Advertisement

‘Coopetition’ and Risk Tolerance in the South China Sea: Indonesia and Malaysia’s Middle Power Strategies

  • Bruno Hellendorff
Chapter
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)

Abstract

Is conflict in the South China Sea inevitable? Structural conditions may point that way, as many authors have hinted. Others have pointed at two major impediments to conflict: the socialization process led by ASEAN; and a greater-than-ever interdependence among regional countries. This article tests these two conventional arguments by considering the collective and individual choices of ASEAN states. It resorts to rational choice institutionalism and middle power theory to model the environment in which ASEAN states operate strategically and considers Indonesia and Malaysia as case studies. The finding is that Indonesia and Malaysia, as regional middle powers, are more risk-tolerant than usually assumed vis-à-vis the rise of China and its repercussions in the South China Sea.

Keywords

Coopetition Indonesia Malaysia Middle power South China Sea ASEAN 

References

  1. Acharya, A. (2005). Do norms and identity matter? Community and power in Southeast Asia’s regional order. The Pacific Review, 18(1), 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acharya, A. (2009). The strong in the world of the weak. Southeast Asia in Asia’s regional architecture. In M. Green & B. Gill (Eds.), Asia’s new multilateralism: Cooperation, competition, and the search for community (pp. 172–190). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Acharya, A. (2014a). Power shift or paradigm shift? China’s rise and Asia’s emerging security order. International Studies Quarterly, 58, 158–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Acharya, A. (2014b). Indonesia matters. Asia’s emerging democratic power. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Baruah, D. M. (2014, March 21). South China Sea: Beijing’s ‘Salami Slicing’ strategy. RSIS Commentaries.Google Scholar
  6. Baviera, A. (2013). China-ASEAN conflict and cooperation in the South China Sea: Managing power asymmetry. National Security Review (The Study of National Security at 50: Re-awakenings), pp. 202–205.Google Scholar
  7. Beeson, M., & Lee, W. (2014, May). Indonesia and the democratic middle powers: A new basis for collaboration? ANU National Security College Issue Brief No 10.Google Scholar
  8. Brooks, S., & Wohlforth, W. (2005). Hard times for soft balancing. International Security, 30(1), 72–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buszynski, L. (2010). Rising tensions in the South China Sea: Prospects for a resolution of the issue. Security Challenges, 6(2), 85–104.Google Scholar
  10. Cao, J. (2014, June 16). CAO: China’s salami-slicing strategy. The Washington Times.
  11. Chan, I., & Li, M. (2014). Political will and joint development in the South China Sea. In S. Wu & N. Hong (Eds.), Recent developments in the South China Sea dispute: The prospect of a joint development regime (p. 184). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Chapnick, A. (1999). Middle power. Canadian Foreign Policy, 7(2), 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen, S. (2013, August 29). Malaysia splits with ASEAN claimants on China Sea threat. Bloomberg.Google Scholar
  14. Cheng, J. (2013). China’s regional strategy and challenges in East Asia. China Perspectives, 2, 55.Google Scholar
  15. Cheng-Chwee, K. (2008). The essence of hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s response to a rising China. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 30(2), 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cheng-Chwee, K. (2013). Making sense of Malaysia’s China policy: Asymmetry, proximity, and elite’s domestic authority. Chinese Journal of International Politics, 6, 429–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cooper, A. (Ed.). (1997). Niche diplomacy: Middle powers after the Cold War. London: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  18. Cronin, P., et al. (2014). Tailored coercion: Competition and risk in maritime Asia. Washington, DC: CNAS Report.Google Scholar
  19. da Cunha Rezende, F. (2009). Analytical challenges for neoinstitutional theories of institutional change in comparative political science. Brazilian Political Science Review (Online), 4(se). http://socialsciences.scielo.org/scielo.php?pid=1981-382120090001&script=sci_issuetoc
