Middle Power National Identity? South Korea and Vietnam in U.S.-China Geopolitics

New SSCI journal article published today:

Leif-Eric Easley, "Middle Power National Identity?: South Korea and Vietnam in U.S.-China Geopolitics," Pacific Focus, Vol. 27, No. 3, December 2012, pp. 421-442.

The middle powers literature often conflates role identity (national self-conception) of middle power states with role performance (foreign policies), while neglecting East Asia as a region of hypothesis generation and testing. This article contributes to the middle powers literature by comparing the post-Cold War national identities and foreign policies of South Korea and Vietnam. The article examines how identity trajectories relate to change in South Korea and Vietnam's geopolitical positioning between the United States and China, and assesses the prospects for middle power cooperation in East Asia.

Myanmar’s Reforms and Lessons for North Korea

Does Myanmar provide a viable model for North Korea to follow? A new Asan Issue Brief considers the recent political changes in Myanmar and compares its domestic political structures and foreign relations with North Korea's. While the Burmese case may not represent a "model" for North Korea, recent developments in Myanmar offer useful lessons for both Pyongyang and other governments reworking their policies toward North Korea. Moreover, the two cases exhibit notable interaction such that Naypyidaw's successes and failures in implementing reforms will likely have demonstration effects for Pyongyang.

Mechanics of Trust between China and the U.S.

The International Herald Tribune - New York Times published comments I made regarding the "Mechanics of Trust" between China and the U.S.

Few disagree that despite their low level of mutual trust, the U.S. and China should strive for cooperation on shared interests.  Governments generally do not pursue cooperation against national interests, and given all at stake economically and geopolitically, Washington and Beijing work to avoid outright conflict in areas of disagreement.  However, Yan Xuetong (“The Problem of ‘Mutual Trust,’” November 15) unfairly dismisses the importance of trust by treating it as a binary concept, as if two countries either have trust or not.  Better to consider trust as a continuous variable that can spiral up, yielding greater cooperation and even more trust; or spiral down, yielding less cooperation and even less trust.  My research suggests that positive spirals are driven by shared political values and negative spirals by conflicting values.  U.S.-China mutual trust declined after 1989 because of conflicting values over human rights; trust improved after 2001 because both sides valued a stable, free trade order that was threatened by ideological extremists.  The next chapter of U.S.-China relations will be written in a time of improving or deteriorating trust, depending on whether leaders in Washington and Beijing hold increasingly shared or conflicting beliefs about good governance.

Leif-Eric Easley

Seoul

The writer is a professor of international politics at Ewha University and a research fellow at the Asan Institute.

U.S. Leadership in Asia

A book chapter I co-authored with Professor Kang was recently published:

David Kang and Leif-Eric Easley, “The Role of the United States in the International Relations of East Asia: Still a Leader?” in Rudiger Frank and John Swenson-Wright, eds., Korea and East Asia: The Stony Road to Collective Security, Brill, 2012.

Video: NEA Security Architecture

Asan Plenum Panel on Northeast Asian Security Architecture

If the link below does not work on your machine, you can go to http://www.asanplenum.org/multimedia/videoArchive.asp, click on "Friday, April 27" and then click on "Session 7: Northeast Asian Security Architecture."  My colleagues' comments are most worthwhile; my talk starts at 37:35 and I answer questions at 55:08 and 67:10.

China's North Korea policy

Comments I made regarding China's North Korea policy were published today in PacNet by the Pacific Forum-Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

***

In PacNet #32, Ralph A. Cossa and Brad Glosserman make a detailed case for how China's current approach toward North Korea actually contradicts many Chinese national interests.  Their argument can be supplemented by four additional concerns for China and its now indispensable role in international politics.

Cossa and Glosserman argue that Beijing's policies on North Korea undermine the UN Security Council.  Those same policies undermine the nuclear non-proliferation regime. China's shielding and aiding of North Korea has negative interaction effects concerning Iran and the Middle East, Pakistan-India, the monitoring role of the IAEA, and the inclusiveness of important enforcement efforts such as PSI.

Cossa and Glosserman point out that North Korean provocations strengthen U.S. alliance cooperation and relevance in the region.  In addition, North Korea is motivating specific military capabilities over which analysts in Beijing express concern: South Korean missiles with longer ranges and better accuracy, Japanese reconnaissance satellites, and U.S. missile defenses.

Thirdly, North Korea often reneges on agreements and resolutely takes more from China than it gives.  Thus, business with Pyongyang is high risk for Chinese companies and a financial burden on Beijing.  So while some observers accuse China of "economic imperialism," its policies toward North Korea may actually incur greater costs than the financial benefits involved.

Finally, in addition to damaging China's image in South Korea and Japan and its international reputation as an emerging "responsible stakeholder," China's policies on North Korea are setting a bad precedent for relations with regional neighbors associated with ethnic minority groups inside China. The way that Beijing deals with North Korean refugees and related rights groups does not live up to international norms or China’s own principles.  Instead, those policies are increasing fear, resentment and cross-border organization among ethnic Koreans.  Given the number of ethnic minority groups in China, and their complicated relationships with neighboring countries, this is not a good formula for social stability.

China has accomplished so much in recent decades, economically, diplomatically, and in terms of improving the quality of life of the Chinese people.  These accomplishments have brought China ever closer to South Korea, Japan, and the U.S.  China's national interests -- as well as international support for China's growing global role -- would be better served if Beijing worked closer with its forward-looking partners rather than with its anachronistic Cold War ally.

Asia's Security Architecture

The Economist published a piece today on Northeast Asian security architecture.  The beginning and end of the article references a presentation I gave on "The North Korea Nuclear Issue and Lack of Trust for Regional Security Architecture" at the 2012 Asan Plenum in Seoul.