacific has mostly been defined by the balance of power logic. Moscow and Washington only cooperated when they faced a common threat. In the 1860s it was the British Empire that was seen as such a threat, whereas from the 1920s through the 1940s it was Japan. Today another geopolitical entente of Russia and America might be in the offing, motivated by the rise of China. Such options are already being discussed by Russian experts and are perhaps also being contemplated by strategic planners in Washington. If Russia and the United States are to establish an effective partnership in the Asia-Pacific, they will need to resolve, or at least moderate, their disagreements in other areas, especially in the post-Soviet space. Furthermore, they have to do something about the lack of substantial economic ties as well as bridge the gap in their political identities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]