During the Cold War, the 'hub-and-spokes' alliance structure in the AsiaPacific (with the United States as a 'hub' , and Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and Australia as 'spokes') served as an instrument for balancing against a clearly designated communist-related threat. However, with the demise of the Soviet Union, its original "general purpose' had expired. Yet nearly two decades after this structural change, the five alliances that constitute the hub-and-spokes system continue to be operative. Thus, a question arises: whether and to what extent can the hub-andspokes alliance structure be sustained in the post-Cold War era? This thesis addresses this question by applying the notion of alliance persistence. All five alliances of the hub-and-spokes system are now more than a half-century old, which is significantly longer than the average lifespan of most alliances. What, then, explains this unusual persistence of the five alliances despite the disappearance of the mutual threat or the deterioration of the mutual threat perceptions between allies that traditional alliance theorists usually insist must be the basis for alliance arrangements? This thesis provides an explanation for the continued existence of the five alliances through an order insurance explanation. The theoretical argument of this thesis is that, in a relatively benign security environment where mutual threats have disappeared or mutual threat perceptions between allies have deteriorated, an alliance persists if two conditions are met: 1) the alliance generates 'order insurance benefits' to its members (which is termed in this thesis as alliance for order insurance) and 2) the allies invest for such benefits with arrangements to ensure alliance preservation against challenges that arise as a result of alliance mismanagement (which is termed in this thesis as insurance for alliance). Alliance for order insurance is related to maintaining or building an order in relation to non-alliance states, while insurance for alliance involves finding a nexus between allies in order to preserve an alliance. This thesis argues that an explanation of the persistence of the US-led alliances in the Asia-Pacific should include at least two key components: the ends (alliances utilised for order insurance benefits with respect to their members' 'positional interests' and interests vis-a-vis multilateralism) and the means (insurance for alliance). To test this argument, this thesis evaluates the persistence of the US-Australia and the US-ROK alliances in the post-Cold War period. Also, to achieve some basis for falsification, it explores the discontinuation of the US-New Zealand leg of ANZUS in the mid-1980s and the US-Philippines alliance during most of the 1990s.

Alliance persistence in the Asia-Pacific : an order insurance explanation

This article explains why Singapore, despite its small size and semi-authoritarian regime, retains one of the best military forces in the Indo-Pacific. It unpacks Singapore’s ability to con...

Threats and civil–military relations: explaining Singapore’s “trickle down” military innovation

Australia and Indonesia are two very different countries with little in common other than geography. Their distinctive histories, cultures and identities have meant that the bilateral relationship ...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14799855.2020.1846525

Unlikely allies? Australia, Indonesia and the strategic cultures of middle powers

This article contributes to the literature on the international preferences, behaviours and interactions of small powers in relation to great powers. It examines the foreign policy choices ...

Small Power Hedging in an Era of Great-power Politics: Southeast Asian Responses to China’s Pursuit of Energy Security

Sino-Philippine Joint Development in the South China Sea: Is Political Will Enough?

The problem of peaceful change is in national politics, how to effect necessary and desirable changes without revolution and, in international politics, how to effect changes without war.1E.H. Carr, 19391.IntroductionLocated in the heart of Southeast Asia, the South China Sea is a semi-enclosed sea surrounded by China and several small and militarily weaker Southeast Asian powers such as the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. Since the mid-1970s, these littoral states have been involved in a chronic competition as each one seeks to extend its sovereignty and jurisdictional claims over more than a hundred islets, reefs, and rocks and their surrounding waters. The South China Sea dispute, however, hibernated in the late 1990s and the early 21st century after China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) signed the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.The maritime row, however, flared up again in 2009 when China assumed an assertive posture and consolidated its jurisdictional claims in the South China Sea by expanding its military reach and pursuing coercive diplomacy against the other claimant states.2 China increased its naval patrols (using submarines, survey ships, and surface combatants) in Japan's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and territorial waters, and intimidated foreign oil companies that tried to operate in the South China Sea.3 Since 2009, it has shifted its strategy from delaying the resolution of the dispute to one that emphasizes its sovereignty over the contested waters, to deter other claimant states like the Philippines and Vietnam from cementing their claims and to negotiate with these small powers from the position of strength.4 Recently, the dispute has become more problematic because the claimant states are inclined to deploy their naval assets in controlling the disputed offshore territories, and to demonstrate their resolve to keep them.5Early on, this maritime dispute has caught the attention of the United States, which is trying to maintain its strategic primacy in East Asia, albeit China's emergence as an economic and military power. In 2010, the US declared that it is in its vital interests that the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea is maintained and that the dispute is peacefully resolved through multilateralism and international law. In 2011, the Obama Administration announced the US strategic rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region to ensure that its diplomatic initiative of a comprehensive "rule-based" system to resolve the East Asian Westphalian states' clashing territorial claims in the South China Sea would be backed by American military power.6 Interestingly, Japan has also become interested in the dispute. As China's geo-strategic rival in East Asia, Japan is determined to play a balancing role in the dispute by helping the Philippines and Vietnam build up their respective naval capabilities.These developments have transformed the South China Sea dispute into one of the four potential flashpoints in East Asia, along with the Korean Peninsula, the East China Sea, and the Taiwan Straits. To some analysts, the South China Sea is becoming the future of conflict in which the Westphalian states will jockey for strategic and diplomatic positions with their warships in the high seas, pursue their conflicting claims for natural resources, and strive for primacy in the Western Pacific.7This paper explores how the South China dispute can be addressed by going beyond mere conflict management by exploring the prospects for a conflict resolution. Using Charles Kupchan's theory of Stable Peace, the article raises two central questions: 1) how is the South China Sea dispute currently managed? And 2) how can the dispute be peacefully resolved through a stable peace among the claimant states? It also tackles the following questions: 1) what developments led to increased tension South China Sea? 2) How are the claimant states responding to the maritime dispute? …

De Castro

Papers

The Challenge of Conflict Resolution in the South China Sea Dispute: Examining the Prospect of a Stable Peace in East Asia

The 12 July 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration's (PCA) Award: The Philippines' Lawfare versus China's Realpolitik in the South China Sea Dispute

Confronting China's charm offensive in East Asia: A simple case of fighting fire with fire?

Exploring Southeast Asia’s twenty-first century defence economies : Opportunities and challenges in the era of globalization, 1993–2005

The post-cold-war management of the U.S. Alliances with Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines : a comparative analysis