Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:04:12.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Relations and Asian Studies: The Subordinate State System of Southern Asia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

Michael Brecher
Michael Brecher
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access

Extract

Asian studies have long since ventured beyond the traditional limits of Orientalia to embrace history and the social sciences; they have not as yet, however, applied the insights of international relations to an area framework. Similarly, international relations specialists have all but ignored the relevance of their discipline to Asia. The purpose of this article is to help bridge the serious gap between these two fields.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , January 1963 , pp. 213 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1963

Access options

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

References

1 Whether or not international relations is an autonomous discipline, an emerging discipline, or simply a branch of political science is still subject to sharp controversy. See Manning, C. A. W., The University Teaching of Social Sciences: International Relations (Paris 1954)Google Scholar; Marchant, P. D., “Theory and Practice in the Study of International Relations,” International Relations, I (April 1955), 95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McClelland, Charles A., “Systems and History in International Relations: Some Perspectives for Empirical Re search and Theory,” General Systems: Yearbook. of the Society for General Systems Research, III (1958), 221–47Google Scholar [these two articles are reprinted in whole or in part in Rosenau, James N., ed., International Politics and Foreign Policy (New York 1961), 18–23 and 24–35Google Scholar, respectively]; and Kaplan, Morton A., “Is International Relations a Discipline?” Journal of Politics, XXIII (August 1961), 462–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 A notable partial exception is Hans Morgenthau, J., Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (3rd edn., New York 1960).Google Scholar

3 See, for example, Schuman, Frederick L., International Politics: The Western State System and the World Community (6th edn., New York 1958).Google Scholar

4 A preliminary effort in this direction, not entirely satisfactory, is Macridis, Roy C., ed., Foreign Policy in World Politics (2nd edn., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1962).Google Scholar

5 This has long been concealed by the exponents of metaphysical realism. See Morgenthau, Hans J., In Defense of the National Interest (New York 1951).Google Scholar

6 Wolfers, Arnold, “The Actors in International Politics,” in Fox, William T. R., ed., Theoretical Aspects of International Relations (Notre Dame 1959), 101.Google Scholar For dissenting views on this point, see Carr, Edward Hallett, Nationalism and After (London 1945)Google Scholar, esp. 53ff.; and Herz, John H., International Politics in the Atomic Age (New York 1959), Part 1, esp. 96ff.Google Scholar

7 The rapidly growing interest in theory and method is well reflected in five recent collections of papers and one volume: Fox, ed.; Hoffmann, Stanley, ed., Contemporary Theory in International Relations (Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1960)Google Scholar; The Place of Theory in the Conduct and Study of International Relations, special issue of Journal of Conflict Resolution, IV (September 1960); Rosenau, ed.; Knorr, Klaus and Verba, Sidney, eds., The International System: Theoretical Essays, special issue of World Politics, XIV (October 1961)Google Scholar; and Wright, Quincy, The Study of International Relations (New York 1955).Google Scholar

Among the notable illustrations of model-building in international relations are Kaplan, Morton A., System and Process in International Politics (New York 1957)Google Scholar; and Liska, George, International Equilibrium (Cambridge, Mass., 1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a critique of “scientism” in American political science, see Crick, Bernard, The American Science of Politics: Its Origins and Conditions (London 1959).Google Scholar

8 See Sondermann, Fred A., “The Linkage Between Foreign Policy and International Politics,” in Rosenau, ed., 10.Google Scholar A notable earlier example of the use of economics concepts for the analysis of international politics is the “developmental” and “equilibrium” concepts in Lasswell, Harold D., World Politics and Personal Insecurity (New York 1935)Google Scholar, ch. 1.

9 Kaplan, , System and Process, ch. 2.Google Scholar See also his “Problems of Theory Building and Theory Confirmation in International Politics,” in Knorr and Verba, eds., 6–24.

10 Hoffmann, Stanley, “International Relations: The Long Road to Theory,” World Politics, XI (April 1959), esp. 366ff.Google Scholar

11 New York 1959.

12 Haas, Ernst B., “The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept or Propaganda?” World Politics, V (July 1953), 442–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Morgenthau, , Politics Among Nations, ch. 22.Google Scholar

14 For a stimulating general analysis of the Western colonial epoch in Asia and Africa, see Emerson, Rupert, From Empire to Nation: The Rise to Self-assertion of Asian and African Peoples (Cambridge, Mass., 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. Part 1.

15 Fox, W. T. R., The Super-Powers—The United States, Britain and the Soviet Union: Their Responsibility for Peace (New York 1944), 3.Google Scholar

16 See, for example, Rosenau, ed., 77–78.

17 Binder, Leonard, “The Middle East as a Subordinate International System,” World Politics, X (April 1958), 408–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Modelski, George, “International Relations, and Area Studies: The Case of South-East Asia,” International Relations, II (April 1961), 143–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hodgkin, Thomas, “The New West Africa State System,” University of Toronto Quarterly, XXXI (October 1961), 74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 A thoughtful policy-oriented paper is Pauker, Guy J., “Southeast Asia as a Problem Area in the Next Decade,” World Politics, XI (April 1959), 325–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 For a discussion of levels of analysis, see David J. Singer, “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations,” in Knorr and Verba, eds., 77–92.

20 Used in this way, “structure” is very similar to Herz's “system.” (Herz, 7.).

21 See, for example, Herz, 115; and Sondermann, in Rosenau, ed., 13.

22 For extreme formulations, see Singer, 92, and Hoffmann, “International Relations,” 356–58, respectively.

23 Rosenau, ed., 77.

24 A brief description of inter-state politics in antiquity is to be found in Schuman, ch. 1.

25 See Purcell, Victor, The Chinese in Southeast Asia (London 1951).Google Scholar

26 For a different view, excluding Great Powers from subordinate systems—in this case, India and China—see Modelski, 148–50.

