Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:13:35.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Balance of Power, Globalization, and Democracy: International Relations Theory in Northeast Asia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2016

Stephan Haggard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The end of the Cold War has given rise to a wide-ranging debate about the future of international relations in the Asia-Pacific. This debate has been difficult to assess in part because of the elusive quality of the outcomes being explored, such as whether the region is characterized by “stability” or “rivalry.” What exactly do we want to explain?

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of East Asian Studies , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , April 2004 , pp. 1 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © East Asia Institute 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

My thanks to Kristian Gleditsch, Iain Johnston, Anthony Jones, David Kang, Andrew MacIntyre, Barry Naughton, and Byung-Kook Kim for their comments and assistance.Google Scholar

1. Defined here to include the United States, Russia, Japan, North and South Korea, and “Greater China” (the PRC, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau).Google Scholar

2. Mearsheimer, John, “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War,” International Security 15, no. 1 (1990): 5–56.Google Scholar

3. Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas, “The Power Transition Research Program: Assessing Theoretical and Empirical Advances.” In Midlarsky, Manus I., ed., Handbook of War Studies II (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000).Google Scholar

4. Friedberg, Aaron, “Will Europe's Past Be Asia's Future?” Survival 42, no. 3 (Autumn 2000): 148.Google Scholar

5. For explicitly realist accounts along these lines, see Betts, Richard K., “Wealth, Power, and Instability: East Asia and the United States After the Cold War,” International Security 18, no. 3 (Winter 1993): 34–77; Friedberg, Aaron, “Ripe for Rivalry: Prospects for Peace in a Multipolar Asia,” International Security 18, no. 3 (Winter 1993): 5–33; Friedberg, , “Will Europe's Past Be Asia's Future?” pp. 147–159; Mearsheimer, John, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W. W. Norton, 2001), pp. 396–400; and from a somewhat different perspective, Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), pp. 218–238. Essays from International Security on China are collected in Brown, Michael E., Cote, Owen R. Jr., Lynn-Jones, Sean M., and Miller, Steven E., eds., The Rise of China (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000). For examples of “China hawks,” see Bernstein, Richard and Munro, Ross, The Coming Conflict with China (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1997), for a political account; for a more explicitly military one, see Wortzel, Larry M., ed., The Chinese Armed Forces in the 21st Century (Carlisle, Penn.: Strategic Studies Institute, 1998). Overviews of the debate can be found in David Shambaugh, “Sino-American Strategic Relations: From Partners to Competitors,” Survival 42, no. 1 (Summer 1996): 97–115; Shambaugh, , “China's Military Views the World,” International Security 24, no. 3 (Winter 1999/2000): 52–79; Segal, Gerald, “East Asia and the ‘Constrainment’ of China,” International Security 20, no. 4 (Spring 1996): 107–135; Goldstein, Avery, “The Diplomatic Face of China's Grand Strategy: A Rising Power's Emerging Choice,” China Quarterly 168 (December, 2001): 835–864; Christensen, Thomas J., “China, the U.S.-Japan Alliance, and the Security Dilemma in East Asia.” In Ikenberry, G. John and Mastanduno, Michael, eds., International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003); Johnston, Alastair Iain, “Beijing's Security Behavior in the Asian-Pacific: Is China a Dissatisfied Power?” In Carlson, Allen, Katzenstein, Peter and Suh, J. J., eds., Rethinking Security in East Asia: Identity, Power, and Efficiency (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004).Google Scholar

6. U.S. Department of Defense, Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense, 2000), p. 1.Google Scholar

7. For an alarmist account of Chinese military modernization, see Wortzel, , ed., The Chinese Armed Forces; Department of Defense, Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China (2002 and 2003). For a skeptical view of China's military capacity across the Taiwan straits, see Eland, Ivan, “The China-Taiwan Military Balance: Implications for the United States,” Cato Institute Foreign Policy Briefing #74 (February 5, 2003). For a recent “centrist” synthesis, see Council on Foreign Relations, Chinese Military Power (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, Report of an Independent Task Force, 2003).Google Scholar

8. Department of Defense, Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China (2003), p. 46.Google Scholar

9. Schweller, Randall L., “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In,” International Security 19, no. 1 (Summer 1994): 72–107.Google Scholar

