Strategies of Middle-Sized Countries Vis-a-Vis Great Powers: Cases from South-East Asia

Analysis of foreign policies of middle and great powers has traditionally been considered one of the key problems of International Relations. The period after the end of the Cold War is characterized by the formation of a new political and economic architecture, the emergence of new centers of power, the aspiration of non-Western players to challenge American domination by forming an independent growth pole that excludes hegemonism, asymmetric dependence, sanctions and any other forms of "economic war" as foreign policy tools. The non-linearity and randomness of these processes makes the problem of studying foreign policy strategies as a response to the global challenges of the modern world order relevant to an even greater degree. The current article analyzes the peculiarities of the foreign policy strategies of middle powers towards the great powers (the U.S. and China) using examples of South East Asian nations and Malaysia in particular. It reveals the conceptual features and theoretical  limitations  of  the  main strategic patterns identified by structural and neoclassical realism – balancing, bandwagoning  and hedging. Using the case of Malaysia as a basis, the paper highlights the main factors that influence the elaboration of foreign policy towards the great powers by middle power in terms of ensuring national security and maximizing economic benefits. The article argues that economic pragmatism, a strong institutional framework for bilateral cooperation, and the desire of the Malaysian ruling elite to strengthen its positions lead to Kuala Lumpur's rejection of the balancing policy against Beijing, despite the existence of a territorial dispute with China, the growth of Chinese ambitions and close military-political cooperation between Malaysia and the U.S. Therefore, this article challenges Stephen Walt's neorealist approach, showing that the geographical proximity of a weaker state  with  a  powerhouse  may  rather become a valuable asset than a source of threat. Finally, the article attempts to construct a new typology of foreign policy strategies of middle powers, building upon the tools introduced by Neoclassical Realism.

1. Ananthi Al Ramiah, Hewstone M., Ralf Wolfer. (2017). Attitudes and Ethnoreligious Integration: Meeting the Challenge and Maximizing the Promise of Multicultural Malaysia. Final report: Survey and recommendations. Presented to the Board of Trustees, CIMB Foundation. URL: https://www. cimbfoundation.com/clients/CIMB_Foundation_D894EB94-B114-4E11-8175-EB426BB876F0/ contentms/img/pdf/attitudes-and-%20ethnoreligious-integration-survey-and-recommendations.pdf Bektimirova N.N. (2015). Traditsionnyye factory vo vneshney politike Kambodzhi na sovremennom etape [Traditional factors in the foreign policy of Cambodia at the current stage]. Yugo-Vostochnaya Azia: Actualnyye problemy razvitiya. No. 26. P. 114–137.

2. Chen I., Yang A. (2013). A harmonized Southeast Asia? Explanatory typologies of ASEAN countries’ strategies to the rise of China. The Pacific Review. Vol. 26. No. 3. P. 265–288.

3. Dobkowska J. (2014). Hedging China? The Meaning of the ASEAN Member States’ Interests in Forging their Policies Towards China. Contemporary Asian Studies Series. P. 237–254.

4. Goh E. (2005). Meeting the China challenge: The US in Southeast Asian regional security strategies. Policy Studies. No. 16. P. 1–82.

5. Kang D.C. (2006). Hierarchy, balancing, and empirical puzzles in Asian international relations. International Security. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 165–180.

6. Kang D.C. (2007). China rising: peace, power, and order in East Asia. Columbia: Columbia University Press. 296 p.

7. Kuik C. C. (2008). The essence of hedging: Malaysia and Singapore's response to a rising China. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 159–185.

8. Kuik C.C. (2010). Smaller States’ Alignment Choices: A Comparative Study of Malaysia and Singapore’s Hedging Behavior in the Face of a Rising China. Johns Hopkins University. 391 p.

9. Le Hong H. (2013). Vietnam's Hedging Strategy against China since Normalization. Contemporary Southeast Asia. P. 333–368.

10. Murphy A.M. (2010). Beyond balancing and bandwagoning: Thailand's response to China's rise. Asian Security. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 1–27.

11. Omar R., Mukhtaruddin M. J. (2010). Dasar Luar Malaysia Era Dato’Seri Mohd Najib Tun Razak: Keutamaan Dalam Aspek Hubungan Dua Hala [Malaysian Foreign Policy Era under Mohd Najib Tun Razak: Priority of Bilateral Relations] Institute of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad’s Thoughts, University Utara Malaysia. P. 173–194.

12. Omar R. (2016). China dan kuasa hegemoni baru ekonomi [China and the new economic hegemon].

13. International Journal of Management Studies (IJMS). Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 1–38.

14. Ping J. H. (2017). Middle Power Statecraft: Indonesia, Malaysia and the Asia-Pacific. Oxon: Routledge. 282 p.

15. Pogadaev V.A. (2014). Malaysiyskaya oppozitsiya v borbe za nezavisimost strany I sotsialnyy progress (1940–1970-ye gody) [The Malaysian opposition in the struggle for independence of the country and social progress (1940–1970s)]. Moscow: Klyuch-S. 160 p.

16. Rinehart I. (2015). Malaysia: Background and US Relations. Congressional Research Service Report. 21 p. URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43505.pdf

17. Ross. R.S. (2006). Balance of power politics and the rise of China: Accommodation and balancing in East Asia. Security Studies. Vol. 15. No. 3. P. 355–395.

18. Schweller R. L. (1994). Bandwagoning for profit: Bringing the revisionist state back in. International Security. Vol. 19. No. 1. P. 72–107.

19. Skriba A. (2014). Balansirovanie malyh i srednih gosudarstv [The Balancing of Small and Medium-Sized Nations]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol.12. No. 4. P. 88–100.

20. Tran P. T., Vieira A. V. G., Ferreira-Pereira L. C. (2013). Vietnam's strategic hedging vis-à-vis China: the roles of the European Union and Russia. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional. Vol. 56. No. 1. P. 163–182.

21. Urlyapov V.F. (2014). Sovremennyy etap v razvitii malayzisko-kitayskikh otnosheniy. [The current stage in the development of Malaysian-Chinese relarions]. Yugo-Vostochnaya Azia: Actualnyye problemy razvitiya. No. 22. P. 62–66.

22. Urlyapov V.F. (2015). Vneshnyaya politika Malajzii ot Makhatkhira Mokhamada do Nabzhiba Razaka [The foreign policy of Malaysia from Mahathir Mohamad to Nabzhib Razak] / ed. by D.V. Mosyakov. Moscow: Institut Vostokovedeniya RAN. 284 p.

23. Veremeev N. (2016). Torgovo-jekonomicheskaja konkurencija na Tihom okeane [Asia-Pacific in Times of Competitive Regionalism]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol.14. No. 2. P. 95–111.

24. Walt S. M. (1985). Alliance formation and the balance of world power. International security. Vol. 9. No. 4. P. 3–43.

25. Walt S. M. (1987). The origins of alliance. N.Y.: Cornell University Press. 336 p.

26. Waltz K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill. 251 p.

27. Zhao S., Qi X. (2016). Hedging and Geostrategic Balance of East Asian Countries toward China. Journal of Contemporary China. Vol. 25. No. 100. P. 485–499.