Rhetoric or Vision? Chinese Responses to U.S. Unilateralism

Lin, Kun-Chin

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-79594-0_3

Kun-Chin Lin⁵

Part of the book series: The Political Economy of the Asia Pacific ((PEAP))

616 Accesses
1 Citations

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
I would like to thank Jonathan Chow, Edward Fogarty, and Kristi Govella for their comments and editorial assistance on this chapter.
2.
For more information about Chinese leaders' nationalism and self-understanding as a rising power since the Tiananmen Square Incident in 1989, see Friedman 2005. I have benefited greatly from discussions with Professor Friedman (University of Wisconsin). Yuen-Foong Khong at Nuffield College also offered helpful insights, drawing on his expertise at The Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies, NTU, Singapore.
3.
Here I differ from Kang 2003, who also argues against realist predictions of arms races and power politics in post-Cold War Asia, noting instead that China's neighbors have chosen to bandwagon rather than balance against China. Similarly invoking deep-rooted cultural memories of a hierarchical and informal regional order in Asia, Teo 2004 claimed that imperial China gave more to its tributary states than it received from them. I doubt that this asymmetry characterizes contemporary China-Southeast Asian relations, and caution against adopting this debatable historical characterization of China as a soft-power hegemon, with the implication that smaller Asian countries must choose allegiance between China and the United States.
4.
Snow and Benford 1988, 198. Also see McAdam, McCarthy and Zald 1996; and Tarrow 1998 for background concepts and theories. Tarrow 2001 applies framing analysis to anti-globalization social movements; there is no reason why states cannot apply the same techniques, or their words cannot be assessed closely for attempts to provoke others to act on their behalf, which would accord with the classic definition of power.
5.
Benford and Snow 2000, 613.
6.
Greif and Laitin 2004.
7.
As Alastair Johnston has noted, “security dilemmas are socializing experience” through which leaders of nations redefine their interests, the nature of security goods in contention, and issue linkages. Johnston 2003, 56.
8.
Obsolescent bargaining refers to a situation where the original agreement between parties becomes obsolescent as one or more parties seek to improve their position.
9.
See Medeiros and Fravel 2003 for an alternative view of China's “sophistication” in regional diplomacy.
10.
On tactical linkages and nesting, see Aggarwal 1998.
11.
For basic texts on Chinese foreign policy, see Ross 1995; and Dittmer 1992.
12.
For further reading, see Dittmer 2005; Mann 1999; and Dittmer and Kim 1993. “Stabilizing” by no means implied conflict avoidance or moderation in negotiations— as evidenced by China's demand that Gorbachev remove the “three fundamental obstacles” (Sino-Russian border disputes and the Russian military presence in Mongolia and Afghanistan) and its attempts to pressure the United States to adopt the PRC's version of the One China Policy and reduce military support for Taiwan.
13.
The following analysis is based on Osada 1997/8.
14.
Kim 1994.
15.
Pearson 1999.
16.
For an excellent analysis of China's economic diplomatic history, see Reardon 2002.
17.
For cultural and psychological analyses of the Tiananmen Square Incident, see Wang 2004; Fewsmith 2001; and Mila 1996. It could be argued that the lasting impact of 1989 was even more concentrated on the elite consciousness, as the populace was deprived of information, legitimacy, or social space to grieve, soul-search, and mobilize in commemoration. The elite continue to grapple with the implications of a nationally repressed memory, as indicated by their caution in honoring the passing of the disgraced leader Zhao Ziyang in 2005.
18.
Friedman 2005.
19.
See Reardon 2002 for documentation of Mao's and Zhou's pragmatism in the early-1970s in engineering China's exit from the self-imposed autarkic order. Going back to the first few years of the PRC, the CCP made efforts to lure Japan away from alliance with America, including making historical revisions to blame the Nanjing Massacre on the American missionaries who set up the safety zone which saved Chinese lives. (Author's email correspondence with Edward Friedman, 10 August 2006.) One simply cannot imagine similar flexibility from Jiang Zemin or Hu Jintao toward Japan.
20.
Fukuyama 1992.
21.
Gallagher 2005.
22.
For a catalogue of key events, see “China's Long March to WTO Entry.” Available from <http://www.cnn.com>. Accessed 10 December 2001.
23.
Kim 1991.
24.
Osada 1997 and 1998 shows that trade dependency ratios and the weight of FDI net inflows to the overall investment amount scaled new heights after 1993—the former increased more rapidly and the latter doubled in that year.
25.
For exact estimates, see “China's Defense Budget—China's ‘Official’ Budget.” Available from <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm>.
26.
Dittmer 2005, 11.
27.
Pritchard 2005.
28.
Cited in Wu 2005, 36.
29.
Chung 2000.
