Abstract
China is a rising power concerning its economic and political influence in the Asia-Pacific region. The past decade has witnessed Beijing’s active participation in multilateral institutions and regional integration processes, from ASEAN + 1 and ASEAN + 3 mechanisms, Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), to the discussion of the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP). China’s economic influence in the region has been undoubtedly proliferating: in 2010 China officially surpassed Japan as the largest economy in Asia and the second largest after the U.S.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Kang points out that it may be more accurate to characterize China as an emerging power for the historical dominant status in the region. However, this article opts for using the term “rising power” for the discussion is about the modern instead of the empirical China. See Kang, D. C. (2009). Between Balancing and Bandwagoning: South Korea’s Response to China. Journal of East Asian Studies 9(1), 1–28.
- 2.
However, Lieber and Alexander argue that the discussion of soft balancing is much ado about nothing. The behaviors are simply normal diplomatic fiction instead of soft balancing strategies.
- 3.
For the thorough discussion of regional security architecture, see Williams T. Tow and Brendan Taylor (2010). “What is Asian Security Architecture?” Review of International Studies 36(1): 95–116. Regarding the security mechanisms in the Asia-Pacific in the postwar era, it has been marked by the coexistence of the U.S-led “hub-and-spokes” hierarchical bilateral systems, “mini-lateral” groupings, such as Trilateral Strategic Dialogue (TSD) and “Quadrilateral Initiative”; the ASEAN-led multilateral institutions, such as ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting-Plus (ADMM-Plus); China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO); together with some ad hoc multilateralism mechanisms, such as the Six Party Talks on North Korean denuclearization as well as Proliferation Security Initiatives (PSI).
- 4.
Bilateral FTAs have been a new trend of development (e.g. South Korea-Japan, South Korea-Thailand, Singapore-Japan) since the 1997/1998 Asian Financial Crisis as the countries realized there was a lack of cooperative mechanisms among the region’s states to cope with such turbulent events. Since 2001–2002, by which time APEC had hot something of a brick wall in trade liberalization and WTO’s DOHA round failed to reach agreement, most East Asian governments became active promoters of bilateral and multilateral FTAs or Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs).
- 5.
The decline is also attributed to the Washington’s preoccupation with threats at the global level: international terrorism, “rogue states,” together with nuclear proliferation. See William T. Tow (2012). “Great Powers and Multilateralism: The Politics of Security Architectures in South Asia.” In ASEAN and the Institutionalization of East Asia, pp. 155–167. Edited by Ralf Emmers. Routledge: Oxon.
- 6.
In addition to Waltz’s stance, some scholars argue for the presence of hard balancing in the wake of Cold War. See Layne, C. (2012). This Time It’s Real: The End of Unipolarity and the Pax Americana. International Studies Quarterly 56(1): 203–213; Steff, R. & Khoo, N. (2014). Hard Balancing in the Age of American Unipolarity: The Russian Response to U.S Ballistic Missile Defense During the Bush Administration (2001–2008). The Journal of Strategic Studies 37(2): 222–258.
- 7.
Other scholarly discussion on soft balancing tactics against the U.S can refer to Paul, T. V. (2005). Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy. International Security, 30(1), 46–71; Walt, S. M. (2006). Taming America Power: The Global Response to U.S Primacy. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.; Layne, C. (2006). The Unipolar Illusion Revisited: The Coming End of the United States’ Unipolar Moment. International Security 31(2): 7–41; Whitaker, B. E. (2010). Soft Balancing among Weak States? Evidence from Africa. International Affairs 86(5): 1109–1127; Ferguson, C. (2012). The Strategic Use of Soft Balancing: The Normative Dimensions of the Chinese–Russian ‘Strategic Partnership’. The Journal of Strategic Studies 35(2): 197–222.
- 8.
Concluded on October 4, 2015, the text of the agreement will have to be signed and then ratified by all the 12 signatories. Details of how the deal will be carried out will be argued out in individual countries’ legislature.
- 9.
Whether the economic goals of the TPP could be achieved because of the exclusion of China serving as a regional economic powerhouse; and that the TPP is not in line with the Asian style of “soft regionalism”. See Evelyn S. Devadason, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): The Chinese Perspective,” Journal of Contemporary China 23, no. 87(2014): 474.
- 10.
Jagannath P. Panda, “Factoring the RCEP and the TPP: China, India and the Politics of Regional Integration,” Strategic Analysis 38, no. 1(2014): 55. Other aspects of the U.S regional participation (including the U.S Marine’s revived presence in Australia and strengthened ties to countries such as Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, and also Taiwan). However, the Chinese official’s view on TPP is more positive than U.S. view on AIIB or RCEP: “We hope that regardless of whether it is the TPP or the RCEP, they both can supplement, promote and be beneficial to strengthening the multilateral trade system,” said Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying.