10. Huntington, , The Clash of Civilizations , pp. 230–231.Google Scholar

11. See Johnston, , “Beijing's Security Behavior”; Pei, Minxin, “Coping with American Hegemony: The Evolution of China's Strategy for Stabilizing Sino-American Relations Since the End of the Cold War.” Paper prepared for the International Conference on Peace, Development, and Regionalization in East Asia, Seoul, South Korea, September 2–3, 2003; and Lukin, Alexander, “The U.S. Influence on Russian-Chinese Relations After the End of the Cold War.” Paper prepared for the International Conference on Peace, Development, and Regionalization in East Asia, Seoul, South Korea, September 2–3, 2003.Google Scholar

12. I say “presumably” because since the Sino-Soviet split and the dramatic rise of Japanese economic power, it is far from clear that bipolarity was a useful way to think about the Asian security order before the end of the Cold War.Google Scholar

13. Friedberg, , “Ripe for Rivalry,” p. 9; Betts, , “Wealth, Power, and Instability,” pp. 34–77.Google Scholar

14. Mearsheimer, , The Tragedy of Great Power Politics , p. 402.Google Scholar

15. Samuels, Richard J. and Twomey, Christopher P., “The Eagle Eyes in the Pacific: American Foreign Policy Options in East Asia after the Cold War.” In Green, Michael J. and Cronin, Patrick M., eds., The U.S.-Japan Alliance: Past, Present, and Future (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1999); Mastanduno, Michael, “Incomplete Hegemony: The United States and Security Order in Asia.” In Alagappa, Muthiah, ed., Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

16. For example, Ikenberry, G. John and Tsuchiyama, Jitsuo, “Between Balance of Power and Community: The Future of Multilateral Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific,” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 2, no. 1 (2002): 69–94.Google Scholar

17. Friedberg, Aaron, “11 September and the Future of Sino-American Relations,” Survival 44, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 33–50.Google Scholar

18. Krauthammer, Charles, “The Unipolar Moment,” Foreign Affairs 70, no. 1 (Winter 1990/1991); Layne, Christopher, “Less Is More,” The National Interest 43 (Spring, 1996): 64–77.Google Scholar

19. Betts, , “Wealth, Power, and Instability,” p. 41.Google Scholar

20. See, for example, Mearsheimer, , The Tragedy of Great Power Politics , p. 398.Google Scholar

21. Okimoto, Daniel, “KASA and JASA: Twin Pillars of Asia's Security Architecture.” Paper prepared for the International Conference on Peace, Development, and Regionalization in East Asia, Seoul, South Korea, September 2–3, 2003.Google Scholar

22. Department of Defense, Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China (2000), p. 1.Google Scholar

23. See, for example, Powell, Robert, In the Shadow of Power: States and Strategies in International Politics (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999).Google Scholar

24. See, for example, de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno and Lalman, David, “Empirical Support for Systemic and Dyadic Explanations of International Conflict,” World Politics 41, no. 1 (October 1988: 1–20.Google Scholar

25. Powell, , In the Shadow of Power , pp. 108–110 and 117–118.Google Scholar

26. Lemke, Douglas, Regions of War and Peace (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000); Kugler, and Lemke, , “The Power Transition Research Program.” Google Scholar

27. See, for example, Shinn, James, ed., Weaving the Net: Conditional Engagement with China (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1996); Council on Relations, Foreign, Chinese Military Power; and Minxin, “Coping with American Hegemony.” Google Scholar

28. See Funabashi, Yoichi, Alliance Adrift (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1999); Green, and Cronin, , The U.S.-Japan Alliance. Google Scholar

29. Nye, Joseph S., “The ‘Nye Report’ Six Years Later,” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 1, no. 1 (2001): 95.Google Scholar

30. Johnson, Chalmers and Keehn, E. B., “The Pentagon's Ossified Strategy,” Foreign Affairs 74, no. 5 (July 1995): 103–113.Google Scholar

31. Sigal, Leon V., Disarming Strangers: Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997).Google Scholar

32. Campbell, Kurt and Ward, Celeste Johnson, “New Battle Stations?” Foreign Affairs 82, no. 5 (September-October 2003): 95–103.Google Scholar

33. The “three no's” are no support for Taiwanese independence, no support for a “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan” solution, and no support for Taiwan's entry into international organizations that require sovereignty as a principle of membership.Google Scholar