30.
Chung 2000.
31.
See Tang 2000 regarding the “post-Cold War conundrum.”
32.
Dittmer 2005.
33.
Yom 2002.
34.
Shambaugh 2004/5.
35.
For an overview of regional debates on China's rise and impetus for collective action, see Roy 2002.
36.
Simon 2004, 263; and Johnston and Evans 1999.
37.
Foot 1998.
38.
Cossa 1998 of the Pacific Forum Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)—a founding member of CSCAP—offers a detailed insider's analysis from the US point of view.
39.
Shambaugh 2004/5, 69.
40.
Morrison 2002, 125–130.
41.
Ibid., 126.
42.
See Montaperto and Binnendijk 1997 for a summary of the PLA position. They argue that this novel position reflected an evolving party-state consensus for a new security paradigm.
43.
Montaperto and Binnendijk 1997.
44.
Of course, the US mentality was no different in trying to strengthen its bilateral security ties.
45.
Shambaugh 2004/5, 69; and Roy 2003a.
46.
Shambaugh 2004 and 2005 places a different interpretive emphasis on NSC as an alternative to traditional alliances.
47.
Roy 2003a.
48.
For closer analysis of Chinese domestic responses to the Asian Financial Crisis, see Lin 2003; Rudolph 2002; and Shih 2004.
49.
Shambaugh 2004/5, 68.
50.
On the evolution of the Chinese FDI regime, see Gallagher 2005. Zweig and Bi 2005 focus on outward FDI trends.
51.
Aggarwal and Lin 2002, 106–110. However, the State Department and Office of the US Trade Representative sensed the political risks pressing forward with the US conception of regional integration, showing restraint in the face of separate Chinese and Japanese proposals for the expansion of the ASEAN bloc. Author's interview of a senior Japanese diplomat in London, October 2004. See Severino 2005.
52.
Aggarwal and Lin 2002; and Sutter 2004.
53.
National Intelligence Council 1999.
54.
As discussed in Teo 2004a.
55.
Shambaugh 2004/5, 85.
56.
Loungani 2000, 35.
57.
Sanders 2000.
58.
Against its founding anti-communist ethos, ASEAN admitted Vietnam in 1995 and Cambodia, Burma, and Laos in 1997, despite their authoritarian and communist regimes and the Clinton Administration's sanctions against Burma. See Dalpino and Lin 2003.
59.
Phillip Bowring “ASEAN shouldn't admit Cambodia, Laos and Burma Now,” International Herald Tribune, 21 April 1997.
60.
Dalpino and Lin 2003; and Roy 2002.
61.
Simon 2004. This notion came into being since the closure of US' Subic Bay base in the Philippines in 1992. In 2001, Singapore built the Changi naval base, at which aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk of the US 7^th Fleet docked. See Trish Saywell, “Will New Naval Base Cause Waves?” Far Eastern Economic Review, 17 May 2001.
62.
Chung 2000.
63.
Ibid.
64.
Kim 2001. Pritchard 2005 argues that DPRK was mainly interested in improving relations with the United States.
65.
“Spokesman Assesses Support For Southeast Asian Nuclear Free Zone,” Kyodo, 7 December 1995.
66.
Yom 2002.
67.
Dittmer 2005, 14.
68.
Available from <http://www.aseansec.org>.
69.
Shirk 2003.
70.
Mochizuki 2004, 126.
71.
Johnson 2005.
72.
Taniguchi 2005.
73.
Roy 2004a.
74.
Secretary Colin L. Powell, Interview on The Wall Street Journal Report, November 13, 2004. Available from<http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/38165.htm>.
75.
Given the Bush administration's relative equanimity toward China and concessions to China's position on Taiwan in 2004, Qian's forthright anti-Americanism was remarkable. Qian stated, “The troubles and disasters the United States has met do not stem from threats by others, but from its own cocksureness and arrogance. The 21st Century is not the American Century. That does not mean that the US does not want the dream. Rather, it is incapable of realizing the goal.” Quoted from “The Qian Qichen Op-ed: Official Discontent or Just one Man's Opinion?” by Harvey Stockwin for Association for Asian Research, 1 November 2005. Available from <http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2462.html>.
76.
According to La Nueva Cuba, “The War Is Approaching Us” was first posted on the Internet in January 2003 with title “A recent speech from a high ranking official in PLA” on web sites such as <http://www.mwjx.com>. On 11 October, it was published at <http://www.chinaren.com> with the title “The War Is Approaching Us—Chi Haotian.” It was also posted with the title “China, do you still have ten years' peace time?” It was most recently published on 23 April 2005 at <http://www.boxun.com>. I obtained the version published online by La Nueva Cuba on 6 October 2005.
77.
