reading 11 - peace and conflict in Asia Flashcards
What Is It that Best Explains the East Asian Peace Since 1979?
intro
relative absence of war in
East Asia since 1979, after three decades when East Asia was the world’s most war-prone region
- 1946-79 ~10 regional armed conflicts annually, if you only count with more than 1000 battle deaths it was 4, total battle deaths ~4.2 million
- 1980-2005 ~8 regional armed conflicts annually, if you only count with more than 1000 battle deaths 0.5, total battle deaths ~100.000
most peaceful year since WW2 = 2004: 4 minor conflicts that didn’t exceed the 1000 thresholds
while decrease in battle deaths follows global decline, other regions had significantly higher nrs since 1979
article calls for a research agenda
What Is It that Best Explains the East Asian Peace Since 1979?
- what is there to explain
East Asia = 17 internationally recognize states + Republic of China on Taiwan
wars and armed conflicts among and within these 17 states in 1946-2007: decline minor conflicts, decline in nr wars
East Asian Peace = misleading catchphrase: can’t be assumed that East Asian societies have become more just or skillful at peaceful conflict resolution
-> effort is to explain the reduced nr and low intensity of armed conflict 1979-2007
DV = peacefulness (indicators: nr armed conflicts an nr battle deaths)
IV = power, military capability, alliance patterns, eco integration, national and int’l institutions, informal political networks, norms, discourses and intensions
worst wars pre-1980 in terms of battle deaths:
- Chinese civil war (1945-49), First Indochina War (1945-54), Korean War (1950-53), Vietnam War (1959-75) _ also other conflicts
- problem: doesn’t include all types of armed violence and indirect deaths
East Asia has major share of the world’s incidents of one-sided violence, but incidents all belong in period with much warfare
+ majority of most massive violence happened in conjunction with formation of a new East Asian state system
possible explanation East Asian peace = formative period of state-building completed -> states generally recognized each others borders
!!!not quite true: Korean and Taiwanese questions weren’t resolved, many border issues remained
research program needs to look not just at armed conflict, but also at disputes that haven’t led to armed conflict
need to explain how wars in pre-1979 period ended and why states and armed groups didn’t engage in new devasating wars later on
often distinct international and internal warfare bc many conflicts in East Asia were a mix of both
BUT to make a sophisticated analysis of East Asian Peace we mus tdistinguish : key question is if explanation for downward trends is the same for both
What Is It that Best Explains the East Asian Peace Since 1979?
- exploratory approaches
realists
= balance of power
warfare often related to attempts by states or organized groups to conquer or hold on to territories
realignment cold war conflict pattern during detente in the 1970s with a tripolar system rising may go long way toward explaining rapid drop in intensive warfare with great power involvement
- tripolar system aligning China with Japan, the US and all of the now 10 members of ASEAN
- Ross: China and US formed a kind of condominium dividing it in two spheres of influence -> relative peace rests on regional balance between these two temporarily satisfied powers
completion of decolonization -> system of soverieng states with growing capacity to suppress insurgent groups -> internal aspect East Asian Peace
- Asian wars 1945-79 were to great extent related to state formation, through the wars states became more entrenched and capable
What Is It that Best Explains the East Asian Peace Since 1979?
- exploratory approaches
the liberal peace
try to see if East Asian Peace compares with the European Peace
European peace = liberal peace: based on combi eco and political integration and liberal, democratic values and political systems
- deterrence
- eco and political integration + democratization
fits with peace studies literature: rarely armed conflicts between states with consolidated democratic form of governance
democratic gov is assumed to have positive effect on intra-state stability: groups can fight for interests with non-violent means
- still: research no clear correlation between democracy and internal peace
- democracy can actually be destabilizing
problem liberal peace theory = East Asian case doesn’t fit model of democratic peace: no political integration and introduction democracy on a general basis
-> shouldn’t enjoy democratic “protection” against int’l warfare, if anything it ought to be less peaceful: transitioning countries more conflict prone than stable autocracies or democracies
liberal theory: eco interdependence makes war less likely
other finding peace research = correlation poverty and conflict, but relation is not linear
!Goldsmith finds strong correlation between levels of economic interdependence and peace in East Asia
exploratory power eco interdependence within the East Asian region is also in question: if it explains East Asian Peace, then growing eco interdependence ought also to have brought peace in other regions and other times
What Is It that Best Explains the East Asian Peace Since 1979?
- exploratory approaches
constructivism
assumption: paradigm shift in the region leading to a drop in the level of armed conflict
stalemate in Korea + continued suspicion between Japan and China -> Northeast Asia doesn’t easily lend itself to this explanation
Southeast Asia + ideology of Asian values, the ASEAN way: informal consultation and consensus-building, good-neighborliness
-> ASEAN contributed to peace by fostering a climate of socialization and trust
+ China gradually adopted much of the ASEAN way through consultative processes and formation China-ASEAN Free Trade Area
- ASEAN succeeded in widening scope of consensus-building to Northeast Asia by establising consultative forum with outside powers: ASEAN+3 e.g.
Ikenberry = diff “constructivist”/”liberal institutionalist” theory: East Asia adopted + helped develop int’l law and global norms of behavior = partner in institutions under influence of US -> US willing to act within institutional constrainns and tie itself ot other states under global system of rules
What Is It that Best Explains the East Asian Peace Since 1979?
- exploratory approaches
security complexes
doesn’t seek to explain incidence of armed conflict, but how regions keep together under shifting eco and other conditions
Buzan and Waever: Northeast and Southeast Asia were separate security complexes in first few decades after WW2, then merged through economic and other integration into one seucrity complex
(reflected in role ASEAN in fostering frameworks for security talks with Northeast Asian participation)
implications: East Asian peace may have developed separately and for diff reasons in the 2 regions or in conjunction with the process of integration that merged the two regional complexes into 1
What Is It that Best Explains the East Asian Peace Since 1979?
- exploratory approaches
purpose transitions
national elites have reformulated their basic outlook and priorities
purpose transitions (Legro) = when external events undermine the way the national purpose had been generally conceived, on the condition that alternative purpose formulations are at hand, and are being advocated by groups within or in opposition to the ruling elite
-> East Asian Peace would be bc cumulative effect of series of shifts in priority / purpose formulation among policy-making elites in each of the states who learned from each others’ success
(rather than it resulting from international changes)
4 such shifts that would stand out as important:
- occupied Japan adopted a “peace constitution” allowing it only to have a self-defense force and restricting its international behavior + 1950s Japan durable policy of priortizing eco growth before anything else, adopting low diplomatic profile, leaving protection of security to the US (Yoshida doctrine)
- 1960s: Indonesia inspired by Japan + power shift -> focus on eco growth and close cooperation with the US
- after Mao died China did the same thing
- Vietnam after death ruling communist party secretary general same purpose transition + withdrew troops from Cambodia (took until 1995 to normalize relations with the US)
shifts -> increased stability internally and externally + allowed for eco growth to take place
What Is It that Best Explains the East Asian Peace Since 1979?
- exploratory approaches
testing theories
research program that aims to explain the East Asian Peace should take all of these theories into account
!aim should not be to have all approaches seen as contributing their part -> need to determine which have more explantory power than others
- means also testing them on comparative cases of peace and war
good theory must explain diff between the periods before and after + difference between East Asia and other regions + should be able to explain the exceptions to the rule (e.g. continuation of Warfare in Cambodia until 1989)
What Is It that Best Explains the East Asian Peace Since 1979?
- exploratory approaches
two kinds of empirical studies
before testing theories desirbable to established detailed overview of all armed conflicts in East Asia, statistically compare the periods and compare East Asian trends with trends in other world regiosn and the global pattern
2 ways to undertake such empirical studies:
- statistical
- historical case study = study of each and every case on an individual basis -> synthetic analysis with aim to establish shared as well as diverging patterns
What Is It that Best Explains the East Asian Peace Since 1979?
When came the peace?
need to know when the peace started to define as precisely as possible the “onset of peace” (just like the onset of war)
!onset needs to be seen as have happened in several stages, each should be studied separetely and be related to the others
can’t be done by simple comparison period before and after 1979, must be studies as the cumulative effect of significant changes in the regions and its relationship to the US before and after 1979
- statistical figures: seems that 1979 was the great watershed: certainly in China (People’s Republic normalized relations with the US + Deng focus on prioritizing eco growth, allying with the West, no single war fought since then, Mao was violent and now gone)
- given China’s size and importance, 1979 best candidate for being considered the turning point for the region as a whole
!but other countries made transition at other times -> East ASian Peace after 1979 should be seen as cumulative effect of changes that started much earlier
- e.g. Japan transition after defeat WW2: compromised militarism + “peace constitution” (could retain only self-defense force)
- e.g. Korea: 1953 armistice agreement BUT TRANSITION NOT FULLY DONE UNTIL END THE STATE OF WAR (which is still on) + 1991 joining UN separately while keeping national unity as long-term aim
- Indonesia pacifying effect on regioanl and international realtions with Suharto 1965-7 BUT internally violence in transition Sukarno->Suharto + Suharto regime based on ideology emphasizing national struggle against internal enemies (communism and Islamist separatism) -> violent and repressive regime while it sought peace and stability externally
- Vietnam only really joined the East Asian Peace when it withdrew from Cambodia in 1989: paved the way for membership in ASEAN and eco growth
What Is It that Best Explains the East Asian Peace Since 1979?