  20. Ding, S. (2008). To build a “harmonious world”: China’s soft power wielding in the global south. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 13(2), 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Djalal, H. (2000). South China Sea Island disputes. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Suppl. No. 8.Google Scholar
  22. Emmers, R. (2013). Resource management and contested territories in East Asia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Pivot.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Emmers, R., & Teo, S. (2015). Regional security strategies of middle powers in the Asia-Pacific. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. doi: 10.1093/irap/lcu020
  24. Evans, G. (2011, June 29). Middle power diplomacy. Inaugural Edgardo Boeninger Memorial Lecture, Chile Pacific Foundation, Santiago.Google Scholar
  25. Farley, R. (2014, December 26). A holiday primer on Salami Slicing. The Diplomat.
  26. Fels, E. (2013). Dancing with the dragon: Indonesia and its relations to a rising China. In M. Heise & K. Rucktäschel (Eds.), Indonesia’s search for democracy. Political, economic, and social developments. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  27. Fiorina, M. (1995). Rational choice and the new(?) institutionalism. Polity, 28(1), 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Freedman, A. L. (2014). Malaysia, Thailand and the ASEAN middle power way. In B. Gilley & A. O’Neil (Eds.), Middle powers and the rise of China (pp. 104–125). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Friedberg, A. (1993–1994). Ripe for rivalry: Prospects for peace in a multipolar Asia. International Security, 18(3), 5–33.Google Scholar
  30. Gilley, B., & O’Neil, A. (2014a). China’s rise through the prism of middle powers. In B. Gilley & A. O’Neil (Eds.), Middle powers and the rise of China (p. 3). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gilley, B., & O’Neil, A. (2014b). Middle powers and the rise of China. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gilley, B., & O’Neil, A. (Eds.). (2014c). Middle powers and the rise of China. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Goh, E. (2005a). Meeting the China challenge: The US in Southeast Asian regional security strategies (Policy Studies, Vol. 16). Washington, DC: East-West Center.Google Scholar
  34. Goh, E. (2005b). Great powers and Southeast Asian regional security strategies: Omni-enmeshment, complex balancing and hierarchical order. Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies.Google Scholar
  35. Green, M. J., & Gill, B. (Eds.). (2009a). Asia’s new multilateralism: Cooperation, competition, and the search for community. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Green, M. J., & Gill, B. (2009b). Unbundling Asia’s new multilateralism. In M. J. Green & B. Gill (Eds.), Asia’s new multilateralism: Cooperation, competition, and the search for community (p. 13). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Green, D., & Shapiro, I. (1996). Pathologies of rational choice theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Haddick, R. (2012, August 3). Salami Slicing in the South China Sea. Foreign Policy.Google Scholar
  39. Hall, P., & Taylor, R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hausman, D. (1995). Rational choice and social theory: A comment. Journal of Philosophy, 92(2), 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hellendorff, B. (2014). Hiding behind the tribute: Status, symbol, and power in Sino-Southeast Asian relations, past and present. In B. Dessein (Ed.), Interpreting China as a regional and global power: Nationalism and historical consciousness in world politics (pp. 142–168). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  42. Hellendorff, B. (2015, January 12). L’industrie de défense indonésienne: la clef de la puissance? Note d’analyse du GRIP.Google Scholar
  43. Hellendorff, B., & Kellner, T. (2014, July 9). Indonesia: A bigger role in the South China Sea? The Diplomat.Google Scholar
  44. Holslag, J. (2015). China’s coming war with Asia. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  45. Hong, N. (2012). UNCLOS and ocean dispute settlement: Law and politics in the South China Sea. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. International Crisis Group. (2012, April 23). Stirring up the South China Sea (I). Crisis Group Asia Report N°223.
  47. Johnston, A. I. (2013). How new and assertive is China’s new assertiveness? International Security, 37(4), 7–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Joyner, C. C. (1999). The Spratly Islands dispute in the South China Sea: Problems, policies, and prospects for diplomatic accommodation. In Singh, R. (Ed.), Investigating confidence building measures on the Asia Pacific region. Report No. 28. Washington, DC: Henry Stimson Centre.Google Scholar