For further development of this thesis, consistent with or deviating from mine, see articles by Thomas Christensen and Robert Suettinger in various issues of China Leadership Monitor from 2002–2005, available from <http://www.chinaleadershipmonitor.org>. It is arguable that Taipei's leverage vis-a-vis Beijing suffers a decline when PRC—US interests on Taiwan can be horse-traded over other issues. See Sutter 2004, 48, 52. As a result, US support for Taiwan fluctuated dramatically, increasing in 2003, then declining after Chen's reelection in 2004. See Roy 2003b.
78.
Tellis 2004.
79.
For a detailed analysis of trends in China's trade with Asia in 2000–2003, see Prasad 2004. Updates for 2003–2004 are provided by the US—China Business Council website. Available from <http://www.uschina.org>.
80.
Dalpino and Lin 2003; and Prasad 2004. On Chinese outward FDI and the increasing trade deficit with Southeast Asia, see Xinhua 15 May 2004; and ARF-CCPIT 2005.
81.
Nevertheless, the EU denied China the largely symbolic “market economy” status. See Wong 2005 for an analysis of prospects for a common European policy on China.
82.
Tellis 2004, 25.
83.
Wadi 2004. See Sutter 2004, 49–51 for a recapitulation of the “imperial overreach” thesis.
84.
The doctrine did not escape domestic debates and manipulations by factions. Swaine 2004, 73.
85.
Roy 2003. See Van Ness 2004/5 for specific Chinese responses to the Bush Doctrine. For insights into the adaptation of the PLA to the new frame, see “China's National Defense,” White Papers published in 2000, 2002, and 2004 by the Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. Available from <http://english.peopledaily.com.cn>.
86.
Shirk 2003.
87.
Sutter 2005, 42.
88.
Baviera 2004, 3–6; and Swaine 2004, 75.
89.
Swaine 2004, 76.
90.
For information on the current status of the following disputes, see <http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Econ>.
91.
China's disputes with Japan over these islands remain outstanding. Japan has complained bitterly to Washington about China's establishment of at least one drilling platform patrolled by warships, while the Chinese denounced the Japanese government for issuing an exploration license to Teikoku Oil Company. Both countries characterized these moves as encroachments on national sovereignty, and bilateral talks to construct a framework for cooperation have faltered. See “The Japan-China Oil Slick,” BusinessWeek Online, 7 Nov 2005.
92.
Given the collective patrol of the Malacca Strait by Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore, China is also exploring alternative transport routes through Thailand and Burma.
93.
Sutter 2004, 57.
94.
Sutter 2004, 46, 49; and Simon 2004, 264.
95.
See critiques by Sanders 2000; Swaine 2003; Shirk 2003; Sigal 2005; and Berkofsky 2005. Roy 2003b offers a more sanguine view.
96.
Some debates remain over the relative weight of these two core objectives: Harrison 2005 endorses Ambassador Stephen Bosworth's characterization of “no nukes, no war, no collapse.” Kang 2003 believes that stability is as important as nuclear weapons. Roy 2004b argues that a concern for DPRK's regime stability trumps even nuclear capabilities. Chung 2003 points out that Chinese attitudes toward Korean reunification remain unclear. See Wu 2005 for specifics of the Chinese demands on the DPRK from the perspective of a middle-level diplomat, which Selig Harrison 2005 has found credible.
97.
In 2002, Beijing and Pyongyang had a serious diplomatic falling out when China arrested a Chinese-born businessman—one Mr. Yang, a self-made man of the cultivated flower business—hand-picked by Kim Jong-il to administer a new economic zone near the border. He was nominally charged with tax evasion.
98.
For analyses of Russia's muddled view of its global and regional status, see Hanson 2004, 185. Swaine 2003 argues that Russia was interested in the Korean Peninsula for railroad routes and sought to project a good image in the G-8 forum.
99.
In this sense, China's motivation in multilateralism differs from that of the US, which consists mainly of sharing the cost of pressuring North Korea with others. Shirk 2003.
100.
Cha 2004, 141.
101.
Shirk 2003. For details of the Six-Party Talks process from the eyes of a seasoned diplomat, see Pritchard 2005.
102.
As quoted in “Framing NE Asia Security: Six-party talks on Korean nuclear issue lay a foundation for multilateral security cooperation” by Ni Yanshuo, Beijing Review. Available from <http://www.bjreview.com.cn/200451/World-200451(C).htm>.
103.
Ibid.
104.
Swaine 2004, 85; Hanson 2004, 179–80; and Sergei Blagov, “Shanghai Group Aims to Keep US in Check,” Asia Times, 19 June 2004.
105.
Ralph A. Cossa, “Asian multilateralism gets a lift,” Taipei Times, 2 Aug 2002.
106.
David Wall, “Bound by a common cause,” The Japan Times, 1 August 2005.
107.
Ibid.; and Herberg 2004, 367.
108.
Yom 2002.
109.
Chung 2003; and Shirk 2003.
110.
For case studies of NEA energy cooperation, see Rozman 2005; and Christo-ffersen 2005, 2000, 1998.
111.
Chung 2003. For a detailed analysis of existing gas cooperation arrangements, see Chen 2004.
112.
See progress reports from the US—China Business Council. Available from <http://www.uschina.org/>.
113.
Roy 2002. For a recent authoritative statement, see “Asia and China: Growing Together?” Keynote Speech by Haruhiko Kuroda, President of the Asian Development Bank, given at the Center for Global Development/Institute for International Economics, 23 June 2005, Washington, DC. Also, “Rise of China an opportunity rather than threat: Deputy PM of Thailand,” People's Daily, 19 October 2005.
114.
For an analysis of the economic dynamics of ASEAN, see Palanca 2005. Also see survey results of Chinese outward FDI from ARF-CCPIT, 2005, which showed Chinese firms to hold little interest in investing Canada.
115.
Severino 2005, 16.
116.
See Antkiewicz and Whalley 2004 for a review of Chinese's new regional trade agreements.
117.
Banda and Whalley 2005, 6. Also see Antkiewicz and Whalley 2004.
118.
Banda and Whalley 2005, 7.
119.
See Aggarwal and Ravenhill 2001.
120.
Simon 2004, 263, 283. Outside of Asia, China has shown similar enthusiasm for exploring various levels of regional institutions with little tactical regard for consistency, assuming that market forces and ideological agreements will keep things in order. On PRC's grand strategy in Latin and Central America, see “Prepared Statement of Dr. June Teufel Dreyer before the Commissioner, US—China Economic and Security Review Commission,” Wednesday, 6 April 2005. Available from <http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/109/teu040605.pdf>.
121.
For a table of China's FTA/RTA agreements, see <http://www.apec.org/webapps/fta_rta_information.html>.
122.
In 1994, APEC Leaders at Bogor, Indonesia, set the goals of reaching free trade and investment by 2010 for developed economies, and 2020 for developing economies.
123.
For a Chinese assessment, see “Shanghai APEC: A Focus of World Attention” by Hu Si, Beijing Review. Available from <http://www.bjreview.com.cn/2001/200145/CoverStory-200145.htm>.
124.
See Joint Statement issued at the 17th APEC Ministerial Meeting at Busan. Available from <http://www.apec.org>.
125.
See “Joint Statement of the Seventeenth APEC Ministerial Meeting, Busian, Republic of Korea, 15–16 November 2005.” Available from <http://www.apecsec. org.sg/apec/ministerial_statements/annual_ministerial/2005_17th_apec_ministerial.html>.
126.
Berkofsky 2005.
127.
“China Makes Proposals on Doha Trade Talks,” Xinhua News Agency, 9 May 2005; “China Committed to Promoting Multilateral Trade System,” China Daily, 12 July 2005.
128.
Tellis 2004, 11.
129.
“Asia and China: Growing Together?” Keynote Speech by Haruhiko Kuroda, President of the Asian Development Bank, 23 June 2005, Washington, DC. Also see “China, Japan, S. Korea, ASEAN Makes Moves for Asian Monetary Fund” by AFP. Available from <http://www.aseansec.org/afp/115.htm>. Accessed 6 May 2005.
130.
Simon 2004, 244.
131.
Former US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick called for China to bridge a “gulf of perception” in becoming a truly responsible world power, which he defined as being cooperative with US actions and supportive of US values of democracy, property rights, and labor protection. “Whither China: From Membership to Responsibility?” Remarks of Robert B. Zoellick before the National Committee on US—China Relations, 21 September 2005.
132.
Berkofsky 2005.
133.
Christensen 2005; and David Shambaugh and Wu Xinbo, “Sino-American bridges need to be repaired,” Financial Times, 29 August 2005.
134.
I wish to thank Yuen-Foong Khong for contributing this insight, and apologize for my simplification.
135.
For case studies of recent US and Chinese bilateral agreements that show differences in their approaches, see Garnaut 2005; Hufbauer and Wong 2005; and Soesastro 2003. For a case study of Chinese industrial policy in response to international pressures, see Lin 2006 on the national oil companies.
136.
China's flexible approach to bilateral and multilateral negotiations is superficially reminiscent of the United States' “strategy without vision” in the 1990s toward APEC, in which Washington's enthusiasm for regional forums created not only problems of consistency with higher order institutions but also tempting targets to further certain short-term U.S. interests. See Aggarwal and Lin 2002.
137.
See Garnaut 2005 for Australia's desire for an FTA with China to counterbalance the US—Australia FTA.
138.
Evenett and Meier 2006; and Hufbauer and Wong 2005.
139.
Evenett and Meier 2006.
140.
Aggarwal 2006; and Evenett and Meier 2006.
141.
Bergsten 2002 generally argues in favor of bilateral agreements as providing a positive impetus for multilateral negotiations. However, recently Bergsten 2005 acknowledges the potential for a devastating trade war between China- and US-centered preferential trade blocs. Yet he believes that regional powers will push for an FTA of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) to avoid “drawing a line down the middle of the Pacific.”

References

Aggarwal, Vinod K. 1998. Institutional Designs for a Complex World: Bargaining, Linkages, and Nesting. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Google Scholar
——. 2006. The Political Economy of a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific: A U.S. Perspective. Business Asia 14 (2):10–16.
Google Scholar
Aggarwal, Vinod K. and Kun-Chin Lin. 2002. Strategy without Vision: The U.S. and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation In Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC): The First Decade, edited by Jurgen Roland, Eva Manske, and Werner Draguhn, 87–118. London, UK: RoutledgeCurzon.
Google Scholar
Aggarwal, Vinod K. and John Ravenhill. 2001. Undermining the WTO: The Case Against ‘Open Sectoralism.’ Asia Pacific Issues 50.
Google Scholar
Antkiewicz, Agata and John Whalley. 2004. China's New Regional Trade Agreements. Working Paper 10992. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Google Scholar
Baviera, Aileen S. P. 2004. International Terrorism, U.S. Foreign Policy and Great Power Relations. In Before and After September 11, 2001: An Asian Perspective, 9–20. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo Center for Asian Studies.
Google Scholar
Banda, O. G. Dayaratna and John Whalley. 2005. Beyond Goods and Services: Competitive Policy, Investment, Mutual Recognition, Movement of Persons, and Broader Cooperative Provisions of Recent FTAs Involving ASEAN Countries. Working Paper 11232. Stanford, Calif.: NBER Working Paper Series.
Google Scholar
Benford, Robert and David Snow. 2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements: an Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26:611–4.
Article Google Scholar
Bergsten, Fred. 2005. A New Strategy for APEC. Speech at the 16th General Meeting of the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC) Seoul, South Korea, September 6, 2005. Available from <http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/bergsten0905apec.pdf>.
Berkofsky, Axel. 2005. China's Asian Ambitions. Far Eastern Economic Review July/August.
Google Scholar
Cha, Victor. 2004. Korea: A Peninsula in Crisis and Flux. In Strategic Asia 2004–5: Confronting Terrorism in the Pursuit of Power, edited by Ashley J. Tellis and Michael Willis, 139–162. Seattle, Wash.: National Bureau of Asian Research.
Google Scholar
Chen, Xavier. 2004. Gas Cooperation in Northeast Asia: Issues and Institutional Barriers. A presentation for BP China, March Seoul, Korea. Available from <http://www.iea.org/textbase/work/2004/seoul/Xavier_Chen.pdf>.
Chung, Ok-Nim. 2000. Solving the Security Puzzle in Northeast Asia: A Multilateral Security Regime. CNAPS Working Paper. Washington DC: Brookings Institution.
Google Scholar
Christensen, Thomas J. 2003. PRC Security Relations with the United States: Why Things Are Going So Well. China Leadership Monitor 8. Available from <http://www.chinaleadershipmonitor.org/pastissues.html>.
——. 2005. Have Old Problems Trumped New Thinking? China's Relations with Taiwan, Japan, and North Korea. China Leadership Monitor 14. Available from <http://www.chinaleadershipmonitor.org/pastissues.html>.
Christoffersen, Gaye. 1998. China's Intentions for Russian and Central Asian Oil and Gas. NBR Analysis 9 (2). Available from <http://www.nbr.org/publications/issue.aspx?ID=322>.
——. 2000. Prospects and Problems for Northeast Asian Energy Cooperation. Lecture paper for the Huang Hsing Foundation Chun-tu Hsueh Lecture Series, March. Available from <http://www.irex.org/programs/huang-hsing/lecture6-paper.asp>.
——. 2005 The Dilemmas of China's Energy Governance: Recentralization and Regional Cooperation. CEF Monthly (November):55–79.
Google Scholar
Cossa, Ralph A. 1998. Track Two Diplomacy: Promoting Regional Peace, Stability. USIA Electronic Journal 3 (1) Available from <http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0198/ijpe/pj18coss.htm>.
Dalpino, Catharin and Juo-yu Lin. 2003. China and Southeast Asia: The Difference of a Decade. Northeast Asia Survey 2002 3 (April). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute.
Google Scholar
Dittmer, Lowell. 1992. Sino-Soviet Normalization and Its International Implications. Seattle, Wash.: University of Washington Press.
Google Scholar
——. 2005. The Sino-Japanese-Russian Triangle. Journal of Chinese Political Science 10 (1):1–21.
Article Google Scholar
Dittmer, Lowell and Samuel Kim, eds. 1993. China's Quest for National Identity. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Google Scholar
Evenett, Simon and Michael Meier. 2006. An Interim Assessment of the U.S. Trade Policy of ‘Competitive Liberalization.’ Working paper. Available from <http://www.evenett.com/papers.htm>.
Fewsmith, Joseph. 2001. China Since Tiananmen: The Politics of Transition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Foot, Rosemary. 1998. China in the ASEAN Regional Forum: Organizational Processes and Domestic Modes of Thought. Asian Survey 38 (5).
Google Scholar
Friedman, Edward. 2005. China's Rise, Taiwan's Dilemmas, and International Peace. London, UK: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.
Google Scholar
Gallagher, Mary. 2005. Contagious Capitalism: Globalization and the Politics of Labor in China. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar
Garnaut, Ross. 2005. Australia, U.S. and China: Open Regionalism in an Era of Bilateral FTAs. Paper presented at a Public Lecture, Asialink, March, Melbourne, Australia. Available from <http://www.asialink.unimelb.edu.au/cpp/trans-cripts/pdf/garnaut220305.pdf>.
Greif, Avner and David D. Laitin. 2004. A Theory of Endogenous Institutional Change. American Political Science Review 98 (4):613–632.
Article Google Scholar
Hanson, Stephen E. 2004. Russia: Strategic Partner or Evil Empire. In Strategic Asia 2004–5: Confronting Terrorism in the Pursuit of Power, edited by Ashley J. Tellis and Michael Willis, 163–196. Seattle, Wash.: National Bureau of Asian Research.
Google Scholar
Harrison, Selig S. 2005. China, North Korea and the United States. Written testimony prepared for a hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission on China's Role in the North Korea Nuclear Crisis, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Available from <www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hearings/written_testimonies/05_03_10wrtr/harrison_selig_wrts.htm>.
Herberg, Mikkal E. 2004. Energy: Asia's Energy Insecurity—Cooperation or Conflict? In Strategic Asia 2004–5: Confronting Terrorism in the Pursuit of Power, edited by Ashley J. Tellis and Michael Willis, 339–377. Seattle, Wash.: National Bureau of Asian Research.
Google Scholar
Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Yee Wong. 2005. Prospects for Regional Free Trade in Asia. Working Paper 05–12. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics. Available from: <http://www.iie.com/publications/wp/wp05-12.pdf>.
——. 2003. Is China a Status Quo Power? International Security 27 (4):5–56.
Article Google Scholar
Johnston, Alastair Iain and Paul Evans. 1999. China's Engagement in International Security Institutions. In Engaging China: The Management of an Emerging Power, edited by Alastair Iain Johnston and Robert S. Ross, 235– 272. London, UK: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Kang, David C. 2003. Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical Frameworks. International Security 27 (4):57–85.
Article Google Scholar
Kim, Samuel S. 2001. 1991. Peking's Foreign Policy in the Shadows of Tiananmen. Issues and Studies 27 (1):39–69.
Google Scholar
——. 1994. China and the Third World. In China and the World: China's Foreign Relations in the Post-Cold War Era 3rd ed., edited by Samuel Kim. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Google Scholar
——. The Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia Security: U.S. Policy Options. In Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia — U.S. Strategies for Regional Peace. Report of the 42^nd Strategy for Peace Conference, edited by Michael Kraig and James Henderson. Muscatine, Iowa: The Stanley Foundation. Available from <http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/reports/SPC01B.pdf>.
Lin, Kun-Chin. 2003. Corporatizing China: Reinventing State Control for the Market. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley.
Google Scholar
——. 2006. Disembedding Socialist Firms as a Statist Project: Restructuring the Chinese Oil Industry 1997–2002. Enterprise & Society: The International Journal of Business History 7 (1):59–97.
Google Scholar
Loungani, Prakash. 2000. Comrades or Competitors? Trade Links between China and Other East Asian Economies. IMF Finance and Development 40 (2):34–36
Google Scholar
Mann, James. 1999. About Face: A History of America's Curious Relationship with China, From Nixon to Clinton. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Google Scholar
McAdam, Doug, John McCarthy and Mayer Zald, eds. 1996. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Medeiros, Evan S. and M. Taylor Fravel. 2003. China's New Diplomacy. Foreign Affairs 82 (6)
Google Scholar
Mila, James. 1996. The Legacy of Tiananmen; China in Disarray. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press.