27 Neither Japan nor either of the Koreas is included in the Southern Asian Subordinate System. Unlike China, they do not meet conditions (3) or (4) as noted earlier—i.e., they are not (usually) treated as part of that system by outside actors and do not so identify themselves. They do, of course, have relations with some states in Southern Asia and, in theory, could become full members of the system. Apart from periods of disunity, by contrast, China has regarded itself as part of the Southern Asian System and has, throughout history, played a major role therein.

28 Stricdy speaking, the level of technology and economy is an environmental or textural feature. However, the level of power is a direct function of technological and economic characteristics in the area covered by this system. In short, this is an overlapping feature, falling into both Structure and Texture categories.

29 An extreme illustration of resentment was Krishna Menon's comment on SEATO: “… this is not a regional organization. … It is a modern version of a protectorate. …” (Daily Indiagram [Ottawa], August 30, 1954.).

30 On this and other aspects of inter-state politics in that autonomous system, see Walker, Richard L., The Multi-State System of Ancient China (Hamden, Conn., 1953).Google Scholar

31 For accounts of Bandung, see Kahin, George McTurnan, The Asian-African Conference (Ithaca 1956)Google Scholar; and Appadorai, A., The Bandung Conference (New Delhi 1955).Google Scholar On the steps taken in the direction of political integration, see Fifield, Russell H., The Diplomacy of Southeast Asia, 1945–1958 (New York 1958)Google Scholar, ch. 10; Wint, Guy, “South Asia: Unity and Disunity,” International Conciliation, No. 500 (November 1954), 162–73Google Scholar; and Henderson, William, “The Development of Regionalism in Southeast Asia,” International Organization, IX (November 1955), 463–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 See Braibanti, Ralph, “The Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty,” Pacific Affairs, XXX (December 1957), 321–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Royal Institute of International Affairs, Collective Defence in South East Asia: The Manila Treaty and Its Implications (London 1956).Google Scholar

33 For the work of ECAFE and the Colombo Plan, see, respectively, United Nations: Economic Survey of Asia and the Far East for … (annual since 1947, New York); and Colombo Plan: Consultative Committee, Annual Report, Colombo Plan for Cooperative Economic Development in South and Southeast Asia (London, Wellington, Singapore, et al.). See also Lokanathan, P. S., “ECAFE—The Economic Parliament of Asia,” in Indian Year Book of International Affairs, 1953, II (Madras 1953), 3–26.Google Scholar

34 See Mangone, Gerard J., A Short History of International Organization (New York 1954)Google Scholar, chs. 2 and 3.

35 See Haas, Ernst B., The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces, 1955–1957 (London 1958)Google Scholar and Consensus Formation in the Council of Europe (London 1960).

36 See Brzezinski, Zbigniew, “The Organization of the Communist Camp,” World Politics, XIII (January 1961), 175–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Modelski, George, The Communist International System (Center of International Studies, Princeton University, 1960).Google Scholar

37 See Canyes, Manuel S., ed., The Organization of American States and the United Nations (4th edn., Washington 1958)Google Scholar; Fenwick, C. G., “The Inter-American Regional System: 50 Years of Progress,” American Journal of International Law, L (January 1956), 18–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Travis, Martin B. Jr, “The Organization of American States: A Guide to the Future,” Western Political Quarterly, X (September 1957), 491–511Google Scholar; and Whitaker, Arthur P., The Western Hemisphere Idea: Its Rise and Decline (Ithaca 1954).Google Scholar

38 See Little, T. R., “The Arab League: A Reassessment,” Middle East Journal, X (Spring 1956), 138–50Google Scholar; and Seabury, Paul, “The League of Arab States: Debacle of a Regional Arrangement,” International Organization, III (November 1949), 633–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 On China's role in international politics, see Steiner, H. Arthur, “Communist China in the World Community,” International Conciliation, No. 533 (May 1961)Google Scholar; and Boorman, Howard L., “Peking in World Politics,” Pacific Affairs, XXXIV (Fall 1961), 227–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 Binder, 423–26.

41 Nepal, Cambodia, and Laos are too exposed to be termed “free actors.” At the same time, they do not participate formally in bloc military alliances.

42 As reflected in various Anglo-American-sponsored resolutions on Kashmir in the Security Council and the Soviet vetoes, and the U.S. (Bunker) mediation between the Netherlands and Indonesia.

43 See, for example, Binder, Leonard, Religion and Politics in Pakistan (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1961).Google Scholar

44 Exceptions are the quiescent Asian Relations Organization and the Association of Southeast Asian States.

45 The record and the causes are examined in Michael Brecher, “Political Instability in the New States of Asia,” in David E. Apter and Harry Eckstein, eds., Comparative Politics: A Reader (forthcoming).

46 For acute analyses of Pakistan's politics, see Callard, Keith, Pakistan: A Political Study (London 1957)Google Scholar and Political Forces in Pakistan, 1947–1959 (New York 1959); Ahmad, Mushtaq, Government and Politics in Pakistan (Karachi 1959)Google Scholar; and Sayeed, Khalid bin, “Collapse of Parliamentary Democracy in Pakistan,” Middle East Journal, XIII (Autumn 1959), 389–406.Google Scholar

47 See Kahin, George McTurnan, ed., Major Governments of Asia (Ithaca 1958), chs. 21–23Google Scholar; Pauker, Guy J., “U.S. Foreign Policy in South-East Asia,” in United States Foreign Policy: Asia (Conlon Report, Washington 1959), esp. 56–62Google Scholar; and Legge, John D., Problems of Regional Autonomy in Contemporary Indonesia (Ithaca 1957).Google Scholar