Yao Wen, “ASEAN States’ Hedging Against the China Question: Contested, Adaptive, Transformative,”
in Dragan Pavlićević and Nicole Talmacs, eds., The China Question: Contestations and Adaptations, Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022, pp. 247-268.
Abstract: The “China question” in Southeast Asia is constituted by uncertainties accompanying China’s rise. Three types of uncertainties are especially worrisome for ASEAN states: uncertainties about China’s future intentions, uncertainties about side effects of China linkages, and uncertainties about US–China strategic competition. While disagreement over the “China question” exists both within and among ASEAN states, their responses to it could be lumped under the category of “hedging”, a posture distinct from either balancing or bandwagoning. An uncertainty management tool, hedging combines ASEAN states’ contestation against and adaptation to uncertainties, without signalling rigid alignment. Hedging is adaptive in nature, responsive to changes in domestic needs, the shifting international environment, and unforeseen circumstances. More than a passive reaction, hedging has the potential of being a transformative force. There is hope that hedging could help ASEAN states improve their situation and nurture favourable habits in the great powers. Yet there is also the danger that hedging would trigger self-dampening mechanisms, spawn even more uncertainties, and hurt ASEAN’s internal cohesion. In future research, variations in the implicit time horizon of hedging, in the parameters of hedging, and in the domestic foundations of hedging merit further exploration.
About the author: Yao Wen is an Assistant Professor in the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University (Shanghai, China). He obtained his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Toronto (Canada). His research interests include Chinese foreign policy, Southeast Asian international relations, and policy diffusion. He currently serves as the liaison of the secretariat of the Network of ASEAN-China Academic Institutes (NACAI).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9105-8_12
Free access：https://rdcu.be/cQJBs
