Minimal peace in Northeast Asia: a realist-liberal explanation

Abstract

Northeast Asia is usually associated with conflict and war. Challenging this prevailing view, this article shows that the sub-region has achieved minimal peace since its peaceful transition from the Cold War to the post-Cold War period. The questions posed are: (a) what factors are responsible for Northeast Asia’s minimal peace?; and (b) how will these factors respond to the worsening US-China competition since 2010? This article’s argument is two-fold. First, Northeast Asia’s minimal peace is explained by three realist-liberal factors: America’s hegemony; strong economic interdependence among the Northeast Asian states; and a stable institutional structure in East Asia, including Northeast Asia. These factors kept a stable balance of power, ensured development and prosperity, and mitigated the political and strategic tensions between the states. Second, Northeast Asia’s minimal peace would be durable to counter the negative effects of the Sino-US competition in the coming decades. While the economic interdependence and institutional building factors have shown resilience, the US hegemony faces a robust challenge from China. Nevertheless, the US hegemony is durable because of America’s enduring relative strategic and economic advantages over China, the expanded role of America’s regional allies to preserve US preponderance and China’s problems in building an alternative regional order.

Keywords:

• Northeast Asia
• peace
• United States
• interdependence
• institutions

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Wichuta Teeratanabodee for her assistance with research and preparation of the tables used in the article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Northeast Asia is referred to China, Japan, North and South Koreas, Russia, Taiwan and the United States (US). Though not geographically located in the region, the US is included in the sub-region’s ‘security complex’ because of its intertwined history with the region, vast political, economic and strategic interests and entrenched military presence in the region.

2 Others have studied peace or stability in post-Cold War East Asia (see Acharya, 2003–2004; Bitzinger & Desker, 2008; Kang & Xinru, 2018; Kivimaki 2010; Ross, 1999) and during the Sinocentric Order (see Kang, 2003, 2007; Kelly, 2012).

3 According to Mastanduno (2003), the US hegemony in East Asia was ‘incomplete’ because it was a ‘holding action [rather] than a progressive strategy for resolving security problems’ (p. 156).

4 Ikenberry (2011) offers three ‘pathways’ resulting from America’s ‘crisis of authority’ – (1) a renegotiated American-led system; (2) a post-American liberal international order; and (c) system of rival spheres or blocs (see Chapter 7, p. 281, pp. 300-315).

5 Even though democracy is a critical factor in the US-led liberal internationalist framework, this factor is less relevant to Northeast Asia’s minimal peace (Ikenberry, 2001, 2011, 2018; Mandelbaum, 2019). While Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are democratic states with relatively strong institutions to uphold the democratic practices, ideals and values, communist China has also contributed to the minimal peace since its economic reforms of the 1970s. Moreover, the fluctuating political tensions and weak strategic cooperation between Japan and South Korea triggered by historical antagonism further undermine the utility of the democracy factor in promoting regional peace and stability.

6 Montgomery (2014) defines ‘global balancing’ as efforts by ‘…a rising power to channel a rivalry away from its territory and challenge a hegemon in far-flung locations’; and ‘local balancing’ as efforts by a rising power ‘to deter outside intervention in its home region and maximize its freedom of action throughout its neighbourhood, although it would not alter the structure of the international system’ (p. 125).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Bhubhindar Singh

Bhubhindar Singh is Associate Professor and Head of Graduate Studies at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. His latest book is Reconstructing Japan’s Security: The Role of Military Crises, (Edinburgh University Press).