References
ASEAN. (2015). ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). http://www.asean.org/storage/2012/05/56.-December-2015-Fact-Sheet-on-ASEAN-Economic-Community-AEC-1.pdf. Accessed 22 Nov. 2016.
Baldwin, R. E. (2006). Multilateralizing regionalism: Spaghetti bowls as building blocs on the path to global free trade. World Econ, 29(11), 1451–1518.
Bermingham, F. (2016). As trump kills TPP, Asia turns to RCEP. http://www.gtreview.com/news/asia/asia-turns-to-rcep-as-trump-victory-kills-tpp/. Accessed 22 Nov. 2016.
Bhagwati, J. N. (2011). America’s threat to Trans-Pacific trade. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/america-s-threat-to-trans-pacific-trade?barrier=true. Accessed 7 Nov. 2016.
Bisley, N. (2007). Asian Security Architectures. In A. J. Tellis & M. Wills (Eds.), Strategic Asia 2007–08: Domestic political change and grand strategy (pp. 344–345). Seattle and Washington: National Bureau of Asian Research.
Blackwill, R. D. (2016). China’s strategy for Asia: Maximize power, replace America. http://nationalinterest.org/print/feature/chinas-strategy-asia-maximize-power-replace-america-16359?page=3. Accessed 9 Nov. 2016.
Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2005). Hard time for soft balancing. Int Secur, 30(1), 72–108.
Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2008). World out of balance: International relations and the challenges of American primacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Camroux, D. (2012). Regionalism in Asia as disguised multilateralism: A critical analysis of the East Asia summit and the Trans-Pacific partnership. Int Spectator, 47(1), 97–115.
Capling, A., & Ravenhill, J. (2011). Multilateralizing regionalism: What role for the Trans-Pacific partnership agreement? Pac Rev, 24(5), 553–575.
Cha, V. D. (2011). Complex patchworks: U.S. Alliances as part of Asia’s regional architecture. Asia Policy, 11(1), 27–50.
Chang, G. G. (2015). TPP vs. RCEP: America and China battle for control of Pacific trade. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/tpp-vs-rcep-america-china-battle-control-pacific-trade-14021. Accessed 10 Nov. 2016.
Channel News Asia. (2016). With trump win, China looks to seize Asia free trade leadership. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/with-trump-win-china-looks-to-seize-asia-free-trade-leadership-7705896. Accessed 22 Nov. 2016.
China Briefing. (2015). China’s growing ties with ASEAN open up opportunities for Foreign investment. http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2015/08/07/chinas-growing-ties-with-asean-opens-up-new-opportunities-for-foreign-investment.html. Accessed 29 Oct. 2016.
China.org.cn. (2006). ASEAN a rising power. http://www.china.org.cn/english/international/157763.htm. Accessed 13 Nov. 2016.
Expertise Asia. (2016). TPP Out, RCEP In. http://www.expertise-asia.com/2016/11/tpp-put-rcep.html. Accessed 22 Nov. 2016.
Ferguson, C. (2012). The strategic use of soft balancing: The normative dimensions of the Chinese-Russian ‘Strategic Partnership’. J Strateg Studies, 35(2), 197–222.
Fergusson, I. F., McMinimy, M. A., & Williams, B. R. (2015). The Trans-Pacific partnership (TPP) negotiations and issues for congress. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42694.pdf. Accessed 7 Nov. 2016.
Friedman, M. P., & Long, T. (2015). Soft balancing in the Americas: Latin American opposition to U.S. intervention, 1898–1936. Int Secur, 40(1), 120–156.
Fu, P. (2014). ASEAN Eyes greater investment from China. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-01/14/c_133044481.htm. Accessed 29 Oct. 2016.
Green, M. J., & Goodman, M. P. (2016). After TPP: The geopolitics of Asia and the Pacific. Washington Q, 38(4), 19–34.
He, K. (2008). Institutional balancing and international relations theory: Economic interdependence and balance of power strategies in South Asia. Eur J Int Relat, 14(3), 489–518.
He, K. (2009). Institutional balancing in the Asia Pacific: Economic interdependence and China’s rise. London: Routledge.
He, K., & Feng, H. F. (2008). If not soft balancing, then what? reconsidering soft balancing and U.S. policy toward China. Secur Studies, 17(2), 363–395.
Huang, C. (2015). 57 nations approved as founder members of China-led AIIB. http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1766970/57-nations-approved-founder-members-china-led-aiib. Accessed 29 Oct. 2016.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2004). American hegemony and East Asia order. Aust J Int Aff, 58(3), 353–367.
Iskyan, K. (2016). Is donald trump right about china and the TPP? http://truewealthpublishing.asia/truewealth-asian-investment-daily/is-donald-trump-right-about-china-and-the-tpp/. Accessed 10 Nov. 2016.
Iwamoto, K. (2016). Asia braces itself for trump trade policies. http://asia.nikkei.com/Features/US-election/Asia-braces-itself-for-Trump-trade-policies. Accessed 10 Nov. 2016.
Johnston, E. (2016). China-led RCEP pact could cost U.S. Millions of jobs if TPP fails: White House. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/11/04/business/china-regional-trade-deal-cost-millions-u-s-jobs-tpp-fails-white-house/. Accessed 10 Nov. 2016.
Kang, D. C. (2009). Between balancing and bandwagoning: South Korea’s response to China. J East Asian Studies, 9(1), 1–28.
Kapchan, C. (1998). After pax Americanan: Benign power, regional integration, and the sources of a stable multipolarity. Int Secur, 23(2), 40–79.
Kawei, M., Morgan, Peter J., & Rana, P. B. (2014). Asian perspectives on the emerging global architecture. In M. Kawei, P. J. Morgan, & P. B. Rana (Eds.), New global economic architecture: The Asian perspective (pp. 1–10). Cheltenham: Elgar.
Ken, J. (2012). Power shift and power transition: Case for Japan-China relations. http://www.tokyofoundation.org/en/topics/japan-china-next-generation-dialogue/power-shift-and-power-transition. Accessed 9 Nov. 2016.
Kennedy, R. (2016). The limits of soft balancing: The frozen conflict in transnistria and the challenge to EU and NATO strategy. Small Wars Insurgencies, 27(3), 512–537.
Kim, J. (2015). China-Backed trade pact playing catch-up after U.S.-led TPP deal. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-tpp-rcep-idUSKCN0S500220151011. Accessed 31 Oct. 2016.
Layne, C. (2006). The unipolar illusion revisited: The coming end of the United States’ Unipolar moment. Int Secur, 31(2), 7–41.
Layne, C. (2012). This Time It’s Real: The End of Unipolarity and the Pax Americana. Int Studies Q, 56(1), 203–213.
Lieber, K. A., & Alexander, G. (2005). Waiting for balancing: Why the World is not pushing back. Int Secur, 30(1), 109–139.
Mansfield, E. D., & Pollins, B. M. (2003). Economic interdependence and international conflict. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Marlow, I. (2015). China passes canada to become largest U.S trading partner. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/asian-pacific-business/china-passes-canada-as-uss-largest-trading-partner/article27134249/. Accessed 29 Oct. 2016.
Martina, M. (2016). China pushes Asia-Pacific trade deals as trump win dashes TPP hopes. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-diplomacy-trade-idUSKBN1350S4?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews. Accessed 10 Nov. 2016.
McCurry, J., & Kollewe, J. (2011). China overtakes Japan as World’s second largest economy. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/feb/14/china-second-largest-economy. Accessed 29 Oct. 2016.
Miller, J. B. (2016). If TPP Fails, China takes advantage. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/09/tpp-fails-china-takes-advantage-160927111115555.html. Accessed 10 Nov. 2016.
Mitchell, T., Donnan, S., and Harding, R. (2016). Beijing plans rival Asia-Pacific trade deal after trump Victory. https://www.ft.com/content/8662c3b6-a72b-11e6-8b69-02899e8bd9d1. Accessed 22 Nov. 2016.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1973). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Moss, T. (2016). Rodrigo duterte’s policy shifts confound U.S. Allies. http://www.wsj.com/articles/rodrigo-dutertes-policy-shifts-confound-u-s-allies-1473869601. Accessed 17 Oct. 2016.
Mowle, T. S., & Sacko, D. H. (2007). The unipolar World: An unbalanced future. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nanto, D. K. (2006). East Asia regional architecture: New economic and security arrangements and US policy (p. 18). Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, September: CRS Report for Congress.
Panda, J. P. (2014). Factoring the RCEP and the TPP: China, India and the politics of regional integration. Strateg Anal, 38(1), 49–67.
Pape, R. A. (2005). Soft balancing against the United States. Int Secur, 30(1), 7–45.
Parameswaran, P. (2016). What will Donald trump’s Asia policy look like? http://thediplomat.com/2016/11/what-will-donald-trumps-asia-policy-look-like/. Accessed 10 Nov. 2016.
Patel, N. (2008). Value cooperation, not antagonism: The case for functional-based cooperation. http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/resources.cfm?id=341. Accessed 30 Oct. 2016.
Patrick, S. M. (2011). Obama’s Plan for American Pacific Century.
Paul, T. V. (2004). Introduction: The enduring axioms of balance of power theory and their contemporary relevance. In T. V. Paul, J. J. Wirtz, & M. Fortmann (Eds.), Balance of power: Theory and practice in the 21st century (pp. 1–28). California: Stanford University Press.
