212. ASIA SECURITY CHALLENGES IN THE AGE OF GLOBALISATION
212.
Panel Title : ASIA SECURITY CHALLENGES IN THE AGE OF GLOBALISATION
Convener : Joel R. Campbell
Chair : Anthony C. Torbert
Discussant :
Panel Abstract :
Globalization has brought major changes in the Asian regional security environment. What was once a simple East-West contest has transformed into a splintered, multilateral game of temporary alliances and arrangements of convenience. With globalization has come a basket of new challenges to the state, such as nuclear proliferation, environmental disasters and terrorism that undermine such alliances or attempts to forge a regional consensus. Meanwhile, the great powers still have important roles to play as balancers, facilitators, or stabilizers. This panel will focus on the evolving security relationships and frameworks of East and South Asia, and explore how cooperative and competing interests among countries in the region, as well as their alignments with outside powers, pose significant future security challenges for both Asia and the world. The panelists will employ current international relations theory to explain four vital Asian cases. As chair, Campbell will begin the session with a brief discussion on an important topical theme relating to the changing Asian security environment. Alam will discuss the recent nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan, and its implications for all of Asia. Hong will assess changes in the China-Japan relationship due to the advent of new leadership in both countries. Chang will take up the thorny problems created by Taiwan's status, in light of the political and foreign policy changes that have swept the island since the mid-1990s. Campbell will consider the role of multi-party negotiations in the nuclear and missile conflicts on the Korean peninsula. Finally, as discussant, Torbert will critique the papers in light of the themes introduced in the opening discussion. Note: We have assembled a diverse panel, including a Chinese, a Korean, an Indian, and two Americans.
Participants :
Mohammed B. Alam
Paper Title : Pakistan's Nuclear Doctrine: An Analysis
Abstract :
Ever since India tested the nuclear device in the Pokhran desert in 1974 which it termed as PNE (Peaceful Nuclear Explosion), its neighbor to the north, Pakistan, with whom it had fought three major wars in the past, made all out efforts in opting for nuclear weaponization. Pakistan became overtly nuclear in the summer of 1998 as a sequel to nuclear testing by India and in its (Pakistan's) desire for enhanced prestige and status as well as in seeking strategic parity with India. Subsequently, Pakistan also devised its own nuclear strategy in commensurate with its national interest. Pakistan also, through successful test firing of various versions of nuclear capped missiles such as Saheen, Ghauri, Abdali, etc, have made tangible efforts in matching India's edge in missile development and nuclear related state-of-the art technologies. The purpose of this article is (a) to analyze Pakistan's stand on First Strike Option vis- a-vis No First Use (b) to explore the concept of Limited War (c) to examine the nuclear threshold (d) to explore various options for a viable Disaster Management mechanism (e) to examine the possibilities of non-state actors such as terrorists operating within Pakistan's territorial space and of acquiring crude nuclear devices and its possible ramifications for the regional and global efforts in curbing acts of international terrorism and finally, to forecast the feasibility for strategic stability in the present regional environment in South Asia. The second part of this paper deals with facets of confidence building measures (CBMs) and the following related questions. What are these CBMs and how does one define CBMs? To what extent, these CBMs have been viable? Is there any downside to any of these CBMs either in the short term or in the intermediate terms or in the long term? Can these CBMs lead to any reduction of tension between Pakistan and India in any meaningful way?
Jeong-Pyo Hong
Paper Title : Rising China and Mature Japan
Abstract :
Abstract for International Convention for Asia Scholars 5 Kuala Lumpur 2007 Rising China and Mature Japan -Will they come into collision or normalcy? - Jeong-Pyo Hong (Miyazaki International College, Japan) China and Japan, the two great powers in Northeast Asia, have a long history of thirteen hundred-years of relations between them. In 717, with hundreds of Japanese, Abe no Nakamaro visited China under the Tang Dynasty to pursue a secular education and to study Buddhism. From the latter part of the 19th century, there was a shift in the Sino-Japanese balance with the introduction of a new factor in their relations: the West. During this time, many Chinese students learned much from Japan. After World War II, both China and Japan tried to cooperate in the same way in their political, economic, and cultural realms. In the early 1990s, their relationship evolved along a downward trajectory. Especially with the beginning of the 21st century, the relations between China and Japan have simmered badly. A lot more evidence of these tensions is rising again between two of the 20th century's bitterest rivals. Can the two countries' leaders keep a lid on such tensions? Since 1998, when Jiang Zemin visited Japan, there has been no official visit to Japan by the Chinese presidents. And, there has been none to China by the Japanese Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi, since October 2001. Since the official normalization of diplomatic relations between China and Japan in 1972, there have been apparent grounds for the ongoing antagonism toward each other. Seventy years ago, Japan invaded China, and Japan is unwilling to show contrition in the manner demanded by China. Thanks to its confidence in accordance with China's economic growth, and with Hu Jintao's succession to power from 2002 to 2004, the Chinese government became active in foreign relations. With the recovery of business conditions after Koizumi Junichro assumed his office, the Japanese government has adopted a provocative attitude toward China in international relations. Tokyo and Beijing conflict with each other in many matters. On the one hand, China demands frankness and contrition from Japan in textbooks, acknowledgement of the rape of Nanjing, cooperation with the Senkaku Island (Diaoyu Dao in Chinese) issue, recognition of Taiwan as the territory of China, and a stop to Koizumi's visit to Yasukuni Shrine. On the other hand, Japan also complains about hooliganism and anti-Japanese demonstrations, Official Development Assistance toward China, and China's steady military modernization. After years of mutual distrust and misunderstanding, can China and Japan talk? In 2005, China's trade with Japan already overtook America's with Japan. Even tough Sino-Japanese relations have become worse politically, their economic relations have become closer together. How can they understand and reconcile in Northeast Asia as Germany and France did in Europe after WWII? Would they need such experience as the USA and China had in the sky on 1 April 201 over Hainan Island for a better relationship? Will they run to an extreme situation? Or will be there any political breakthrough in their relations in the near future?
Ching-Chang Chen
Paper Title : The Cooperation With Leadership In The Age Of Globalization: Construction
Of Asia Regionalism For Resolution Of Disputes In Asia
Abstract :
Synopsis: I. Introduction II. Globalization and Its Impacts on International Relations III. Evolution of Organization and Leadership in Response to Globalization IV. Cooperation in the New Era: Cooperation with Leadership V. Historical Force: From Globalism to Regionalism VI. Construction of Asia Regionalism VII. Expected Resolution of Disputes in Asia VIII. Conclusion Abstract: International coordination of policy seems highly beneficial and rational in an interdependent world with multi-dimensional cyber-functions, but cooperation in world politics is particular difficulty, even in the age of globalization. Although Robert O. Keohane articulated that cooperation without hegemony is possible, cooperation with leadership is necessary. If globalization is an irreversible trend, it will exert severe impacts not only on world system but individual states. Presumably, "paradigm shift" in the study of international relations which James N. Rosenau refers to as "postinternational politics" might occur. Under the circumstances, individual states will be forced to create its preponderance in national strength, and raise its competitiveness; that has induced thinking of localization. On the basis of historical dialectical theory of Marxism, an interacting evolution of globalization and localization should be carried on and will come to an integrated trend--regionalism; it is a historical force. Therefore, it emerges to be important for the concerned states to create cooperation among egoists. Furthermore, it is also an evident demand for scholars to probe a new style of cooperation underpinning the new paradigm. By utilizing the mechanism of globalization, the US hegemony is significantly enhanced, and simultaneously its challenge is also enlarged. Undoubtedly, "globalism today is America-centric." In response to America's domination, regionalism will functionally become a buffer against it, especially in the post-cold war era and the post-911 era of unilateralism; in effect, few country can alone counter that. On the other hand, if looking at Asia system from within, people will perceive that conflicts among egoists are significant in a network of dynamic interdependence. Three of the four ammunitions in the world, including South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, the Korean peninsula and Middle East, where might break out wars or clashes, are in Asia. Even though interdependence can create benefits, it will also cause vulnerability and transmit bad influences. While confronting globalization, not only individual state's behaviors but the regional system as a whole shows prime characteristics of uncertainty and brews turbulence. A new style of organization embracing chaos theory will be promptly introduced to deal with the turbulences; a new style of leadership should accordingly be formulated to conduct the organization. New style of international regime will be requisite for resolution of disputes in Asia. This paper will try to explore possibility of constructing a new style of international regimes-cooperation with leadership, and feasibility of reaching resolution of disputes in Asia.
Joel R. Campbell
Paper Title : Wounded Animal In A Corner: Balancing A Collapsing State, Nuclear
Proliferation, And Alliance Politics In The Six-Party Talks With North Korea
Abstract :
The slow boiling North Korean nuclear crisis since 2002 presents a textbook case of one party who can behave like a poker player who uses a bad hand to bluff his/her way into winning several rounds. North Korean behavior since the early 1990s seems bizarre to many observers, as a state that insisted on continuing a failed autarkic economic program and allowed a famine that killed as many as two million of its citizens spent enormous resources on development of weapons of mass destruction. North Korea often has been characterized as a failed or rogue state, but these images do not adequately capture the complexity of North Korean conduct. Actually, from the standpoint of game or negotiation studies, Pyongyang's behavior is quite rational and its negotiation style very clear-headed. Throughout the crisis, North Korea has stuck to several key points throughout its tortured relations with its neighbors and the U.S. This paper constructs a framework for explaining behavior of the participant nations in the six-party talks. It focuses on North Korean decisions to develop nuclear and ballistic missile technology since the early 1990s, and the reactions that such actions engendered in its negotiation partners. Key episodes are the Agreed Framework of 1994, the Perry agreement of 1998, the Kim-Kim summit of 2000, the Kim-Koizumi negotiations in 2003 and 2004, and the six-party talks since 2002. The framework employs a mix of game and negotiation theory (such as that of Fisher, et al., in Getting to Yes). It suggests that Pyongyang has been very successful in achieving its primary goals, while Beijing and Seoul have been moderately successful and Japan generally not successful (since it has focused primarily on the abduction issue). Washington has been only partially successful, and that mostly during the Clinton administration.
