How Chinese scholars think about Chinese foreign policy

China’s assertive diplomacy in recent years has ignited intense debates among international relations (IR) scholars. Some argue that China’s assertive behaviour is rooted in its perception of increasing power and capabilities. Others suggest that it is US policies that triggered China’s assertive reactions. Relying on an original survey of China’s IR scholars conducted in Beijing in 2013 and using structural equation modelling, we empirically examine Chinese IR scholars’ attitude towards Chinese power versus the United States, their perceptions of US policy in Asia, and their preference for an assertive Chinese foreign policy. We find that both the power perception and policy reaction arguments make sense in accounting for Chinese IR scholars’ attitude regarding China’s assertive diplomacy. However, our research suggests that a more pessimistic view on Chinese power is more likely to be associated with a preference for an assertive foreign policy.     

Soviet foreign policy

Hannes Adomeit, Soviet Risk‐Taking and Crisis Behavior: a theoretical and empirical analysis, Sydney, Allen & Unwin, 1984, pp.375. $29.95 (paper)

Edwina Moreton and Gerald Segal (eds), Soviet Strategy Toward Western Europe, Sydney, Allen & Unwin, 1984, pp.296. $15.95 (paper)

Yaacov Ro'i (ed.), The USSR and the Muslim World, Sydney, Allen & Unwin, 1984, pp.298. $65.00 (cloth)     

Power in Australian foreign policy

The 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper emphasises the importance of ‘maximising’ Australia’s power and influence. However, the White Paper and much of the commentary on Australian foreign policy do not clearly conceptualise ‘power’ or indicate how it ought to be increased. The Lowy Institute’s recent Asia Power Index implies one possible strategy via its resource-based approach to measuring power. We outline a different approach and argue that power should be conceptualised and evaluated as a specific relationship causing behavioural change, rather than as a general attribute of its wielder. To complement the Lowy Institute’s carefully catalogued database, and facilitate a more focused conversation about maximising power and influence in Australian foreign policy, we offer a typology identifying five pathways through which states can translate their material and non-material resources into outcomes that serve the national interest.     

Some recent writing on Japanese Foreign policy

JAPAN IN THE POSTWAR EAST ASIAN INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM. Donald C. Hellmann. McLean, Virginia, Research Analysis Corporation, Strategic Studies Department Report RAC‐R‐46–2, February 1969. Pp. vi + 46. No price stated.

JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES IN ASIA. Robert H. Osgood, George R. Packard III and John H. Badgley. The Washington Center of Foreign Policy Research, School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University, Studies in International Affairs Number 8. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968. Pp. vii + 65. US$1.95.

THE JAPANESE CIVILIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM. Victor Gilinsky and Paul F. Langer. Santa Monica, California, The Rand Corporation Memorandum RM‐5366‐PR, August 1967. Pp. xi + 48. No price stated.

THE JAPANESE SPACE PROGRAM: POLITICAL AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS. Paul F. Langer. Santa Monica, California, The Rand Corporation, August 1968. Pp. 30. No price stated.