Book Review: China’s Asia
By: Pranav Valmeekanathan
Tags: China, Modelling And Simulation, Great Power, Book Review, International Relations

Book Review: China’s Asia

Triangular Dynamics Since The Cold War

This book review was written on 15th October 2019, for a course on China, as part of college

Modelling global power transitions across centuries, and its regional and global implications, in itself is no mean feat. When combined with the mind-numbing complexities of an ethnically and socio-economically diverse region, like that of Asia, this task becomes near impossible. Yet, by attempting to create a single comprehensive framework of analysis, through this methodology of triangulation, it is precisely this near impossibility that Prof. Dittmer aims to tackle in his book “China’s Asia.”

To achieve this, the author leverages a nuanced variant of the triangulation method – by analysing the different geometric possibilities of a two-tone relationship between all actors in the Triangle. By simplifying all international relationships between states as either that of amity or enmity, and super-posing this on his triangulation framework, the author arrives at four possible outcomes – where all actors have negative relations with each other; where two actors have positive relations with the third and negative relations with each other (romantic relationship), where two actors have negative relations with the third and positive relations with each other (stable marriage relationship); and where all three actors have positive relations with each other (ménage a trois). Within this model, all actors are rational and fully cognisant of the implications of their actions on other actors.

It is important to note the many implicit assumptions made in this model – some are important simplifying ones, but others are simply unrealistic. These shall be discussed later, in the context of evaluating model effectiveness.

After establishing this methodology, the author then permanently fixes China and the United States as two of the actors in the triangle, and analyses all other Asian actors systematically through their interactions with these two powers. He explains his reasoning for choosing the two great powers in his chapter “Contesting Hegemony” in which he elaborates the threat posed by Chinese economic and military growth on United States hegemony. This can be clearly seen in the author’s description of the state of the South China Sea. It is not direct American interests at threat here, but instead its perceived power and pro-activeness towards its regional allies. This threat may lead to several sovereigns moving away from America and balancing towards China. It is this form of triangular dynamics that the author attempts to portray.

The author then clubs the rest of Asia as the third actor – a methodological move up for tremendous scrutiny. In each chapter henceforth, the author takes a particular State, or sometimes an IGO, and analyses its triangular dynamic with China and the United States. The nations and IGOs he reviews, including Russia, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, ASEAN, India and Australia, are predominantly South and South-East Asian actors – a move that signifies the geographical region he is pursuing. Again, such a decision can be critiqued, as shall be done later in this review.

Two chapters particularly worth mentioning are those on Russia and Japan, where Dittmer’s methodological approach resulted in a nuanced and carefully crafted analysis. It is here where the triangular dynamics truly provide a unique perspective. In his chapter on Japan called the “Unsettled Sun,” Dittmer explains the rationale behind Japan’s initial behaviour towards Russia and China through the ‘arranged marriage’ model and then proceeds to show how such a balance altered economically after trading commenced between China and Japan. Further, accelerating Chinese economic and military growth altered the dynamics between Japan and the US.

In “The Great Strategic Triangle,” Dittmer analyses the detrimental impact of the Sino-Soviet marriage on the United States, and the latter’s attempts to dismantle the amity between the two. It further analyses the various attempts made by the United States in different administrations to improve ties with one of the two ideologically similar nations.

Yet as much as it succeeded in some arenas, the book’s insights on matters like of Korea proved less novel. In fact, the author had to re-adjust the very question from balancing triangulation to that of creating triangulation in the context of Korea in his chapter “Divided Identities”. Korea, traditionally explained through the polarity of the South Korea-United States block and the Sino-North Korean block was now force-fitted with the triangular model. In the same chapter, the author analyses Taiwan through the same triangular metric – even though the same is still only semi-sovereign State at best, and does not precisely fit the requirements of the model.

The author then analyses ASEAN in the triangular model, portraying the post-cold war era as a ‘Ménage a Trois,’ and thereby justifying ASEAN’s peaceful expansion in the ensuing power vacuum. The author further analyses how this amicable relationship slowly deteriorated as Chinese strategic interests and aspirations grew.

In his analysis of India, Dittmer further broadens his triangular method to encapsulate two distinct triangles of varying importance and capacity. The smaller triangle involves a marriage between China and Pakistan, with India being the Pariah, whilst the bigger triangle involves an Indo-US marriage, with China being the pariah. The author states that the disadvantages India faces in the smaller triangle can be outweighed by the benefits in the larger one. In methodological terms, this triangle-within-triangle analysis is perhaps his most sophisticated augmentation of the basic triangular model.

As mentioned at the onset of this review, creating a model to analyse all inter-state dynamics present in Asia is far from straightforward. To this regard, Prof. Dittmer’s case-study analysis in each chapter is rigorous and holistic, in that it goes above and beyond traditional conceptions of State power and decision-making. By deeply analysing the historical, cultural and economic backdrop of each region, the rationales provided for decisions made by nations are thus ethnically and culturally integrative. However, as mentioned earlier, given the geographies of the nations analysed, one cannot claim to have modelled or holistically understood the entire international system of Asia.

The core critique many would pose to Dittmer’s broader argument is that of his triangular methodology, and the simplification it ensues. To be clear, a model by definition is used to simplify inherent complexities and is designed more as a tool of analysis, then as a tool for accuracy. Thus, much of the methodological critique stands unsubstantiated unless a credible alternative is provided. One example is a critique of the author clubbing the rest of Asia into a single actor, and considering relations only with the two great powers. By simply stating such a critique, one is not indicating any alternative method forward and is merely being sceptical – for most other existing models are even more simplified as they provide analysis through simple two-nation polarity or great power rivalry.

Thus, instead of critiquing the very nature of the triangulation methodology as over-simplistic for Asia, this review attempts to assess certain assumptions within the model, and provide alternatives that could perhaps make the model more robust.

One simplifying assumption made deals with how inter-state relationships are evaluated. Country A may have good relations with B and C, but are they equally good? One would be unable to evaluate any trade-offs in such a model, as the act of balancing is restricted solely to positive or negative relations. An alternative, perhaps more rigorous approach would be to utilise the game theory method – that of evaluating relative trade-offs instead of solely zero-sum relationships. Even in a stable marriage, some enmities are far worse than others, and cannot be equated. This can be clearly seen in the relationships between Japan, US and China, in the context of the Sino-Soviet alliance.

The second assumption is about cementing the United States as the second actor. The book, being oriented towards Chinese worldview, necessitates only China as a fixed actor – not the United States. Unlike the first assumption, this is not a simplifying one – the triangulation model still holds strong if one were to replace the US with other, more regionally relevant powers. There are various nations in Asia, like that of, say, Nepal, that do not consider the United States as the second most important international actor apart from China. In such a circumstance, India would be a better fit. Thus although the triangulation model itself remains a powerful tool for analysis across Asia, forcing the United States as fixed makes the analysis only one of Great Powers, and not of all the international dynamics Asia – which is the book’s aim. This assumption makes the broad claimed scope of the book seem unrealistic.

Overall, although the book’s rigour and detail remain tremendous, the proclaimed scope of the book – that of analysing the international ecosystem of all of Asia, remains questionable at best. Given the book’s methodological approach and its geographical considerations, perhaps a narrower scope would be more appropriate. Yet the sheer detail and modelling complexities achieved by this book makes it a worthy and deeply insightful read for any student of International Relations.

***

Bibliography

Dittmer, Lowell. China’s Asia Triangular Dynamics since the Cold War. 2018. Rowman and Littlefield. Maryland. Print.