  49. Kamel, L. (2009). Rational choice and new institutionalism, a critical analysis. Eurostudium3W, 10(1), 72–81.Google Scholar
  50. Kang, D. (2010). East Asia before the West: Five centuries of trade and tribute. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Kaplan, R. (2014). Asia’s cauldron: The South China Sea and the end of a stable Pacific. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  52. Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Khong, Y. F. (2004). Coping with strategic uncertainty: The role of institutions and soft balancing in Southeast Asia’s post-cold war strategy. In J. J. Suh, P. Katzenstein, & A. Carlson (Eds.), Rethinking security in East Asia: Identity, power, and efficiency (pp. 172–208). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Kurlantzick, J. (2007). Charm offensive: How China’s soft power is transforming the world. New York: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Lai, H. B. (2013, August 30). Smaller countries can be ‘middle power’ in East Asia, says S. Korean diplomat. The Straits Times.Google Scholar
  56. Li, M. (2012). Chinese debates of south china sea policy: Implications for future developments (RSIS Working Paper, No. 239). Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.Google Scholar
  57. Liff, A., & Ikenberry, J. (2014). Racing toward tragedy? China’s rise, military competition in the Asia Pacific, and the security dilemma. International Security, 39(2), 52–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Manicom, J., & Reeves, J. (2014). Locating middle powers in international relations theory and power transitions. In B. Gilley & A. O’Neil (Eds.), Middle powers and the rise of China (pp. 23–44). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Mares, D. (1988). Middle powers under regional hegemony: To challenge or acquiesce in hegemonic enforcement. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 453–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Marque, B. (2011). Nouveau paradigme stratégique des puissances moyennes. Louvain-la-Neuve: Chaire Inbev-Baillet Latour.Google Scholar
  61. Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  62. Medcalf, R., & Mohan, R. (2014, August 8). Responding to Indo-Pacific rivalry: Australia, India and middle power coalitions. Lowy Institute Analysis.Google Scholar
  63. Moeldoko. (2014, April 24). China’s dismaying new claims in the South China Sea. The Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  64. Mogato, M., & Grudgings, S. (2012, July 17). ‘ASEAN way’ founders in South China Sea storm. Reuters.
  65. Munn, G., Woelfel, C., & Garcia, F. (1991). Encyclopedia of banking and finance (9th ed., p. 485). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  66. Neak, L. (1992). Empirical observations on ‘Middle State’ behavior at the start of a new international system. Pacific Focus, 7(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. O’Neil, A. (2014, July 9). Middle powers in Asia: The limits of realism. The Lowy Interpreter.Google Scholar
  68. Odgaard, L. (2003). The South China Sea: ASEAN’s security concerns about China. Security Dialogue, 34(1), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Oegroseno, A. H. (2014, April 15). Indonesia, South China Sea and the 11/10/9-dashed lines. PacNet #26R.Google Scholar
  70. Parameswaran, P. (2014). Indonesia avoids open territorial dispute, despite concerns. China Brief, 14(13), 13–16.Google Scholar
  71. Parameswaran, P. (2015, February). Playing it safe: Malaysia’s approach to the South China Sea and implications for the United States. CNAS Maritime Strategy Series.
  72. Pempel, T. J. (2010). Soft balancing, hedging, and institutional Darwinism: The economic-security nexus and East Asian regionalism. Journal of East Asian Studies, 10(2), 209–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Peters, G. (2000). Institutional theory: Problems and prospects (Reihe Politikwissenschaft, Vol. 69). Vienna: Institut für Höhere Studien und Wissenschaftliche Forschung Wien.Google Scholar
