Superpower Cooperation in Northeast Asia

  • Samuel S. Kim


Northeast Asia is at the vortex of the Asia-Pacific Basin where four of the world’s five centers of power — the United States, the Soviet Union, China, and Japan — meet and interact. This is the only region in the world where such a mixture of two-power (superpower), three-power (strategic triangle), and four-power games are played out on multiple chessboards with all their complexities and configurations. Like great tectonic plates of the earth’s crust, any collision or collusion between and among the Big Four tends to restructure the alignment patterns not only of the region but globally as well. Northeast Asia also seems to be the only region where superpower conflict persists contrary to the more synchronized rhythms and the expanding virtuous circle of Soviet-American détente elsewhere.


Foreign Policy Korean Peninsula Chinese Foreign Policy Asian NICs Military Confrontation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See Marc S. Gallichio, The Cold War Begins in Asia: American East Asian Policy and the Fall of the Japanese Empire (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988).Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    For detailed accounts of this and related events, see Soon Sung Cho, Korea in World Politics 1940–1950: An Evaluation of American Responsibility (Berkeley: University of California, 1967)Google Scholar
  3. Gregory Henderson, ‘Korea’, in Gregory Henderson, Richard Ned Lebow, and John G. Stoessinger, Divided Nations in a Divided World (New York: David McKay, 1974), pp. 43–96.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruce Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War: Liberation and the Emergence of Separate Regimes, 1945–1947 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981).Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    See Rober Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 (New York: Random House, 1987).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robert Gilpin, The Political Economy of International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 328–36.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Samuel S. Kim, ‘Foreign Relations’, in John S. Major and Anthony J. Kane (eds), China Briefing, 1987 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1987), pp. 69–97.Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    Mikhail G. Nossov, ‘The USSR and the Security of the Asia-Pacific Region: From Vladivostok to Krasnoyarsk’, Asian Survey, vol. 29, no. 3 (March 1989), p. 262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 12.
    Charles E. Lindblom, The Intelligence of Democracy (New York: The Free Press, 1965), pp. 28–9.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    For full discussion about various rules of the superpower game, see Alexander L. George et al., Managing US-Soviet Rivalry: Problems of Crisis Prevention (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1983).Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    As James Burnham put it: ‘At most, containment can be a temporary expedient, a transition. As the transition is completed, containment must move towards one or the other of the two major poles, towards appeasement or liberation.’ See James Burnham, Containment or Liberation? (New York: John Day, 1953, p. 31.Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    Franklyn Griffiths, ‘The Sources of American Conduct: Soviet Perspectives and Their Policy Implications’, International Security, vol. 9, no. 2 (Fall 1984), pp. 29–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 18.
    Mikhail Gorbachev, Realities and Guarantees for a Secure World (Moscow: Novosti Press, 1987).Google Scholar
  15. 20.
    For partial text of this press conference statement, see Se-Jin Kim (ed.), Documents on Korean-American Relations 1943–1976 (Seoul: Research Center for Peace and Unification, 1976), p. 486Google Scholar
  16. Samuel S. Kim, ‘United States Korean Policy and World Order’, Alternatives: A Journal of World Policy, vol. 6, no. 3 (Winter 1980–1), pp. 419–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 21.
    Barry M. Blechman, Stephen S. Kaplan et al., Force Without War: US Armed Forces as a Political Instrument (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute, 1978).Google Scholar
  18. 24.
    See Kenneth A. Oye, ‘International Systems Structure and American Foreign Policy’, in Kenneth A. Oye, Robert J. Lieber, and Donald Rothchild (eds), Eagle Defiant: United States Foreign Policy in the 1980s (Boston: Little, Brown, 1983), pp. 3–31.Google Scholar
  19. 25.
    See R. W. Johnson, Shootdown: The Verdict on KAL 007 (London: Chatto & Windus, 1986), p. 53Google Scholar
  20. 27.
    Alexander Dallin, Black Box: KAL 007 and the Superpowers (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), pp. 88–9.Google Scholar
  21. 31.
    Alexander George, ‘US-Soviet Global Rivalry: Norms of Competition’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 23, no. 3 (1986), p. 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 32.
    For further discussion on this problem, see Samuel S. Kim, ‘The United Nations, Lawmaking, and World Order’, Alternatives: A Journal of World Policy, vol. 10, no. 4 (1985) pp. 643–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 33.
    Raymond L. Garthoff, Detente and Confrontation: American-Soviet Relations from Nixon to Reagan (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1985), p. 34.Google Scholar
  24. 34.
    Robert Legvold, ‘The Revolution in Soviet Foreign Policy’, Foreeign Affairs, vol. 68, no. 1 (1989), pp. 82–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 36.
    See Samuel S. Kim, ‘Chinese World Policy in Transition’, World Policy Journal, vol. 1, no. 3 (Spring 1984), pp. 603–33Google Scholar
  26. 41.
    See Kent E. Calder, ‘Japanese Foreign Economic Policy Formation: Explaining the Reactive State’, World Politics, vol. 40, no. 4 (July 1988), pp. 517–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 49.
    Charles E. Osgood, ‘Graduated Unilateral Initiatives for Peace’, in Quincy Wright, William M. Evans, and Morton Deutsch (eds), Preventing World War III: Some Proposals (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1962), pp. 161–77.Google Scholar
  28. 55.
    For the concept of ‘global learning’ and its ability in the study of foreign policy, see Samuel S. Kim, ‘Thinking Globally in Post-Mao China’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 27, no. 2 (1990), pp. 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Roger E. Kanet and Edward A. Kolodziej 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel S. Kim

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations