The term is Wang Gungwu’s, which he defines as having several
layers that tie in ‘the faith in a glorious past more directly [than
other forms of nationalism] with a vision of a great future’. Wang
Gungwu, The Revival of Chinese Nationalism, International Insti-
tute for Asian Studies, Leiden, 1996, p. 7.
Michael D. Swaine and Ashley J. Tellis, Interpreting China’s Grand
Strategy: Past, Present, and Future, Rand Corporation, Santa
Monica, Calif., 2000.
ibid, pp. 142–50.
These alternatives are also taken from ibid, pp. 183–204.
Paul Dibb, Towards a New Balance of Power in Asia, Adelphi
Papers No. 295, 1995.
Rizal Sukma, Indonesia and China: The Politics of a Troubled Rel-
ationship, Routledge, London, 1999.
This difference is symbolised in the readiness of mainland states to
use superior–inferior family metaphors in describing their rela-
tions with China, a form of words resisted by Indonesia and the
Philippines.
Amitav Acharya has defined ‘the ASEAN way’ as characterised
by ‘compromise, consensus building, ambiguity, avoidance of strict
reciprocity, and rejection of legally binding obligations’. In Con-
structing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the
Problem of Regional Order, Routledge, London, 2001, p. 55.