  74. Ping, J. (2005). Middle power statecraft: Indonesia, Malaysia and the Asia-Pacific. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  75. Reid, A. (2009). Negotiating asymmetry: Parents, brothers, friends and enemies. In A. Reid & Y. Zheng (Eds.), Negotiating asymmetry: China’s place in Asia (p. 6). Honolulu: Hawaii University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Richardson, M. (1995, April 12). Indonesia rebuffs China’s claims to vast natural gas field. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  77. Roach, J. A. (2014, August). Malaysia and Brunei: An analysis of their claims in the South China Sea. CNA Occasional Paper.
  78. Salleh, A., Che Mohd Razali, C. H., & Jusoff, K. (2009). Malaysia’s policy towards its 1963–2008 territorial disputes. Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution, 1(5), 108.Google Scholar
  79. Saravanamuttu, J. (2010). Malaysia’s foreign policy: The first fifty years. Alignment, neutralism, islamism (p. 277). Singapore: ISEAS.Google Scholar
  80. Satz, D., & Ferejohn, J. (1994). Rational choice and social theory. Journal of Philosophy, 91(2), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Shepsle, K. A. (2006). Rational choice institutionalism. In S. A. Binder, R. A. W. Rhodes, & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political institutions (pp. 23–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Snyder, S., Glosserman, B., & Cossa, R. A. (2001, August). Confidence building measures in the South China Sea. Issues & Insights No. 2-01. Pacific Forum CSIS Honolulu, Hawaii. Available at http://csis.org/files/publication/issuesinsightsv01n02.pdf
  83. Steinmo, S. (2001). The new institutionalism. In B. Clark & J. Foweraker (Eds.), The encyclopedia of democratic thought. London: Routlege.Google Scholar
  84. Thayer, C. (2012). ASEAN’S code of conduct in the South China Sea: A litmus test for community-building? The Asia-Pacific Journal, 10(34), 4. www.japanfocus.org/-Carlyle_A_-Thayer/3813
  85. Thayer, C. (2014, February 28). ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick’: What is Malaysia playing at? The Diplomat.Google Scholar
  86. Till, G. (2009). The South China Sea dispute: An international history. In S. Bateman & R. Emmers (Eds.), Security and international politics in the South China Sea: Towards a cooperative management regime (pp. 26–41). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  87. Tønnesson, S. (2001). An international history of the dispute in the South China Sea. EAI Working Paper No. 71, p. 21. Available at www.cliostein.com/documents/2001/01%20rep%20eai.pdf
  88. Tow, W., & Rigby, R. (2011). China’s pragmatic security policy: The middle-power factor. The China Journal, 65, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Valencia, M. (2009). The impeccable incident: Truth and consequences. China Security, 5(2), 22–28.Google Scholar
  90. Valencia, M. (2011, May). Foreign military activities in Asian EEZs: Conflict ahead? NBR Special Report #27.Google Scholar
  91. Valencia, M. (2012). High-stakes drama: The South China Sea disputes. Global Asia, 7(3), 64.Google Scholar
  92. Valencia, M., Van Dyke, J., & Ludwig, N. (1997). Sharing the resources of the South China Sea. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  93. Walt, S. (1987). The origins of alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Weber, K. (1997). Hierarchy amidst anarchy: A transaction costs approach to international security cooperation. International Studies Quarterly, 41(2), 321–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wilson, D. (1975). The neutralization of Southeast Asia. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  96. Womack, B. (2004). Asymmetry theory and China’s concept of multipolarity. Journal of Contemporary China, 13(39), 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Yep, E., & Hall, S. (2014, June 24). Malaysia, China keep low profile on conflicting sea claims. Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  98. Zhang, W. (2010). China’s cultural future: From soft power to comprehensive national power. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(4), 383–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Zhang, J. (2012). ASEAN plus three (APT) as a socializing environment: China’s approach to the institutionalization of APT (Asian regional integration review, Vol. 4). Tokyo: Global Institute for Asian Regional Integration.Google Scholar
  100. Zheng, Y., & Tok, S. K. (2008). Intentions on trial: ‘Peaceful Rise’ and Sino-ASEAN relations. In G. Wu & H. Lansdowne (Eds.), China turns to multilateralism. Foreign policy and regional security (pp. 175–197). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Group for Research and Information on Peace and SecurityBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations