Who's socializing whom? Complex engagement in Sino-ASEAN relations

Abstract

This article draws on constructivist approaches to explore processes of socialization in the context of evolving relations between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Constructivist discussions have challenged traditional accounts of socialization; however, left under-examined are the processes by which social learning and social change take place. This article contributes to the theoretical discussion with its examination of ASEAN's regional engagement processes. It treats ASEAN states' ‘complex engagement’ of China as an exercise in argumentative persuasion, which seeks common agreement via a deliberative, non-coercive process. In contrasting ASEAN's particular style of engagement with other models that emphasize more coercive and utilitarian strategies of persuasion, the article draws attention to how particular kinds of interaction may facilitate social learning, as well as the conditions that may make social learning more likely. Particular attention is paid to the roles played by power asymmetries, uncertainty, and different kinds of engagement (mutual and interactive versus closed and unidirectional) in social learning, as well as the importance of viewing socialization as a process that involves different stages.

Keywords:

• China
• ASEAN
• Southeast Asia
• engagement
• socialization
• constructivism.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Amitav Acharya, Matthew J. Hoffmann, and Richard Stubbs for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.

Notes

1. As Stuart Harris and others have observed, ‘Establishing a sense of community [has been] an important goal and consequence of multilateral processes in Asia’ (Harris 2000: 501).

2. In addition to Keohane and Nye above, see also Rosecrance (1986).

3. By the same token, elites can also have just the opposite effect and exacerbate divisions.

4. It should be noted, however, that ASEAN states did have important differences about the form of that US security presence, and, in general, varying comfort levels about such a role for the United States. These differences were most evident in 1990 and 1992 during the public disagreements between Singapore and Indonesia over Singapore's decision to provide expanded access and support for US forces in the Pacific and to the relocating of US logistics facilities to Singapore from the Philippines. See, for example, Balakrishnan and Vatikiotis (1990: 8–10); ‘Unease over bases’ (1992: 4).

5. ‘Japan PM talks on ASEAN in KL’, Jakarta Post (Reuters), 9 January 1997, p. 11.

6. ‘Economic, security issues dominate ASEAN Summit’, Indonesia Times, 15 December 1987.

7. See Snitwongse (2000). On the primacy of US security guarantees, the exceptions may be the Philippines and Singapore, though both would agree that engagement processes are important and have played a role in the improvement of China–ASEAN relations.

8. See also China's 1998 defense white paper, China's National Defense.

9. See also Swidler (1986), Cruz (2000), Legro (2000), and Ikenberry and Kupchan (1990) on how crisis can open the door to new thinking.

10. Zhang Yunling and Tang Shiping, both of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and participants in regional Track II processes, argue that China's leaders understand clearly that an aggressive security strategy is simply not a viable option … [that] an expansionist policy may lead its neighbours to form a counterbalancing alliance with distant powers, most likely the US … [but] if … China adopts a more cooperative approach, most regional countries would be reluctant to adopt a hard-core containment policy and [China] would enjoy a benign security environment. (Zhang and Tang 2002)

11. This is not to say that there may not still be debate, especially from those who do not take part in regional processes and thus may not be persuaded to abandon old strategies. See, for example, Wang (2000).

12. Products covered under the early harvest package include about 600 selected agricultural products in the following categories: live animals, meat, fish, dairy products, other animal products, live trees, vegetables, fruit and nuts.

13. ASEAN Secretariat Press Release: ‘ASEAN–China Free Trade Area negotiations to start next year’, 30 October 2002; available at the ASEAN website (http://www.aseansec.org).

14. ‘Vietnamese PM cites new challenges facing ASEAN at Summit in Phnom Penh’, VNA News Agency, via BBC Worldwide Monitoring, 5 November 2002.

15. Interview with author, Kuala Lumpur, August 2002.

16. ‘ASEAN secretary-general on Sino-ASEAN relations’, Xinhua General News Agency, 19 August 2003.

17. For a discussion of the SARS crisis in China–ASEAN relations, see Breckon (2003).

18. George Yeo commenting on ASEAN's initial hesitation and then acceptance of China's proposed ACFTA. ‘China's free trade proposal shocked ASEAN’, Agence France Press, 15 March 2002.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Alice D. Ba

AliceD. Ba is Assistant Professor of Political Science in the Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Delaware, Newark, USA. Her publications and research have focused on ASEAN-China relations and Asia's evolving regionalisms. Her co-edited volume Contending Perspectives on Global Governance is published by Routledge.