EVALUATING SINO-US INTERESTS IN THE INDO-PACIFIC REGION: A NEO-FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE

Öz

This article explores the evolving power dynamics between the US and China in the Indo-Pacific region, focusing on how rivalry between these actors can be reduced to foster greater cooperation and regional integration. ASEAN's role in promoting stability and institutional cooperation is examined as a key factor in shaping the region's security. The paper discusses whether diplomatic and economic cooperation, despite rising Sino-American tensions, can contribute to the development of regional institutional cooperation mechanisms. Using a functionalist/neo-functionalist framework, it analyzes how the conflict-cooperation dichotomy between the US, China, and their interactions with ASEAN and other regional actors impacts the Indo-Pacific security structure. The study argues, consistent with neo-functionalist postulates, that mutual cooperation, including ASEAN’s diplomatic efforts, is crucial for enhancing regional integration and stability. Addressing the security dilemma requires strategic cooperation that considers all actors' concerns, such as open trade routes and energy security. The paper concludes that a new Cold War-like scenario between Washington and Beijing, where both vie for regional hegemony, is unlikely in the Indo-Pacific’s multipolar context. Instead, ASEAN plays a vital role in fostering regional stability through institutional mechanisms, making institutional cooperation a viable model for reducing tensions and creating stability in the region.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Neo-functionalism
• Foreign Policy of the United States
• Foreign Policy of the PR China
• Theory and history of International Relations
• Indo-Pacific

HİNT-PASİFİK BÖLGESİNDE ÇİN VE ABD ÇIKARLARININ NEOFONKSİYONALİST TEORİ PERSPEKTİFİNDEN ANALİZİ

Öz

Bu makale, Hint-Pasifik bölgesinde ABD ve Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti arasındaki güç dinamiklerini inceleyerek, bu rekabetin nasıl azaltılabileceğini ve bölgesel işbirliği ile entegrasyonun nasıl geliştirilebileceğini araştırmaktadır. ASEAN’ın bölgesel istikrarı sağlama ve aktörler arasındaki kurumsal işbirliğini teşvik etme potansiyeli, bölgenin güvenlik yapısına önemli katkılar sağlayan bir faktör olarak ele alınmaktadır. Makalede, artan Çin-ABD rekabetine rağmen, diplomatik ve ekonomik işbirliği mekanizmalarının bölgesel işbirliğini geliştirme potansiyeli incelenmektedir. Fonksiyonalist/neo-fonksiyonalist uluslararası ilişkiler kavramları perspektifinden hareketle, ABD ve Çin arasındaki işbirliği ve çatışma ikilemi incelenecektir. Ayrıca, ASEAN teşkilatı ve diğer bölgesel aktörlerin Hint-Pasifik stratejik dengesi ve bölgesel istikrara yönelik etkileri değerlendirilecektir. Bu araştırma, neo-fonksiyonalist ilkeler doğrultusunda, ASEAN üye devletlerinin diplomatik çabalarının da dahil olduğu, karşılıklı işbirliğinin bölgesel entegrasyon ve istikrarı sağlamak için önemli olduğunu savunmaktadır. Güvenlik çıkmazının aşılması için stratejik işbirliğinin elzem olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, Washington ve Pekin'in bölgesel hegemonya mücadelesi verdiği yeni bir Soğuk Savaş senaryosu, Hint-Pasifik'in çok kutuplu yapısı nedeniyle olası görünmemektedir. Bu süreçte ASEAN’ın, bölgesel istikrarı sağlama ve kurumsal mekanizmalar oluşturma konusundaki kritik rolü, belirleyici bir unsur olarak değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Neofonksiyonalizm
• ABD dış politikası
• Çin dış politikası
• Uluslararası İlişkiler teorisi ve tarihi
• Hint-Pasifik

Kaynakça

1. Acharya, A. (2003). Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order . London: Routledge.
2. Acharya, A. (2016). Regionalism beyond EU-centrism. T.A. Börzel, T. Risse (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, (p.109-130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Ashley, R. K. (1984). The poverty of neorealism. International organization, 38(2), 225-286.
4. Aswani, R. S., Sajith, S., and Bhat, M. Y. (2021). Realigning India’s Vietnam Policy Through Cooperative Sustainable Development: a Geostrategic Counterbalancing to China in Indo-Pacific. East Asia, 2021-(1), 1-19.
5. Börzel, T. (2016). Theorizing Regionalism. Cooperation, Integration and Governance. T.A. Börzel, T. Risse (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, (p.41-63). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Brattberg, E., and Le Corre, P. (2019). The case for transatlantic cooperation in the Indo- Pacific. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. DOA:20.04.2024, https://carnegieendowment.org/files/WP_BrattbergLeCorre_FINAL1.pdf/.
7. Buzan, B. (2021). China and climate change governance: A golden opportunity. China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies, 7(01), 1-12.
8. Christensen, D. (2015). The China Challenge: Shaping the Choices of a Rising Power.London; New York /NY: Norton&Company.

9. Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: beyond international relations theory. Millennium, 10(2), 126-155.
10. Cox, R. W. (1983). Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: an essay in method. Millennium, 12(2), 162-175.
11. Diez, T.; Wiener, A., (2003). Introducing the Mosaic of Integration Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Fjäder,C. (2012). Regionalism in Asia and Europe in a Theoretical Perspective:‘Rationalist’and ‘Ideational’Approaches. Asia-Pacific Journal of EU Studies, 10(1), 73-101.
13. Gill, S. (1991). American hegemony and the trilateral commission. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.
14. Gilpin, R. G. (1996). No one loves a political realist. Security Studies, 5(3), 3-26.
15. Green, M.J. (2021). By More Than Providence. Grand Strategy and American Power in the Asia Pacific since 1783. New York/NY: Columbia University Press.
16. Guillén, A., and Torres, I. C. (2023). The Decline of American Hegemony: Biden’s Foreign Policy Towards China. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, 12(3), 247-272.
17. Haas, E. B. (1970). The study of regional integration: reflections on the joy and anguish of pretheorizing. International organization, 24(4), 606-646.
18. Herz, J. H. (1950). Idealist internationalism and the security dilemma. World politics, 2(2), 157-180.
19. Hinsch, W. (1985). Die Unendlichkeit der Welt in der kritischen Philosophie Kants. Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, (H. 3), 383-409.
20. Hu, W. (2020). The United States, China, and the Indo-Pacific Strategy. China Review, 20(3), 127-142.
21. Ikenberry, G. J. (1989). Rethinking the origins of American hegemony. Political Science Quarterly, 104(3), 375-400.
22. Kim, S. H., and Snyder, S. A. (2019). Denuclearizing North Korea: Time for Plan B. The Washington Quarterly, 42(4), 75-90.
23. Koga, K. (2020). Japan's ‘Indo-Pacific’question: countering China or shaping a new regional order?. International Affairs, 96(1), 49-73.
24. Kuik, C. C. (2023). Shades of grey: riskification and hedging in the Indo-Pacific. The Pacific Review, 36(6), 1181-1214.
25. Laksmana, E.A. (2017). Pragmatic Equidistance. How Indonesia Manages Ist Great Power Relations. B.A. Denoon (Ed.) China, the United States, and the Future of Southeast Asia: U.S.-China Relations, Volume II. (p.113-135). New York/ NY: New York University Press.
26. Lau,L.J. (2019). The China-U.S. Trade War and Future Economic Relations. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.
27. Larus, E. F., and Hargis, S. N. K. M. (2017). US President Obama’s China policy: A critical assessment. Teka Komentarzy Politologicznych Stosunków Międzynarodowych, 12(2), 7-29.
28. Lee-Brown, T. T. (2021). The Rise and Strategic Significance of the Indo-Pacific. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Perth: University of Western Australia.
29. Lewis, J. I. (2014). Managing intellectual property rights in cross-border clean energy collaboration: The case of the US–China Clean Energy Research Center. Energy policy, 69, 546-554.
30. Lipsey R. G. and Harbury C. D. (1992). First principles of economics (2nd ed.). London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