34. Eland, , “The China-Taiwan Military Balance”; Council on Foreign Relations, Chinese Military Power. Google Scholar

35. Tucker, Nancy Bernkopf, “If Taiwan Chooses Unification, Should the United States Care?” Washington Quarterly 25, no. 3 (Summer 2002): 15–28.Google Scholar

36. Goldstein, Avery, “The Diplomatic Face of China's Grand Strategy,” pp. 835–864.Google Scholar

37. Ibid. Google Scholar

38. Ibid., p. 853.Google Scholar

39. See Cha, Victor D. and Kang, David C., Nuclear North Korea: A Debate on Engagement Strategies (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

40. Kahler, Miles, “Legalization as Strategy: The Asia-Pacific Case.” In Goldstein, Judith, Kahler, Miles, Keohane, Robert O., and Slaughter, Anne-Marie, eds., Legalization and World Politics (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002); Alagappa, Muthiah, “Asian Practice of Security: Key Features and Explanations.” In Alagappa, Muthiah, ed., Asian Security Practices: Material and Ideational Influences (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998).Google Scholar

41. See particularly Alagappa, , Asian Security Practices. Google Scholar

42. Green, Michael J., Japan's Reluctant Realism: Foreign Policy Challenges in an Era of Uncertain Power (New York: Palgrave, 2001).Google Scholar

43. Russett, Bruce and Oneal, John R., Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations (New York: Norton, 2001).Google Scholar

44. Hirschman, Albert O., National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1945).Google Scholar

45. Fred, C. Bergsten, , “The New Asian Challenge,” Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics Working Paper, 2000, available online at www.iie.com/publications/author_bio.cfm?author_id=33; Kang, David, “Hierarchy and Stability in Asian International Relations.” In Ikenberry and Mastanduno, International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific. Google Scholar

46. A Council on Foreign Relations study of “conditional engagement” — tellingly called Weaving the Net — refers to the “tyranny” of China's growing dependence on world markets. See Shinn, , ed., Weaving the Net: Conditional Engagement with China (1996).Google Scholar

47. See, for example, Frieden, Jeffry and Rogowski, Ronald, “The Impact of the International Economy on National Policies: An Analytic Overview,” In Keohane, Robert and Milner, Helen, eds., Internationalization and Domestic Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

48. Borrus, Micheal, Ernst, Dieter, and Haggard, Stephan, International Production Networks in Asia: Rivalry or Riches? (London: Routledge, 2000); on the cognate concept of “commodity chains,” see Gereffi, Gary and Korzeniewicz, Michael, eds, Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism (New York: Praeger, 1994).Google Scholar

49. Lardy, Nicholas, Integrating China into the Global Economy (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2002), p. 7.Google Scholar

50. This section owes a debt to MacIntyre and Naughton and conversations with the authors. MacIntyre, Andrew and Naughton, Barry, “The Decline of a Japan-Led Model of East Asian Economy,” unpublished manuscript (San Diego: University of California, 2002.Google Scholar

51. Yamazawa, Ippei, “On Pacific Economic Integration,” Economic Journal 102, no. 415 (November 1992): 1519–1529; Funabashi, Yoichi, Asia-Pacific Fusion: Japan's Role in APEC (Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 1995).Google Scholar

52. Orr, Robert M., The Emergence of Japan's Foreign Aid Power (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990); Arase, David, Buying Power: The Political Economy of Japan's Foreign Aid (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1995).Google Scholar

53. Kwan, C. H., Yen Bloc: Toward Economic Integration in Asia (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2001).Google Scholar

54. See, for example, Frankel, Jeffrey and Kahler, Miles, Regionalism and Rivalry: Japan and the United States in Pacific Asia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).Google Scholar

55. For examples from different perspectives, see Bernard, Mitchell and Ravenhill, John, “Beyond Product Cycles and Flying Geese: Regionalization, Hierarchy, and the Industrialization of East Asia,” World Politics 45, no. 2 (1995): 179–210; Hatch, Walter and Yamamura, Kozo, Asia in Japan's Embrace: Building a Regional Production Alliance (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996); and Katzenstein, Peter and Shiraishi, Takashi, Network Power: Japan in Asia (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997).Google Scholar

56. Borrus, Ernst, and Haggard, , International Production Networks in Asia. Google Scholar

57. McKendrick, Dave, Doner, Richard, and Haggard, Stephan, From Silicon Valley to Singapore: Location and Competitive Advantage in the Hard Disk Drive Industry (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar

58. For an overview of the domestic political issues, see Lincoln, Edward J., Arthritic Japan: The Slow Pace of Economic Reform (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2001).Google Scholar

59. For a useful summary, see Goishi, Norimichi, “Long-term Depression in Japan and Its Influence on Other Asian Economies,” Journal of East Asian Affairs 16, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 1992): 120–154.Google Scholar

60. McKinnon, Ronald, “After the Crisis, the East Asian Dollar Standard Resurrected: An Interpretation of High-Frequency Exchange Rate Pegging.” In Stiglitz, Joseph E. and Yusuf, Shahid, eds., Rethinking the East Asian Miracle (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2001).Google Scholar

61. Haggard, Stephan, The Political Economy of the Asian Financial Crisis (Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 2000), pp. 178–180.Google Scholar

62. Lardy, , Integrating China into the Global Economy. Google Scholar

63. Naughton, Barry, The China Circle (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1997).Google Scholar

64. Ravenhill, John, “A Three Bloc World? The New East Asian Regionalism,” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 2, no. 2 (2002): 167–195; Ravenhill, John, APEC and the Construction of Pacific Rim Regionalism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002).Google Scholar

65. Ibid. Google Scholar

66. The following draws on Munakata, Naoko, “Evolution of Japan's Policy Toward Economic Integration,” Tokyo: Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry Discussion Paper Series 02–E-006, 2001; and particularly Noboru Hatekayama, “Short History of Japan's Movement to FTA's: Parts 1–4,” Journal of Japanese Trade and Industry (November-December 2002; January-February 2003; March-April 2003; May-June 2003), available online at www.jef.or.jp/en/index.htm. I forgo a discussion of regional financial cooperation because it is somewhat less relevant to Northeast than to Southeast Asia. See Henning, C. Randall, East Asian Financial Cooperation (Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 2002); Eichengreen, Barry, “What to Do with the Chiang Mai Initiative?” Asian Economic Papers 2, no. 1 (2003): 1–49.Google Scholar

67. Ravenhill, , “A Three Bloc World?” p. 190.Google Scholar

68. Feinberg, Richard, “The Political Economy of United States' Free Trade Arrangements,” World Economy 26, no. 7 (July 2003): 1019–1040.Google Scholar

69. Noland, Marcus, “Famine and Reform in North Korea,” Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics Working Paper 03–5, 2003.Google Scholar

70. Hong-seop, Choi, “Most Firms Negative on North Korea Investments,” Chosun Ilbo , August 7, 2003, available online at http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200308/200308070007.html.Google Scholar

71. Diamond, Larry, “Can the Whole World Become Democratic? Democracy, Development, and International Politics,” Irvine: University of California-Irvine, Center for the Study of Democracy Paper 03–05, 2003.Google Scholar

72. Carrothers, Thomas, “The End of the Transition Paradigm,” Journal of Democracy 13, no. 1 (January 2002): 5–21.Google Scholar

73. Mansfield, Edward D. and Snyder, Jack, “Democratization and the Danger of War,” International Security 20, no. 1 (1995): 5–38; Mansfield, Edward D. and Snyder, Jack, “Democratic Transitions, Institutional Strength, and War,” International Organization 56, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 297–337.Google Scholar

74. Zakaria, Fareed, “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy,” Foreign Affairs 76, no. 6 (1997): 22–43.Google Scholar

75. For a review, see Russett, and Oneal, , Triangulating Peace. Google Scholar

76. Schultz, Kenneth, Democracy and Coercive Diplomacy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001).Google Scholar

77. Solingen, Etel, Regional Orders and Century's Dawn (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998); Solingen, Etel, “Mapping Internationalization: Domestic and Regional Impacts,” International Studies Quarterly 45 (2001): 517–555.Google Scholar

78. Solingen, , “Mapping Internationalization,” pp. 522, 526.Google Scholar

79. Ibid. Google Scholar

80. Shinn, , Weaving the Net. Google Scholar

81. For example, Rowen's bold prediction that China would be democratic by 2015. Rowen, Henry S., “The Short March: China's Road to Democracy,” National Interest 45 (Fall 1996): 61–70.Google Scholar

82. For example, Nathan, Andrew, “Authoritarian Resilience,” Journal of Democracy 14, no. 1 (January 2003): 7–19.Google Scholar

83. Mansfield, and Snyder, , “Democratic Transitions,” p. 298.Google Scholar