1. Cf. Barnett, A. Doak, “The new multipolar balance in East Asia: implications for United States policy” in The Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, Vol. 390 (07 1970), p. 73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Scalapino, Robert A., Asia and the Road Ahead: Issues for the Major Powers (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 1975), esp. p. 284 ffGoogle Scholar. See also my discussion of multipolarity in Asia published in Dutch in Internationale Spectator, November 1978, pp. 678–85.

2. Cf. Ghosh, S. K., and Sreedhar, , China's Nuclear and Political Strategy (New Delhi: Young Asia Publications, 1975)Google Scholar; and Overholt, William H. (ed.), Asia's Nuclear Future, (Boulder, Colorado: Westview, 1977), espGoogle Scholar. essays by Overholt himself, H. Passin and J. D. Pollack.

3. The importance of SALT negotiations with regard to the multipolar system is given full attention by Japanese scholars and policy makers; cf. Miyoshi, Osamu, “Bei-Sb kaku-gunshuku to Nihon no anzen hoshō” (“American-Soviet nuclear disarmament and security guarantees for Japan”) in Kokumin gaikō, No. 57 (08 1978)Google Scholar; and Nakae, Yōsuke (Head, Asia Desk, Japanese Foreign Ministry) “Ajia no antei ni nani ga kakete iru ka?” (“What is lacking [to achieve] stability in Asia?”) in Kokumin gaikō, No. 58, 09 1978Google Scholar.

4. It is far from certain in how far trade and technology transfer can effect such a “change from within.” Cf. the conclusion in Schwartz, and Morton, , The Foreign Policy of the U.S.S.R.: Domestic Factors (Encino, California: Dickenson, 1975)Google Scholar.

5. Wilkenson, David [Comparative Foreign Relations: Framework and Methods (Encino, California: Dickenson, 1975)]Google Scholar emphasizes the importance of studying foreign policy in relation to the available alternatives given the restricted means of a country at a given moment; only then are we able to anticipate future policy changes of one and the same government, once it disposes of greater power.

6. On this term, see “Le Manifesto de Li Yi-che,” in Leys, S.Images brisées (Paris: Robert Laffont, 1976), p. 144Google Scholar.

7. Hinton, Harold C., Three and a Half Powers: The New Balance in Asia (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1975), p. 281Google Scholar.

8. Whiting, Allan S., The Chinese Calculus of Deterrence: India and Indochina (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1975), esp. 224 ffGoogle Scholar.

9. Cf. Barnds, William J. (ed.), The Two Koreas in East Asian Affairs (New York: New York University Press, 1976Google Scholar).

10. Cf. Nakae, Yōsuke, “What is lacking [to achieve] stability in Asia?,” p. 16fGoogle Scholar.

11. For a brief historical account from the Chinese point of view, see Li Hsiennien's record of his talks with Van Dong, Pham, Jen-min jih-pao (People's Daily), 23 03 1979, p. 1Google Scholar.

12. Present Chinese policies put an end to the so-called former Chinese “low-profile attitude” in South-east Asia, especially with regard to the position of local Chinese groups. Cf. Fitzgerald, S., China and the Overseas Chinese (London: Cambridge University Press, 1972), p. 185 ffGoogle Scholar. Taylor, J., China and Southeast Asia: Peking's Relations with Revolutionary Movements (New York: Praeger, rev. edit. Praeger Special Studies in International Policies and Government, 1976), p. 334Google Scholar. According to recent reports, China is also not prepared to forswear support to revolutionaries in Thailand, as indicated by Vietnam, whatever such declarations may be worth in practice.

13. Cf. Oksenberg, Michel “The United States and China” in Hellman, Donald C. (ed.), China and Japan: A New Balance of Power, (Lexington, Mass, and Toronto: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Co., 1976), p. 296Google Scholar. See also Terrill, Ross “China and the world: self-reliance or interdependence?”, in Foreign Affairs, No. 1 (1977), p. 295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. Cf. also Barnett's, DoakOur China Policy The Need for Change (New York: Foreign Policy Association, Headline Series, No. 204 1971.)Google Scholar

15. The “nationalism-ideology, national interest” debate is very well covered by Armstrong, J. D. in his Revolutionary Diplomacy, (Berkeley, Los Angles and London: University of California Press, 1977)Google Scholar; see his introduction, pp. 1–12. Barnett starts from the assumption that “In the final analysis the record of China's behaviour over the years suggests that when Peking's leaders believe vital Chinese security interests are at stake, these take clear precedence over other interests, and realpolitik considerations and balance of power approaches come to the fore. This proposition is a major thesis of this study.”

16. Cf. Whiting, Allen S.The Chinese Calculus of Deterrence, p. xivGoogle Scholar.

17. Cf. Takubo, Tadae, “Amerika gaikō no daitenkan” (“An important turning point in American foreign relations), in Chūō Kōron, 07 1977, p. 108Google Scholar.

18. The specific problems of Sino-American relations cannot be discussed here. Cf. e.g. Chay, John (ed.), The Problems and Prospects of American-East Asian Relations, Westview (Colorado: Boulder, 1977)Google Scholar; Clough, Ralph N., Barnett, A. Doak, Halperin, Morton H., Kahan, Jerome H., The United States, China and Arms Control (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1975)Google Scholar; Hsiao, Gene T. (ed.), Sino-American Détente and its Policy Implications (New York: Praeger, 1974)Google Scholar; an interesting, if controversial interpretation in Kalicki, J. H., The Pattern of Sino-American Crises. Political-military Interactions in the 1950s,London, 1975Google Scholar. For Russian views on Sino-American relations, Sergeichuk, S., Through Russian Eyes: American-Chinese Relations (Arlington, Va.: International Library Book Publishers, 1975)Google Scholar, and Vneshnîaîa politika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniîa kitaîskoî narodnoî respubliki 1963–1973, Vol. 2 “Mysl,” Moscow, 1974Google Scholar.

19. The clearest representative of such a line of thought is Allen S. Whiting in his The Chinese Calculus of Deterrence.

20. Hinton, , Three and a Half Powers, p. 281Google Scholar.

21. Cf. Okabe, Tatsumi, Chūgoku no tai-Nichi seisaku (China's Policy Towards Japan) (Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, 1976), p. 2ffGoogle Scholar.

22. Cf. Lee, Chae-Jin, Japan Faces China. Political and Economic Relations in the Postwar Era (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1976.)Google Scholar Haruhiro Fukui has published a study based on a more thorough survey of available sources, including personal interviews with Japanese sources, entitled Party in Power: The Japanese Liberal-Democrats and Policy-making (Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1970)Google Scholar; Fukui devotes a special chapter to the Chinese factor in Japanese policy-making.