Paul, T. V. (2005). Soft balancing in the age of U.S. Primacy. Int Secur, 30(1), 46–71.
Petri, P. A., Plummer, M. G., & Zhai, F. (2014). The TPP, China and the FTAAP: The Case for Convergence. In G. Q. Tang & P. A. Petri (Eds.), New directions in Asia-Pacific economic integration. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2438725. Accessed 31 Jan. 2017.
Petri, P. A., & Plummer, M. G. (2016). The economic effects of the Trans-Pacific partnership: New estimates. Peterson institute for international economics Working Paper No. 16-2; East-West center workshop on Mega-Regionalism—new challenges for trade and innovation. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2723413. Accessed 31 Jan. 2017.
Sahashi, R. (2013). The rise of China and the transformation of Asia-Pacific security architecture. In W. T. Tow & B. Taylor (Eds.), Bilateralism, multilateralism and Asia-Pacific security: Contending cooperation (pp. 135–156). Oxon: Routledge.
SIPRIF. (2013). SIPRIF fact sheet 2013. http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1304.pdf. Accessed 29 Oct. 2016.
Smith, N. R. (2016). China will be the winner If US backs out of the TPP. https://theconversation.com/china-will-be-the-winner-if-us-backs-out-of-the-tpp-63328. Accessed 10 Nov. 2016.
Song, W. Q. (2013). Feeling safe, being strong: China’s strategy of soft balancing through the shanghai cooperation organization. Int Politics, 50(5), 664–685.
South China Morning Post. (2016). Trump vows to withdraw from Trans-Pacific Partnership ‘on day one.’ http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2048138/trump-says-he-will-move-withdraw-trans-pacific. Accessed 22 Nov. 2016.
South China Morning Post. (2017). Why trump’s withdrawal from the TPP is a boon for China. http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2064927/why-trumps-withdrawal-tpp-boon-china. Accessed 31 Jan. 2017.
Stcuenkel, O. (2015). CICA: Another step towards a Post-American security architecture in Asia? http://www.postwesternworld.com/2015/03/21/cica-american-security-architecture/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2016.
Steff, R., & Khoo, N. (2014). Hard balancing in the age of American unipolarity: The Russian response to U.S ballistic Missile defense during the bush administration (2001–2008). J Strate Studies, 37(2), 222–258.
Tang, S. K. (2015). RCEP: The next trade deal you need to know about. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/14/tpp-deal-pressures-rcep-trade-talks-in-busan-china-keen-for-progress.html. Accessed 10 Nov. 2016.
Tatsumi, Y. (2016). Trump Wins: Implications for US Allies and Partners in Asia. http://thediplomat.com/2016/11/trump-wins-implications-for-us-allies-and-partners-in-asia/?utm_content=bufferb3706&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer. Accessed 10 Nov. 2016.
Tellis, A. J. (2014). The geopolitics of the TTIP and TPP. Adelphi Ser, 54(450), 93–120.
The Economist. (2012). Asia’s balance of power: The dragon’s new teeth. http://www.economist.com/node/21552193. Accessed 7 Apr. 2016.
The White House. (2015). Statement by the President on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/05/statement-president-trans-pacific-partnership. Accessed 31 Oct. 2016.
Tow, W. T. (2012). Great powers and multilateralism: The politics of security architectures in South Asia. In R. Emmers (Ed.), ASEAN and the institutionalization of East Asia (pp. 155–167). Oxon: Routledge.
Tow, W. T., & Taylor, B. (2010). What is Asian security Architecture? Revi Int Studies, 36(1), 95–116.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Waltz, K. N. (1993). The emerging structure of international politics. Int Secur, 18(2), 44–79.
Whitaker, B. E. (2010). Soft balancing among weak states? Evid from Afr. Int Aff, 86(5), 1109–1127.
Wilson, J. D. (2015). Mega-Regional trade deals in the Asia-Pacific: Choosing between the TPP and RCEP? J Contemp Asia, 45(2), 345–353.
Wohlforth, W. C. (1999). The stability of a unipolar world. Int Secur, 24(1), 5–41.
Xinhuanet. (2016). China retained as malaysia’s largest trading Partner in 2015. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-02/05/c_135078498.htm. Accessed 29 Oct. 2016.
Yuan, J. D. (2015). The rise of China and the emerging order in Asia. In M. J. Li & K. M. Kemburi (Eds.), China’s power and Asian security (pp. 25–41). Oxon: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lo, C.YP. (2018). China’s Rise and the U.S Pivot to Asia: The Implications of Trans-Pacific Partnership on the Regional Economic Architecture. In: Fröhlich, S., Loewen, H. (eds) The Changing East Asian Security Landscape . Edition ZfAS. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-18894-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-18894-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-18893-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-18894-8
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)