Power, Interest, and Identity: Reviving the Sinocentric Hierarchy in East Asia

[ 148 ] asia policy Power, Interest, and Identity: Reviving the Sinocentric Hierarchy in East Asia Evelyn Goh Though the rise of China has spurred a marked increase in publications on East Asian politics and international relations (IR), many scholars have continued to wrestle with the challenge of how to develop studies that are empirically accurate and interesting as well as conceptually rigorous. Broadly three fault-lines divide the field of East Asian IR: the first separates country-specific studies and studies of subregions or the region as a whole, the second separates analyses of foreign policy and studies that develop generalizable theories, and the third separates studies that test general Western theories in an Asian context and the smaller number of studies that attempt to develop “indigenous” theories.1 China Rising is David Kang’s valiant attempt to traverse all three divides. Combining impressive coverage of wide-ranging empirical material—history, culture, policymaking motivations, processes, and interactions—with conceptual innovation, Kang has made an important contribution to the growing enterprise of “eclectic” theorizing in international relations.2 China Rising investigates the reactions of China’s neighbors in East Asia to Beijing’s rising power and influence. Kang’s answer to the puzzle posed by Western IR theories of why East Asian states are not balancing against China is that these states do not fear China. Kang advances a twofold explanation for this lack of fear. The first explanation is derived both from his demonstration that East Asia is a historically hierarchical system centered on China and from the intuitively compelling claim that “there is a logic of hierarchy that can lead, and has led, to a stable, relatively peaceful hierarchical international system under (early) modern conditions” in 1300–1900 (p. 49). The second explanation is that, rather than focusing on China’s growing power per se, 1 On the latter, see, for instance, Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, eds., “Why Is There No NonWestern International Relations Theory?” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7, no. 3 (September 2007): 287–312. 2 See J.J. Suh, Peter Katzenstein, and Allen Carlson, eds., Rethinking Security in East Asia: Identity, Power, and Efficiency (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004). evelyn gohis a University Lecturer in International Relations and Fellow of St Anne’s College, University of Oxford. She can be reached at . [ 149 ] book review roundtable • china rising regional states are each preoccupied with key challenges and threats arising fundamentally from identity conflicts. China Rising possesses three significant strengths. First, within what remains a Euro- and American-centric discipline, the book challenges some coresimplisticandsimplifyingassumptionsregardingthenatureandimpactof China’s contemporary rise by developing the theory of East Asian hierarchical propensity in international relations.3 Second, as the first systematic study of East Asian reactions to China’s rise, the book successfully reminds us that power is relational. Furthermore, in emphasizing the ideational aspects of the accommodative power dynamic in the region, Kang also underscores the grave difficulties inherent in theorizing on threats, an endeavor that is less common than one might expect in the study of international relations. Clearly, geographical proximity and military capability are insufficient explanatory variables in East Asian reactions to China’s rise. Kang’s suggestion that this lack of fear resulting both from a historical propensity toward hierarchical regional order and from a preoccupation with other conflicts also leaves room for the development of more generalizable hypotheses. Third, the book is valuable for its explicit focus on the states of East Asia other than the great powers. In privileging identity considerations in explaining these states’ accommodation toward China, Kang shows that power disparity and distribution are insufficient for explaining the complex choices that these states face in assessing options for balancing, aligning, or even transitioning to great-power status. Providing an empirically rich study that examines not only China’s rise but also the reasons for the reactions of China’s neighbors large and small, Kang has managed to weave together disparate strands in contemporary East Asian international relations. He infuses this account with an understanding of historical context, domestic political considerations in the different states, and the role of the United States in the region. Yet the contributions of this book could have...