31. Liu, F., and He, K. (2023). China’s Bilateral Relations, Order Transition, and the Indo-Pacific Dynamics. China Review, 23(1), 11-43.
32. McDevitt, M. (2017). U.S. Policy Options in the South China Sea. B.A. Denoon (Ed.) China, the United States, and the Future of Southeast Asia: U.S.-China Relations, Volume II. (p.389-422). New York/ NY: New York University Press
33. Medcalf, R. (2020). Contest for the Indo-Pacific. Why China won‘t map the future. Carlton: La Trobe University Press.
34. Murphy, A.M. (2017). ASEAN’s External Policy: Caught between the United States and China. B.A. Denoon (Ed.) China, the United States, and the Future of Southeast Asia: U.S.-China Relations, Volume II. (p.50-79). New York/ NY: New York University Press.
35. Marshall, T. (2021). The power of geography. Ten Mmaps that reveal the future of our world. London: Elliott & Thompson.
36. O’Keefe, M. (2020). The Militarisation of China in the Pacific. Security Challenges, 16(1), 94-112.
37. Ott, M.C. (2017). US Security Strategy and Southeast Asia. B.A. Denoon (Ed.) China, the United States, and the Future of Southeast Asia: U.S.-China Relations, Volume II. (p.359-388). New York/ NY: New York University Press.
38. Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and power in the European Community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(4), 473-524.
39. Rigaud, N. (2016). France and security in the Asia–Pacific. ASPI Strategic Insights, 112,1-12.
40. Rosamond, B. (2000) Theories of European Integration, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
41. Ruggie, J. G. (1998). What makes the world hang together? Neo-utilitarianism and the social constructivist challenge. International organization, 52(4), 855-885.
42. Saurugger, S. (2014). Theoretical Approaches to European Integration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
43. Savkovich Yevgeni, V., and Cherepanova Irina, A. (2018). РАЗВИТИЕ СИСТЕМЫ «СТРАТЕГИЧЕСКОГО И ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОГО ДИАЛОГА» КНР И США: ЗАДАЧИ ДЛЯ АДМИНИСТРАЦИИ Д. ТРАМПА. Вестник Томского государственного университета. История, (52), (Tomsk State University Journal of History (52)), 53-57.
44. Schoen, D. E., and Kaylan, M. (2015). Return to winter: Russia, China, and the new cold war against America. New York/ NY:Encounter books.
45. Shambaugh,D. (2020). Where Great Powers Meet. America & China in Southeast Asia. New York/NY: Oxford University Press.
46. Shulong, C. (2017). China and the United States in Southeast Asia. B.A. Denoon (Ed.) China, the United States, and the Future of Southeast Asia: U.S.-China Relations, Volume II. (p.333-358). New York/ NY: New York University Press.
47. Smith,S. (2019). Japan Rearmed: The Politics of Military Power. Boston/MA:Harvard University Press
48. Suryanarayana, P. S. (2023). How" strategic" is India's Indo-Pacific" vision". RSIS Commentaries, 085-23. (pp.1-4).At: https://dr.ntu.edu.sg/bitstream/10356/169253/2/CO23085.pdf DOA: 15.09.2024
49. Tehseen, M. (2017). Sino-US Competition. Strategic Studies, 37(4), 1-17.
50. Thayer, C. A. (2016). Vietnam’s strategy of ‘cooperating and struggling with China over maritime disputes in the South China Sea. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 3(2), 200-220.
51. Wang, X. (2022). Is the Spillover Hypothesis of Neofunctionalism Functional in an Asian Context? The China–Central Asia and China–Southeast Asia Pipelines in Comparative Perspective. Asian Perspective, 46(1), 133-156.
52. Weiss, J. C. (2019). A world safe for autocracy: China's rise and the future of global politics. Foreign Affairs., 98 (2019), 92-102.
53. Wen, J. (2004). Carrying Forward the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence in the Promotion of Peace and Development. Chinese Journal of International Law, 3(2), 363–368.
54. Williams, M.C., (2023). Historical Realism. M. Bukovansky, E. Keene, E.and C. Reus-Smit (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of History and International Relations. (p.35-48). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
55. Wu, X. (2000). U.S. Security Policy in Asia: Implications for China—U.S. Relations. Contemporary Southeast Asia , 22, (3)3 , 479-497.
56. Xi, J. (2017). The Governance of China II. Beijing: Foreign Language Press
57. Zeng, J.& Breslin, S. (2016). China's ‘new type of Great Power relations’ : a G2 with Chinese characteristics? International Affairs, 92 (4). 773-794. Zimmern, E. (1933). Internationale Politik als Wissenschaft, Leipzig: Teubner.