US-led security architectures in the Asia-Pacific and Europe are experiencing pressure due to ongoing geostrategic transformation in these regions, most notably the rapid expansion of China’s power, North Korea’s nuclear brinkmanship and Russia’s renewed aggressive adventurism. These readjustments have often been examined through the prism of changing balance of power between the US-led liberal international forces and revisionist powers aiming to alter the international order. Going beyond this analysis in the literature, this article sheds lights on the ways in which the USA has attempted and is attempting to reshape US-led alliances in the Asia-Pacific and Europe. The article finds that the US-led alliance systems and security partnerships will continue to evolve divergently due both to their different path-dependent identities and the different types of challenges they face regionally.
AbrahamianA.SonD. (2017). Moving on: China resolves THAAD dispute with North Korea. 38North, 9 November 2017. Retrieved from https://www.38north.org/2017/11/abrahamianson110917/
2.
AcharyaA. (2011). Whose ideas matter? Agency and power in Asian regionalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
3.
AchesonD. (1950). Speech on the far east, 12 January 1950. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/1950-01-12.pdf
4.
AllisonG. (2017). Destined for war: Can the United States and China Escape Thucydides’s trap? New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
5.
Asia Research Network. (2016). Survey on America’s role in the Asia-Pacific. Asia Research Network, June 2016. Retrieved from http://perthusasia.edu.au/getattachment/133badf1-d3fc-4b60-a83c-aeb9fdbd5d66/ARN_ARAP_Report_1.pdf.aspx?lang=en-AU
6.
BebberR. (2015). Countersurge: A better understanding of China’s rise and U.S. policy goals in East Asia. Orbis, 69(1), 49–61.
7.
BellamyA.WheelerN. (2011). Humanitarian intervention in world politics. In BaylisJ.SmithS.OwensP. (Eds.), The globalization of world politics (5th ed., pp. 510–527). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
BiscopS. (2017). How the EU can save NATO. Egmont Institute—Security policy brief, 29 March 2017. Retrieved from http://www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2017/03/SBP83.pdf?type=pdf
9.
BiscopS. (2018). Brexit, strategy, and the EU: Britain takes leave. Egmont Institute Paper 100, February 2018. Retrieved from http://www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2018/01/ep100.pdf?type=pdf
10.
BiscopS. (2018a). PESCO: Good news for NATO from the EU. Egmont Institute—Commentary, 14 February 2018. Retrieved from http://www.egmontinstitute.be/pesco-good-news-nato-eu/
11.
BitzingerR. (2016). Third offset strategy and Chinese A2/AD capabilities. Center for a New American Security Report, 13 June 2016. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.cnas.org/documents/CNAS_Third-Offset-Strategy-and-Chinese-A2-AD-Capabilities_FINAL.pdf?mtime=20161005211730
12.
BobbittP. (2003). The shield of Achilles: War, peace, and the course of history. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
13.
BoscoJ. (2013). Entrapment and abandonment in Asia. National Interest, July 2013. Retrieved from https://nationalinterest.org/commentary/entrapment-abandonment-asia-8697
14.
BrownM. (1995). The flawed logic of NATO expansion. Survival, 37(1), 34–52.
15.
ChaV. (2000). Abandonment, entrapment, and neoclassical realism in Asia: The United States, Japan, and Korea. International Studies Quarterly, 44(2), 261–291.
16.
ChaV. (2009/2010). Powerplay: Origins of the U.S. alliance system in Asia. International Security, 34(3), 158–196.
17.
ChaV. (2017). Informal hierarchy in Asia: The origins of the U.S.-Japan alliance. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 17(1), 1–34.
CullenP. (2017). The rebalance to Asia under Trump. RUSI Journal, 162(2), 8–15.
20.
FontaineR.CroninP. M.Rapp-HooperM.KrejsaH. (2017). Networking Asian security: An integrated approach to order in the Pacific. CNAS Report, June 2017. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.cnas.org/documents/Networking_Asian_Security_finalc.pdf
21.
FruehlingS.O’NeilA. (2017). Nuclear weapons, the United States, and alliances in Europe and Asia: Toward an institutional perspective. Contemporary Security Policy, 38(1), 4–25.
22.
FunabashiY. (2014). 1914 or 1950 in Asia?: If the US and Japan don’t deter China, dominos will fall. New Perspectives Quarterly, 31(2), 23–25.
23.
