Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

59 results

Page 1 of 3

  • Allen Seuss Whiting, 1926–2018

  • Jonathan Pollack, David Shambaugh
  • Journal:
    The China Quarterly / Volume 236 / December 2018
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    20 December 2018, pp. 917-929
    Print publication:
    December 2018
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

U.S. Relations with Southeast Asia in 2018
  • More Continuity Than Change
  • David Shambaugh
  • Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    25 August 2018
    Print publication:
    18 July 2018
  • The United States maintains a comprehensive and robust presence throughout Southeast Asia that has grown dramatically since the 1980s. It includes the commercial, security, education and diplomatic, and other domains. America’s strengths and contributions to the region lie particularly in both hard and soft power, but the U.S. economic footprint is both broad and deep. However, this presence is not very well appreciated or reported by regional media — whereas China’s presence and influence is pervasive. Most Southeast Asian governments are often reluctant to recognize or publicize the U.S. presence or contributions to regional security, stability, and growth.America’s diplomatic engagement of ASEAN and the region has rightly been criticized for its episodic engagement, and Washington should substantially elevate Southeast Asia within its broader Asian and Indo-Pacific diplomatic priorities. Southeast Asia was made the highest priority ever for Washington during the Obama administration. While receding somewhat under the Trump administration, the region remains an important priority — but Washington must devote sustained attention to match the region’s importance to American national interests. As U.S.–China competition escalates, Southeast Asia will become an epicentre of this competition. Southeast Asian states and societies may not realize the significance of the escalating U.S.–China competition for them, as most countries are internally preoccupied and buy into ASEAN’s rhetoric of inclusive engagement of external powers. Southeast Asian countries are likely to become increasing objects of this competition, and it will be become increasingly difficult for them to ignore it. Meanwhile, Southeast Asian states and ASEAN must elevate their own emphasis and engagement with the United States. The U.S. brings many more strengths and benefits than does China and is a far more comprehensive actor in the region. In particular, it would be helpful if ASEAN and its member states would more publicly recognize the contributions and importance of the United States.

  • U.S. Relations with Southeast Asia in 2018: More Continuity than Change

  • David Shambaugh
  • Book:
    U.S. Relations with Southeast Asia in 2018
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    25 August 2018
    Print publication:
    18 July 2018, pp vii-viii

  • Summary

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • • The United States maintains a comprehensive and robust presence throughout Southeast Asia that has grown dramatically since the 1980s. It includes the commercial, security, education and diplomatic, and other domains. America's strengths and contributions to the region lie particularly in both hard and soft power, but the U.S. economic footprint is both broad and deep.

  • • However, this presence is not very well appreciated or reported by regional media — whereas China's presence and influence is pervasive. Most Southeast Asian governments are often reluctant to recognize or publicize the U.S. presence or contributions to regional security, stability, and growth.

  • • America's diplomatic engagement of ASEAN and the region has rightly been criticized for its episodic engagement, and Washington should substantially elevate Southeast Asia within its broader Asian and Indo-Pacific diplomatic priorities. Southeast Asia was made the highest priority ever for Washington during the Obama administration. While receding somewhat under the Trump administration, the region remains an important priority — but Washington must devote sustained attention to match the region's importance to American national interests.

  • • As U.S.–China competition escalates, Southeast Asia will become an epicentre of this competition. Southeast Asian states and societies may not realize the significance of the escalating U.S.–China competition for them, as most countries are internally preoccupied and buy into ASEAN's rhetoric of inclusive engagement of external powers. Southeast Asian countries are likely to become increasing objects of this competition, and it will be become increasingly difficult for them to ignore it.

  • • Meanwhile, Southeast Asian states and ASEAN must elevate their own emphasis and engagement with the United States. The U.S. brings many more strengths and benefits than does China and is a far more comprehensive actor in the region. In particular, it would be helpful if ASEAN and its member states would more publicly recognize the contributions and importance of the United States.

  • U.S. Relations with Southeast Asia in 2018: more Continuity than Change

  • David Shambaugh
  • Book:
    U.S. Relations with Southeast Asia in 2018
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    25 August 2018
    Print publication:
    18 July 2018, pp 1-27

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    A year and a half into the Trump presidency, Southeast Asian countries (like the rest of the world) are wrestling with understanding their region's place in his administration's priorities. If there is a consensus in the region, it is that under Trump the United States is returning to its long-standing approach of benign neglect — or what Joseph Chinyong Liow aptly terms “ambivalent engagement” in his excellent study of American relations with the region.

    While the Trump administration has certainly not prioritized Southeast Asia, neither has it intentionally downgraded the region. It simply seems to be returning to its traditional pattern of episodic diplomacy, whereby multi-month periods of no or little high-level interaction is followed by bursts of “parachute diplomacy” by U.S. officials who fly into the region, give reassuring speeches of America's continuing commitment and resolve, and then fly out. On some occasions the U.S. Government becomes proactive by inviting Southeast Asian heads of state and senior officials to the White House and Washington. But such surges of U.S. diplomacy are normally followed by many consecutive months of relative inattention — before the pattern repeats itself. One can thus understand and forgive Southeast Asian scepticism about the continuity and commitment of the United States to the region. This time around though, the residual doubts and questions about America's attention span and staying power is greater, and it is fuelled by three further factors: Trump's own unpredictability and capriciousness; China's rapidly rising role in the region; and the legacy of the Obama administration.

    The Trump Factor

    Trump has proven himself his administration's own worst enemy. An aggressive early morning tweet or denigrating comments made about a foreign leader, combined with the President's clear disdain for multilateralism, unappreciation of the importance of alliances, barely disguised racial and religious prejudices, and his simplistic mercantilist view of international commerce all have the potential to do real damage to U.S.–Southeast Asian relations. Trump's anti-immigration policies and targeting of Muslim immigrants in particular go down very badly in Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia — and his abrupt withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) sent irreparable shock waves throughout the region.

  • The China Quarterly and Contemporary China Studies

  • David Shambaugh
  • Journal:
    The China Quarterly / Volume 200 / December 2009
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 December 2009, pp. 911-916
    Print publication:
    December 2009

  • It is an honour and pleasure to join in this commemorative symposium of the 50th anniversary of The China Quarterly, still the field's flagship journal. The journal is entering its “middle age” in fine form. Like most who turn 50, The China Quarterly has had its ups and downs, its signature moments and trying times, but has sustained itself with a sense of purpose and strong identity, supported by its extended family (contributors, readers, staff and editorial board). The China Quarterly has been a living chronicle and window for the world to view one of the most important countries on earth. The China Quarterly has much to be proud of over the past half century, but journal's best days hopefully still lie ahead.

The Modern Chinese State
  • Edited by David Shambaugh
  • Published online:
    15 October 2009
    Print publication:
    28 March 2000
  • This is the first book to examine systematically the evolution of the Chinese state from the late Ming Dynasty of the seventeenth century, through the Nationalist and Communist party states of the twentieth century, and into the next century. Leading scholars carefully assess the internal organization of the Chinese state over time, the ruling parties that have governed it, the foreign and indigenous systems that have served as models for state-building and political development, and the array of concepts that have guided Chinese thinking about the state. The Chinese state is the oldest in the world, far predating European and other Oriental state systems, but the party-states in both mainland China and Taiwan today both face serious challenges. What are these challenges and can they endure? What will the Chinese state of the next century look like? These contemporary, and many more historical questions are explored in this book.

  • Training China's Political Elite: The Party School System

  • David Shambaugh
  • Journal:
    The China Quarterly / Volume 196 / December 2008
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 January 2009, pp. 827-844
    Print publication:
    December 2008

  • One of the most important, but under-researched and least well understood, instruments of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is the extensive national network of Party schools (approximately 2,700). They serve as the key institution of mid-career training and indoctrination for all Party cadres, many government cadres, some military officers and selected businessmen. In addition to its training and indoctrination functions, the Party school system (particularly the Central Party School in Beijing) is also an important generator of policy initiatives. Not all Party schools are stalwart institutions, with some being involved in corruption scandals, but on the whole they have come to play an increasingly important role in the CCP's rebuilding efforts in recent years.

  • China's International Relations Think Tanks: Evolving Structure and Process

  • David Shambaugh
  • Journal:
    The China Quarterly / Volume 171 / September 2002
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    30 September 2002, pp. 575-596
    Print publication:
    September 2002

  • Over the past two decades China's international relations (IR) think tanks have come to play increasingly important roles in China's foreign policy making and intelligence analysis, as well as serving as an increasingly important liaison to officials and specialists in foreign countries. During this period China's IR think tanks have expanded in quantity as well as improving the quality of personnel and analytical product. Publications by, and discussions with, these think tanks often offer important indications of broader policy debates and competition among institutes and their staff. This article surveys the current organization and state of research in China's IR think tanks, offers historical perspectives on the evolution of this community, and provides current information of relevance to those who interact with these institutions and read their publications.

  • Preface

  • Edited by David Shambaugh, George Washington University, Washington DC
  • Book:
    The Modern Chinese State
    Published online:
    15 October 2009
    Print publication:
    28 March 2000, pp xxi-xxiv

  • Summary

    This volume owes a debt of gratitude to many. Most of all it owes a special intellectual debt to the memory of Franz Michael (1907–1992), to whom the volume is admiringly dedicated.

    Most of the contributors to this volume were either colleagues or students of Professor Michael. Personally, as an undergraduate, he was one of my first teachers of Asian history. He did much to shape my initial understanding of China and Asian civilizations, and he particularly challenged me, as a young liberal, to see how easy it was for unbridled state power to be used in despotic ways. Professor Michael was one of the first Asian scholars to apply the totalitarian paradigm (developed to understand modern fascism and Stalinist communism) to the study of Chinese communism, as he recognized that dictatorships knew no cultural boundaries. This recognition also grew out of his understanding (and debates with Karl Wittfogel) of “Oriental Despotism.” His own European heritage and study of Asia blended intellectually in Professor Michael's critical mind.

    Franz Michael's impact on the field of Sinological studies was significant. His influence endures in the number of students that he trained in thirty-five years as a professor of history at the University of Washington, George Washington University, and University of Pittsburgh – many of whom pursued careers as China scholars. He also taught large numbers of students who would enter government service and other pursuits in international affairs. However, through his daunting number of articles and books, Franz's scholarly impact reached beyond those in his classroom. His three-volume The Taiping Rebellion is still considered the classic work on the subject.

Page 1 of 3