The Limits of Alignment: Southeast Asia and the Great Powers since 1975

Notes

257 Notes Introduction 1. For similar definitions, see Snyder, Alliance Politics, 4;Walt, Origins of Alliances, 1, 13–14; and Liska, Nations in Alliance, 12–13. 2. Bush,Address to Joint Session. See also “You are either with us or against us,” CNN Newswire, November 6, 2001. 3. See, e.g.,Walt,“Testing Theories,” 278;Walt, The Origins of Alliances, 17–21; Schweller, “Bandwagoning for Profit,” 72–87, 99–104; and Schweller, Deadly Imbalances, 83–91. Schweller, Kenneth Waltz, and Quincy Wright all use the term bandwagoning to signify alignment with the stronger or more promising of two rival coalitions. See Wright, Study of War, 1258–59; and Waltz, Theory of International Politics, 126. 4. Waltz,Theory of International Politics,105–6,121–28;andWaltz,“International Politics,”57. 5. See, e.g., David, “Explaining Third World Alignment,” 235–38; David, Choosing Sides, 6–18; Larson, “Bandwagon Images,” 86–95; and Barnett and Levy, “Domestic Sources,” 370–79. 6. See Walt, Origins of Alliances, 17–22, 27–38, 149, 263; and Walt,“Alliance Formation,” 51–56. For similar theses, see Liska, Nations in Alliance, 13; and Labs, “Do Weak States Bandwagon ?” 385–406. 7. See Schweller, “Bandwagoning for Profit,” 72–104; and Schweller, Deadly Imbalances, 83–91. 8. See Walt,“Testing Theories,” 282, 315–16; and Walt, Origins of Alliances, 13. 9. Schroeder,“Historical Reality,” 117. 10. Rothstein, Alliances and Small Powers, 30–32. 11. See Pape,“Soft Balancing,” 36–43; Paul,“Soft Balancing,” 58–70; and Paul,“Introduction ,” 3.A few studies have referred to soft balancing more as a limited form of countervailing security alignment. See, e.g., Khong,“Coping with Strategic Uncertainty”; and Roy,“Southeast Asia and China.” These definitions accord somewhat better with the traditional understanding of balancing behavior in international security, but most scholars now use the term to refer to diplomatic strategies. 12. For similar critiques, see Press-Barnathan, “Managing the Hegemon,” 272–73; and Brooks and Wohlforth,“Hard Times for Soft Balancing,” 76–78. 13. Schroeder,“Historical Reality,” 117. 14. Goh,“Meeting the China Challenge,” 2–5. 15. See Art,“Europe Hedges Its Security Bets”; Heginbotham and Samuels,“Japan’s Dual Hedge,” 110–13; and Foot,“Chinese Strategies,” 77–94. On China, see also Shambaugh and Inderfurth ,“China and the U.S.”;and Lampton,“Paradigm Lost,”67–75.Lampton refers to China as pursuing a strategy of “hedged integration.” 16. SeeWohlforth,“Revisiting Balance of PowerTheory”; Miller,“International System;” Markey, “A False Choice”; “Problem with Pakistan,” New York Times, February 28, 2007; and Serge Trifkovic,“Pakistan, A Questionable Friend,” Front Page Magazine, January 2, 2003. On Saudi Arabian hedging, see Muqtedar Khan, ”Saudi Arabian-U.S. Relations at Crossroads,” 258 Notes to Pages 7–22 Foreign Policy in Focus,August 13, 2003, 1–2; and Flynt Leverett,“Prince Turki comes to Washington ,” NewYorkTimes, July 27, 2005. 17. See, e.g., Medeiros,“Strategic Hedging,” 145–164; Chung,“Southeast Asia-China Relations ,” 35; and Roy,“Southeast Asia and China,” 306–13. 18. See Wohlforth,“U.S. Strategy,” 103–06; and Wohlforth,“Stability,” 5–41. 19. See, e.g., Ikenberry, “Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and Persistence,” 43–47; and Owen,“Transnational Liberalism,” 242–57. 20. Waltz, “Evaluating Theories,” 915. See also Press-Barnathan, “Managing the Hegemon ,” 273–81; and Posen,“European Union Security,” 155–59. 21. On the breadth versus depth debate, see King, Keohane, and Verba, Designing Social Inquiry, 212, 229; and Gaddis,“History, Science and International Relations,” 34–44. 22. Eckstein,“Case Study and Theory,” 80–127. 23. Roger Mitton,“Man behind theVision,” Asiaweek, March 31, 1997. See also Walt, Origins of Alliances, 15, making a similar point on methodology. 24. For key works on the Southeast Asian region, see Leifer, ASEAN and the Security; Acharya, Quest for Identity; Neher, Southeast Asia; Ellings and Simon, Southeast Asian Security; Johnston and Ross, Engaging China; and Alagappa, Asian Security Practice. Chapter 1 1. See Handel, Weak States, 30–46, 131–48; Rothstein, Alliances, 28–36; and Fox, Power, 180–82. 2. Kennan, Fateful Alliance, 238. 3. Warren Hoge, “Bogotá Begins Seeking ‘New Partners’ among Non-Aligned,” New YorkTimes, January 9, 1983, E5. 4. See Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, signed in Rio de Janeiro,August 15–September 2, 1947; and Oelsner, International Relations, 84–85. 5. Atkins, Latin America, 77–78. 6. Schoultz, National Security, 171; see also Blaiser,“Security,” 528–29. 7. See Laïdi, Superpowers, 42–43; and Lefebvre,“Moscow’s Cold War,” 209–10. 8. See Laïdi, Superpowers, 9–10...