Google Scholar
Mochizuki, Mike A. 2004. Japan: Between Alliance and Autonomy. In Strategic Asia 2004–5: Confronting Terrorism in the Pursuit of Power, edited by Ashley J. Tellis and Michael Willis. Seattle, Wash.: National Bureau of Asian Research.
Google Scholar
Montaperto, Ronald N. and Hans Binnendijk. 1997. PLA Views on Asia Pacific Security in the 21st Century. Washington D.C.: National Defense University Institute for National Strategic Studies.
Google Scholar
Morrison, Charles E. 2002. APEC in Sino-American Relations: A Vehicle for Systemic Integration. In Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC): The First Decade, edited by Jurgen Roland, Eva Manske, and Werner Draguhn, London, UK: RoutledgeCurzon.
Google Scholar
National Intelligence Council. 1999. Northeast Asia Static but Stable. Conference Report issued by the National Intelligence Council, July. Available from <http://www.dni.gov/nic/confreports_NEasiastatic.html>.
Osada, Hiroshi. 1997/8. Deepening Economic Interdependence in the APEC Region — Boom and Vulnerability through Trade Linkages. In The Deepening Economic Interdependence in the APEC Region, edited by Keiji Omura. Chiba, Japan: APEC Study Center Working Paper Series 1997/1998 of the Institute of Developing Economies. Available from <http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Apec/pdf/97et_03.pdf>.
Google Scholar
Palanca, Ellen H. 2005. Toward an East Asian Economic Community. In Asian Cooperation: Problems and Challenges in the New Century. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo Center for Asian Studies.
Google Scholar
Pearson, Margaret M. 1999. The Major Multilateral Economic Institutions Engage China. In Engaging China: The Management of an Emerging Power, edited by Alastair Iain Johnston and Robert S. Ross, 207–234. London, UK: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Prasad, Eswar, ed. 2004. China's Growth and Integration into the World Economy: Prospects and Challenges. IMF Occasional Paper 232. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
Google Scholar
Pritchard, Charles L. 2005. The Korean Peninsula and the Role of Multilateral Talks. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Available from <http://www. unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art2275.pdf>.
Google Scholar
Reardon, Lawrence C. 2002. The Reluctant Dragon: Crisis Cycles in Chinese Foreign Economic Policy. Seattle, Wash.: University of Washington Press.
Google Scholar
Ross, Robert. 1995. Negotiating Cooperation: The United States and China, 1969– 89. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar
Roy, Dennis. 2002. China and the Southeast Asia: ASEAN Makes the Best of the Inevitable. Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies 1 (4). Available from <http://www.apcss.org>.
——. 2003a. China's Pitch for a Multipolar World: The New Security Concept. Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies 2 (1). Available from <http://www.apcss.org>.
——. 2003b. A Late Honeymoon: China's Response to U.S. Security Policies. A Special Assessment for Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, March 2003. Available from <http://www.apcss.org>.
——. 2004a. China-Japan Relations: Cooperation amidst Antagonism. A Special Assessment for Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, October. Available from <http://www.apcss.org>.
——. 2004b. China and the Korean Peninsula: China's Pyongyang Problem and Seoul Hope. Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies 3 (1). Available from <http://www.apcss.org>.
Rozman, Gilbert. 2005. Sino-Japanese Competition over the Russian Far East: Is the Oil Pipeline Only a Starting Point? In Siberia and the Russian Far East in the 21st Century: Partners in the “Community of Asia,” Vol. 1, Crossroads in Northeast Asia, edited by Akihiro Iwashita, 1–20. Sapporo, Japan: SRC.
Google Scholar
Rudolph, M. C. J. 2002. The Diversity of Convergence: Global Finance, Capital Control, and the Politics of Securitization in China. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Asian Studies, April, Washington, D.C.
Google Scholar
Sanders, Sol W. 2000. Muddling Through Asia. American Outlook (Winter).
Google Scholar
Severino, Rudolfo C. 2005. Asia in the Twenty-First Century. In Asian Cooperation: Problems and Challenges in the New Century. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo Center for Asian Studies.
Google Scholar
Shambaugh, David. 2004/5. China Engages Asia: Reshaping the Regional Order. International Security 29 (3): 64–99.
Article Google Scholar
Shih, Victor C. 2004. Dealing with Non-Performing Loans: Power Politics and Financial Policies in China. The China Quarterly 180: 922–944.
Article Google Scholar
Shirk, Susan. 2003. The United States Is Marginalizing Itself in Northeast Asia. Seventh session of Honors Collegium 155, Dodd Hall, UCLA, May 15, 2003. Available from <http://www.international.ucla.edu>.
Sigal, Leon V. 2005. Bush Policy Backfiring in Asia. Policy Forum Online 05-64A. Available from <http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/0564Sigal.html>.
