Robert A. Scalapino

Toward a new world order

In the world of the future, the framework for international relations will be a combination of balance of power and concert of powers. A growing network of treaties, accords, and issue‐specific agreements will bind nations together ever more comprehensively, says Robert Scalapino, Robson Research Professor of Government Emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley. He argues that policies, cooperatively reached and enforced, must keep up with the momentum of change. That is the imperative of the new century that lies just ahead. This paper was presented at the IIPS 10th Anniversary Symposium, “Transforming the Global Order for the 21st Century, “ held in Tokyo on 18–19 May 1998.

“Neutralism” in Asia.

Many Americans view “neutralism” as a new type of social disease. Its probable causes: intimacy in some form with communism; its symptoms: mental confusion and moral dereliction; its cure: unknown. This is a somber diagnosis, filled with implications of doom for the “victims.” But our warnings and protests have been to little avail. Most “neutralists” have deliberately rejected them, and the “disease”—if that be its proper designation—has approached epidemic proportions in many areas. Among the centers of infection, Asia is certainly the region where “neutralism” has shown its most consistent strength and taken its most diverse forms. And however much they may lament it, Americans must recognize the fact that Asian “neutralism” can be neither ignored nor talked out of existence. In our own interests, therefore, we should seek a more complete understanding of this highly complex force—its causes and effects, and possibly its implications for future American policy. Understanding does not necessarily mean acceptance; it does permit a more accurate calculation of alternative risks, and this is the vital element in decision making. At the outset, the problems of definition and terminology must be raised. It is not easy to define or describe “neutralism” in such manner as to obtain the largest measure of agreement from all parties concerned. Frequently, the word is intended as an epithet, with connotations similar to those suggested in our opening sentences.

Asia‐pacific security—the current balance of power

Power is a many-faceted force in the contemporary world. Unquestionably, military strength, including the capacity to keep abreast of the revolutionary changes in military strategy now taking place, is of critical importance in assessing a nation’s role in a regional or global balance of power. However, a nation’s strength is also determined by such factors as size and location and, notably, by its economy, its political stability, and its overall relations with key external nations. Thus, it is not sufficient to focus solely on a state’s military capacities, vital as these are, in assessing its strength. Within the Asia-Pacific region, Northeast Asia is unquestionably the most vital region in assessing power in all of its dimensions and in seeking to estimate the relative strength of real or potential contenders for influence. This region contains either geographically or in terms of extensive involvement, the four major powers of the contemporary world: the United States, China, Japan and Russia. It is also the locus of a current source of major tension, namely, North Korea. If Taiwan, on its peripheries, is included, another critical issue, especially for China and the United States, is posed. Both of these problems test power—domestic and international—in their various dimensions. Within Northeast Asia, there are no exclusive regional institutions although the states of this region are members of a wide range of external bodies from the United Nations to broader Asian organisations. However, here as elsewhere, multilateralism has advanced most meaningfully through informal dialogues involving three, four or six parties, generally focused on a given issue or set of issues. Nonetheless, power in its strategic dimensions is primarily dependent upon bilateral relations, and to these we shall turn after a brief assessment of the relative domestic power of the key Northeast Asian states. As is well known, the United States is the sole global superpower at present, and this is likely to remain true for the foreseeable future. US power in its military dimensions is underwritten by a formidable economy that despite problems and a recent recession, accounts for nearly one-third of global

The American Occupation of Japan— Perspectives after Three Decades

The occupation of Japan provided an unusual opportunity for the United States to influence the patterns of political life in a country that was defeated both psycho logically and physically. Under the personal leadership of General Douglas MacArthur, punishment was dealt to war criminals, thus reducing severely Japans military establish ment ; a series of economic and political reforms were instituted, resulting in the constitution of 1947 which has not been amended since. With the rise of the Peoples Republic of China (1949), the Korean War (1950), and the end of the occupation in the early 1950s, the circumstances of the Cold War led to an alliance between Japan and the United States that stressed the importance of Japans regional defensive strength rather than the demilitarized posture of the occupation years. The occupation was a signal success for its time and purpose. It is likely that Japan will maintain most of the political changes made by the constitution of 1947 and will continue its special strategic and economic relationship with the United States, while at the same time making accommodations with the PRC and other states in the world, with a stress on Asia.

The Sino-Soviet Conflict in Perspective

Three issues divide Russia and China: organiza tion, decision-making, and leadership in the Communist world; revolutionary tactics and strategy in mid-twentieth century; content and form of intrabloc assistance. The Chinese, to protect their minority status and advance their political power, emphasize the sovereignty and independence of each Com munist party and advocate a commonwealth theory of inter national Communist organization. The Soviet Union pays homage to the equality and independence of each party but believes that power must go with responsibility and does not intend to relinquish international Communist leadership to Peking. The Chinese, dissatisfied and unable to compete nation-to-nation with the United States, advocate pushing global revolution, particularly in the non-Western world. The Soviet Union bases its strategy on nation-to nation competition with the United States and unification of the total Socialist camp. The Russians reject any equal-development theory that might disperse Soviet resources too widely. They insist upon the validity of economic co-operation among Communist states. The Chinese, resentful of Soviet preoccupation with Russian power and development, attack Soviet imperialism, the use of aid for political pressure. Thus far, the dispute has passed through five tactical phases. This escalation has been delib erate, after repeated failures of agreement. The underlying cause of the Sino-Soviet conflict is the basic paradox between pluralism in the Communist world and monolithism in Com munist ideology.

Relations among Asian nations and the role of frontiers

Abstract The forces of internationalism, nationalism, and communalism are vastly shaping the global stage upon which states must formulate actions necessary to sustain stability and promote economic growth. In this regard, the case of Asia represents a consolidation of both prominent progress but also persistent challenge. Despite the relatively low inter-state tensions encompassing Northeast Asia, there still remain the critical issues of Taiwan and its disputed identity, coupled with North Koreas nuclear ambitions. Here, the United States, while not a part of the region geographically, is an important variable in influencing domestic and regional policies of states. In Southeast Asia, a slightly different pattern prevails, wherein significant domestic challenges are juxtaposed with a favorable trend with respect to international relations. As such, the relative tranquility enjoyed by Southeast Asian states is to an extent offset by detrimental domestic economic policies and political divisions within b...