GillB. (2018). US allies aren’t buying its new strategy to confront China. The Diplomat, 5 February 2018. Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/us-allies-arent-buying-its-new-strategies-to-confront-china/
24.
GodementF.VasselierA. (2017). China at the gates: A new power audit of EU-China relations. European Council on Foreign Relations, 1 December 2017. Retrieved from https://www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/china_eu_power_audit7242
25.
HaassR. (2017). A world in disarray: American foreign policy and the crisis of the old order. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
26.
HardingB. (2017). The U.S.-Japan alliance in an age of elevated U.S.-China relations. Center for American Progress Report, 17 March 2017. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2017/03/17/426709/u-s-japan-alliance-age-elevated-u-s-china-relations/
27.
HeathT. (2014). China and the U.S. alliance system. The Diplomat, 11 June 2014. Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2014/06/china-and-the-u-s-alliance-system/
28.
HemmerChristopherKatzensteinPeter (2002). Why Is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism. International Organization, 56(3), 575–607.
29.
HeuserB. (1997). NATO, Britain, France, and the FRG: Nuclear strategies and forces for Europe, 1949–2000. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan.
30.
HicksK. (2017). Defense strategy and the iron law of painful trade-offs. CSIS Report, June 2017. Retrieved from https://www.csis.org/analysis/defense-strategy-and-iron-triangle-painful-trade-offs
31.
HolslagJ. (2015). China’s coming war with Asia. London, UK: Wiley.
32.
Hoop SchefferA.LeteB. (2014). Rethinking NATO’s strategy in a changing world: Recommendations for the next NATO secretary general. German Marshall Fund Policy Brief, 10 September 2014. Retrieved from http://www.gmfus.org/publications/rethinking-nato%E2%80%99s-strategy-changing-world-recommendations-next-nato-secretary-general
33.
HuangE. (2017). China’s master PLAN: How Beijing wants to break free of the island chains. National Interest, 19 May 2017. Retrieved from https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-master-plan-how-beijing-wants-break-free-the-island-20746
34.
IkenberryG. J. (2018). The end of liberal international order? International Affairs, 94(1), 7–23.
35.
KimD. (2018). Pyongyang, Pyeongchang, and the limits of Olympic diplomacy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 6 February 2018. Retrieved from https://thebulletin.org/2018/02/pyongyang-pyeongchang-and-the-limits-of-olympic-diplomacy/
36.
KimT. (2016). The supply side of security: A market theory of military alliances. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
37.
LieberK.PressD. (2013). Coercive nuclear campaigns in the 21st century: Understanding adversary incentives and options for escalation. PASCC Report 2013–001, March 2013. Retrieved from https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/34337/nps08-040813-01.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
38.
LiffA. (2017). China and the U.S. alliance system. The China Quarterly, 233, 1–29. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/1FF369905B4A8110DC8693A3C8A7857B/S0305741017000601a.pdf/china_and_the_us_alliance_system.pdf
39.
LiffA.IkenberryG. J. (2014). Racing toward tragedy: China’s rise, military competition in the Asia Pacific, and the security dilemma. International Security, 39(2), 52–92.
40.
MatrayJ. (2002). Dean Acheson’s press club speech reexamined. Journal of Conflict Studies, 22(1), 1–16. Retrieved from https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/366/578
41.
MoonC.-I.RhyuS.-Y. (2010). Rethinking alliance and the economy: American hegemony, path dependence, and South Korean political economy. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 10(3), 441–464.
42.
MooreR. M.ColettaD. (Eds). (2017). NATO’s return to Europe: Engaging Ukraine, Russia, and beyond. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
43.
NaimM. (2009). Minilateralism: The magic number to get real international action. Foreign Policy, 21 June 2009. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/06/21/minilateralism/
44.
Nilsson-WrightJ. (2017). Creative Minilateralism in a changing Asia: Opportunities for security cooperation and convergence between Australia, India, and Japan. Chatham House Research Paper, July 2017. Retrieved from https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/creative-minilateralism-changing-asia-opportunities-security-convergence-and-cooperation
45.
O’BrienF. (2017). China to overtake U.S. economy by 2032 as Asian might builds. Bloomberg, 26 December 2017. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-26/china-to-overtake-u-s-economy-by-2032-as-asian-might-builds
46.
PatrickS. (2016). Making sense of ‘Minilateralism’: The pros and cons of flexible cooperation. Council on Foreign Relations Post, 5 January 2016. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/blog/making-sense-minilateralism-pros-and-cons-flexible-cooperation
47.
PerretG. (2008). Commander in chief: How Truman, Johnson, and Bush turned a presidential power into a threat to America’s future. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
48.
PilatJ. (2016). A reversal of fortunes? Extended deterrence and assurance in Europe and East Asia. Journal of Strategic Studies, 39(4), 580–591.
49.
RamirezC. (2017). Abe’s Cul-de-Sac foreign policy: Between entrapment and abandonment. The Diplomat, 11 September 2017. Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2017/09/abes-cul-de-sac-foreign-policy-between-entrapment-and-abandonment/
50.
Rapp-HooperM. (2017). Decoupling is back in Asia: A 1960s playbook won’t solve these problems. War on the Rocks, 7 September 2017. Retrieved from https://warontherocks.com/2017/09/decoupling-is-back-in-asia-a-1960s-playbook-wont-solve-these-problems/
51.
RicheyM. (2017). South Korea’s perceptions of Obama’s foreign policy toward Northeast Asia. In MaassM. (Ed.), The world views of the Obama Era: From hope to disillusionment. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave-Macmillan.
52.
RicheyM. (2018). Contemporary Russian revisionism: Understanding the Kremlin’s hybrid warfare and the strategic and tactical deployment of disinformation. Asia Europe Journal, 16(1), 101–113.
53.
RozmanG. (Ed). (2015). Asia’s alliance triangle: US-Japan-South Korea relations at a tumultuous time. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
54.
SenderH. (2016). US defence: Losing its edge in technology? Financial Times, 5 September 2016. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/a7203ec2-6ea4-11e6-9ac1-1055824ca907
55.
ShiT. (2017). Xi plans to turn China into a leading global power by 2050. Bloomberg 18 October 2017. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-17/xi-to-put-his-stamp-on-chinese-history-at-congress-party-opening
56.
SimonL.SpeckU. (Eds.). (2017). Europe in 2030: Four alternative futures. Elcano Policy Paper, December 2017. Retrieved from http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_en/contenido?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/elcano/elcano_in/zonas_in/policy-paper-simon-speck-europe-2030-four-alternative-futures
57.
SnyderG. H. (1984). The security dilemma in alliance politics. World Politics, 36(4), 461–495.
58.
SteinbockD. (2014). The challenges for America’s defense innovation. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Report, November 2014. Retrieved from http://www2.itif.org/2014-defense-rd.pdf
59.
StiglitzJ. (2010). Free fall: Free markets and the sinking of the global economy. New York, NY: Allen Lane.
60.
SuhJ.-J. (2007). Power, interest, and identity in military alliances. New York, NY: Palgrave-Macmillan.
61.
The White House. (2017). National security strategy of the United States of America. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf
62.
TowW.LimayeS. (2016). What’s China got to do with it? U.S. alliances, partnerships in the Asia-Pacific. Asian Politics and Policy, 8(1), 7–26.
63.
United States Department of Defense (USDOD). (1998). United States security strategy for the East Asia-Pacific Region. Retrieved from http://ryukyu-okinawa.net/downloads/usdod-easr98.pdf
64.
United States Department of Defense (USDOD). (2016). Remarks by secretary carter and Q&A at the Shangri-La dialogue, Singapore. 5 June 2016. Retrieved from https://dod.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/791472/remarks-by-secretary-carter-and-qa-at-the-shangri-la-dialogue-singapore/
65.
United States Department of Defense (USDOD). (2018). Nuclear posture review. Retrieved from https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF
66.
United States Department of Defense (USDOD). (2018a). Summary of the national defense strategy of the United States of America. Retrieved from https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf
67.
US Census Bureau. (2019). Trade statistics. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0012.html; https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0016.html
68.
WendtA. (1994). Collective identity formation and the international state. American Political Science Review, 88(2), 384–396.
69.
WesleyM. (Ed.). (2017). Global allies: Comparing alliances in the 21st century. Canberra, Australia: ANU Press.
70.
WhiteH. (2012). The China choice: Why America should share power. Carleton, Australia: Black Inc.
71.
XuR. (2017). Alliance persistence within the Anglo-American special relationship: The post-cold war era. New York, NY: Palgrave-Macmillan.
72.
YeoA. (2011). Activists, alliances, and anti-US base protests. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
