The Pacific Basin versus the Atlantic Alliance: Two Paradigms of International Relations

Abstract

For many years, the study of international economy and international security, two fields of international relations, has been based respectively upon the two concepts of international liberalism and extended deterrence. Both concepts developed out of the conditions of the Atlantic/European arena after World War II; together they form the Atlantic Alliance paradigm. This paradigm poorly fits the Pacific/Asian world. In regard to the international economy, the East Asian states are adherents not of international liberalism but of international mercantilism. In regard to international security, they are cases not of extended deterrence but of finite deterrence. Together, these concepts form the Pacific Basin paradigm. The 1990s will be a period of conflict between these two international relations paradigms, the declining one of the United States and the American half century and the rising one of the East Asian powers and the future.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

idem , The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (New York: Random House, 1988).

2. There are exceptions to this pattern, however: communism came to power in China rather as it did in Yugoslavia and Albania, and it came to power in North Korea rather as it did in the rest of Eastern Europe.

Chalmers Johnson , MITI and the Japanese Miracle (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1982).

Johnson , MITI and the Japanese Miracle.

Paul H. B. Godwin, “Changing Concepts of Doctrine, Strategy and Operations in the Chinese People's Liberation Army 1978-87,” ibid.

6. James R. Kurth , “The Political Consequences of the Product Cycle: Industrial History and Political Outcomes,” International Organization, 33(1):1-34 (Winter 1979).

7. Alexander Gerschenkron , Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962).

Prestowitz , Trading Places, pp. 105-111.

9. Since Japan also attacked British possessions in East Asia at the time that it attacked Pearl Harbor, Britain was then at war with Japan as well as Germany and Italy; this technically would have linked the European and Pacific wars, even if the United States had not entered the European one. But by itself, Britain would not have been able to continue a war in the Pacific, and in practice the European and Pacific wars would have been separate ones.

10.

10. Robert Gilpin , U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation: The Political Economy of Foreign Direct Investment (New York: Basic Books, 1975), pp. 109-111.

11.

11. James R. Kurth , “Travels between Europe and America: The Rise and Decline of the New York Foreign Policy Elite,” forthcoming in a volume edited by Martin Shefter for the New York City Project of the Social Science Research Council.

12.

12. I have discussed the maritime strategy of the U.S. Navy in my “United States and the North Pacific,” in Security and Arms Control in the North Pacific, ed. Andrew Mack and Paul Keal (Winchester, MA: George Allen & Unwin, 1988), pp. 27-49.

13.

Robert Gilpin , The Political Economy of International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 328-339.