Simon, Sheldon W. 2004. Southeast Asia: Back to the Future? In Strategic Asia 2004–5: Confronting Terrorism in the Pursuit of Power, edited by Ashley J. Tellis and Michael Willis. Seattle, Wash.: National Bureau of Asian Research.
Google Scholar
Soesastro, Hadi. 2003. Dynamics of Competitive Liberalization in RTA Negotiations: East Asian Perspectives. Draft paper for the PECC-LAEBA conference “Regional Trade Agreements in Comparative Perspective.” April, Washington, DC. Available from <http://www.pecc.org/trade/rtas-content.htm>.
Snow, David and Robert Benford. 1988. Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization. In From Structure to Action: Comparing Social Movement Research across Cultures. International Social Movement Research, edited by Bert Klandermans, Hanspeter Kriesi, and Sidney Tarrow. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
Google Scholar
Sutter, Robert G. 2004. United States: Leadership Maintained Amid Continuing Challenges. In Strategic Asia 2004–5: Confronting Terrorism in the Pursuit of Power, edited by Ashley J. Tellis and Michael Willis. Seattle, Wash.: National Bureau of Asian Research.
Google Scholar
Swaine, Michael D. 2004. China: Exploiting a Strategic Opening. In Strategic Asia 2004–5: Confronting Terrorism in the Pursuit of Power, edited by Ashley J. Tellis and Michael Willis. Seattle, Wash.: National Bureau of Asian Research.
Google Scholar
——. 2003. China's Perspective on Northeast Asian Security. Transcript from a presentation by Michael Swaine, Senior Associate and Co-Director of the China Project at the Carnegie Endowment, on “China's Perspective on Northeast Asian Security.” Available from <http://www.CarnegieEndowment.org>.
Tang, Shiping. 2000. “Economic Integration in Central Asia: The Russian and Chinese Relationship.” Asian Survey 40 (2):360–376.
Article Google Scholar
Taniguchi, Tomohiko. 2005. A Cold Peace: The Changing Security Equation in Northeast Asia. Orbis (Summer):445–457.
Google Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
——. 2001. Transnational Politics: Contention and Institutions in International Politics. Annual Review of Political Science 4:1–20.
Article Google Scholar
Teo, Eric Chu Cheow. 2004. Asian Security and the Reemergence of China's Tributary System. China Brief. Available from <http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2340.html>.
Tellis, Ashley J. 2004. Introduction: Confronting Terrorism, Consolidating Primacy. In Strategic Asia 2004–5: Confronting Terrorism in the Pursuit of Power, edited by Ashley J. Tellis and Michael Willis, 3–33. Seattle, Wash.: National Bureau of Asian Research.
Google Scholar
Van Ness, Peter. 2004/5. China's Response to the Bush Doctrine. World Policy Journal 11 (4):38–47.
Google Scholar
Wadi, Julkipli M. 2004. Ambivalence, Ferment, and Trade-off since 9/11. In Before and After September 11, 2001: An Asian Perspective. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo Center for Asian Studies.
Google Scholar
Wang, Hui. 2004. China's New Order: Society, Politics, and Economy in Transition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Wong, Reuben. 2005. Towards a Common European Policy on China? Economic, Diplomatic and Human Rights Trends since 1985. Paper presented at The European Union and the World: Asia, Enlargement and Constitutional Change, May, Beijing, PRC. Available from <http://web.uvic.ca/europe/ipsa-rc3/wong.pdf>.
Wu, Anne. 2005. What China Whispers to North Korea. The Washington Quarterly (Spring):35–48.
Google Scholar
Yom, Sean L. 2002. The Future of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Harvard Asia Quarterly (Autumn). Available from <http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~asiactr/haq/200204/0204a003.htm>.
Zweig, David and Bi Jianhai. 2005. China's Global Hunt for Energy. Foreign Affairs 84 (5).
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

National University of Singapore, Singapore
Kun-Chin Lin

Authors

Kun-Chin Lin
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Berkeley Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Study Center (BASC), University of California, 802 Barrows Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720-1970, USA
Vinod K. Aggarwal & Vinod K. Aggarwal &
Dept. of Public Administration, Yonsei University, 134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-749, Korea
Min Gyo Koo
Dept. of Political Science, Chung-Ang University, 221 Heukseok-dong, Dongjak-ku, Seoul, 156-756, Korea
Seungjoo Lee
Dept. of Political Science, Yonsei University, 134 Sinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-749, Korea
Chung-in Moon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lin, KC. (2009). Rhetoric or Vision? Chinese Responses to U.S. Unilateralism. In: Aggarwal, V.K., Koo, M.G., Lee, S., Moon, Ci. (eds) Northeast Asia. The Political Economy of the Asia Pacific. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79594-0_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79594-0_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-79593-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-79594-0
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics