ABSTRACT
Implicit in the preceding discussion of the 'arms dynamic's' models and individual pressures was the idea of its bifurcation into external and internal dimensions. Indeed, this external-internal division is a traditional feature of much of the writing on arms procurement and arms races. The action-reaction model is effectively regarded as representing the external dimension and the domestic structure model the internal one.1 There is, though, no commonly accepted primacy accorded to either dimension. The debate over the analytical precedence of either of them, and thus of the attendant models, is a long-standing one in the field of the 'arms dynamic' and arms races. It has also been contended that neither dimension can automatically be assumed to take precedence. Gray argues, 'we cannot reasonably assume the dominance of either action-reaction or of domestic process explanations.'2 Moreover, in his opening comments on the domestic structure model Buzan acknowledges that the fundamental issue is not whether one model is 'better than the ... [other] in some general sense, but what proportion of observed behaviour each model explains for any given case.'3 However, there is a need to provide a starting-point for an assessment of 'observed behaviour' and thus to determine which of the individual pressures or factors to begin an assessment of the South-East Asian dynamic with. With due regard to the need to avoid automatic assumptions about the dominance of dimensions or models and of the importance of the proportional relevance of all three models, it is the intention here to begin with the external dimension.
