Yung LinChina-US Trade War Brings Us Back to the Thinking: How to Look at Conflicts in East Asia? The trade war between the US and China has brought attention to the issues of technology and cyber security market, where the conflict has been flaming up, as people were involved in the political power game. (Click and Read a related report) While the discussion on topics such as “Huawei”, “5G”, “China’s rising up” can be followed up in media, here we set the topic to find a perspective to better explain the conflict issues in East Asia. How Do Conflicts Take Place in East Asia? In the international political environment, a conflict takes place from the erosion of safety, in which ‘threat’ is the main factor that causes the worries of security, which is followed by the conflict. It indicates that understanding ‘threat’ relates to understanding the conflict. However, it is how we view threat that decides how we look at the conflict. Classic Debate: Realism vs Constructivism The realists believe that, in the international system, states act on self-interest, which is usually in terms of power. It is asserted that ‘threat’ comes from the imbalance of power. A constructivist further argues that the anarchic structure is constructed by identities States perceive threat when they have different identities rather than resulting directly from the imbalance of power between states. Identities are built through a complex process which the constructivist theory provides while the realist theory fails to explain. By analysing the situation through the construction of identities, we end up in a different sphere of understanding contemporary conflict that it is not merely related to the military but also to identities, ideas, thoughts and norms. Visualise the concept as followed: Therefore, we see that the constructivist perspective provides more spaces for understanding the threat and how the conflict forms. It is the identities that establish the threat perception, which in turn builds up conflict. By bringing up this perspective further to the international level as in the following table, we see clearly that having the same or different identities is the key to inducing conflicts. Applying the Perspective on a Real Case: The South China Sea
When the Philippines resorted to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea which released the verdict that China’s ‘historic right’ and ‘nine-dash line’ are not legal, some argue that the Philippines were threatened by China’s rising economic power and military strength. In addition, both countries have different opinions on the resources in the South China Sea. Herein, by drawing the model of threat construction, which manifests the interstate threat perception, it is the difference between two countries’ conceptions that causes the conflict. (1) Different Definition of Territory The former president of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos, signed a decree in 1978, which stated that the Philippines legally owned the Kalayaan Island Group. The ministry of foreign affairs of the People’s Republic of China claimed that China has the sovereignty over the South China Sea based on the ‘Nine-dash Line,’ which is the policy China claims their territory in the South China Sea. (2) Action Creates A Threat Perception Both countries’ different approaches on the fishers’ issues demonstrate their difference in concepts. The concept of sea, the attitude toward foreign affairs, and the approaches on fishers’ issues all lead to the gap of identities between Philippines and China. Therefore, by drawing on the model of threat perception, it shows that it is not merely the difference in either military or economic power between two countries but the different sense of identities between both countries that creates the conflict. Building Understanding Creates More Possible Solutions to Peace We argue that taking the constructivist perspective of threat conception gives more understanding of the conflict in East Asia compared to the perspective of realism. It makes us pay more respect to the different culture of both countries, understand how conflicts build up, and thus create more possible solutions to peace rather than simply building up military power; for example, third-party mediation between two countries, citizen lobbies pressuring government or gaining allies. Further Topic: Media Plays A Crucial Role What’s more important, the key to drive the development of building identities is the media and we do agree that there are many additional actors in this process. It is, however, in the contemporary international political environment that we may see the drastic growth of information delivering and receiving. Along with the development of information, communication technology changes (1) an increasing number of diversified actors involved in the international affair, and (2) frequent and multi-direction of information transmission. This can be seen clearly not just in politics but also in the economic, cultural, social environment nowadays in East Asia. (More discussion to be continued...please subscribe to us and stay in tuned) Copyright@NEApproach mini archive
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
April 2019
Categories |