how deep is the peace?
shallow peace =
- militarized dispute based on deterrence (e.g. North and South Korea)
- acute and active conflict but only one party has access to arms (eg. when unarmed insurgency leads to regime change or is being repressed without anyone being killed)
- if peace is based on conflict avoidance with the shelving of disutes when chances are better for realizing one’s aims
deep peace =
- institutional/norm-based mechanisms in place allowing conflicts to be handled or played out non-violently within an int’l framework that is generally recognized as legitimate by all parties involve
- complete harmony where mutual trust is so high there is no conflict at all
not easy to adequately measure the depth/quality of peacefulness, but necessary, otherwise shallow
Red Dragon Rising? Insights from a Decade of China Conflict Studies and Wargames
introduction
China an US see each other as the pacing challenge with Taiwan the obvious potential flashpoint
review of studies, wargams explaining differences in objectives, outcomes and implications
identifies clear, regressive trend in the US and Taiwanese chances of victory over the period
Red Dragon Rising? Insights from a Decade of China Conflict Studies and Wargames
scope
published US military rather than eco or non-kinetic influence studies
studies were unclassified or substantively reported + officially announced insights about classified studies
studies :
- before 2017 = wargames tended to support the US, Taiwan and allies
- 2017- februari 2022 (before Russia invaded Ukraine) = pessimistic outcomes (1 win, 4 losses, 2 stalemates)
- feb 2022-onward = both games defender wins
studies before 2017
- RAND war with China, 2016: 4 cases of conventional conflict in East Asia region, examines how specific systems compare against each other
- in 2015 war games, Chinese losses were greater than those of the US, US losses could be much heavier in a 2025 war
- recommended US increase interoperability and planning with allies (increase deterrence + existing weapons stockpiles are insufficient) + improve ability to sustain protracted conflict + invest in survivable force platforms like submarines - RAND Scorecard, 2017 = US and Chinese military capabilities in 10 operational areas, 2017 PLA seen as inferior to US capabilities, but its proximity to operations mitigated shortfalls -> US dominance progressively receded over the next 15y
- US should procure bases to improve dispersed redundancy and increase survivability of aircraft, submarines and space assets + intensify diplomatic efforts to secure access to Southeast Asian countries - the China invasion threat: Taiwan’s Defense and American Strategy in Asia, 2017 = recounts results of Republic of China’s military wargames, which Taiwan could hold out in 2017 and 2018 simulations, but military balance of power toward China
- recommend: US support Taiwan, but makes case Taiwan position was defensible and much could go wrong with attempted invasion
- long-range strike capabilites and infrstructure hardening need reinforcement
Red Dragon Rising? Insights from a Decade of China Conflict Studies and Wargames
- studies from 2018 to pre-invasion Ukraine
United States Marines wargame 2019: set wargame in conflict Poland, South Korea and Taiwan simultaneously -> US insufficient forces and logistics to win all 3 simultaneously -> took Europe-first approach -> PLA able to land in Taiwan but unable to subdue the Republic of China and Japanese reinforcements
- all theaters ended with local Russian or US commanders seeking to employ nuclear weapons
reported classified Department of Defense (DOD) wargames oct 2020: focus on US and PLA fighting over Taiwan
- concentration of combat power for maximum efficiency and effect and US military information dominance no longer guaranteed
- PLA benefited from study of adversary tactics, techniques and procedures that challenged the previous way of war
- Department of Defense is ushing US military to adopt the expanded maneuver concept by 2030
RAND Corporation comments to the media in August and October 2020: in wargames set in 2025 and beyond the US loses assets quickly + can’t project power into the battlespace to defeat an invasion, PLA could use airborne and amphibious assaults and reinforce a successful lodgement before effective US assistance arrived
- another report notes US could improve its chances by relying on a new gen of long-range anti-ship missiles and space-based reconnaissance (could be achieved with 5% current Department of Defense budget)
reported US Air Force wargame, autumn 2020: US airforce repelled Chinese invasion of Taiwan set in 2030: used drones, cargo planes dropping munitions, and other novel techniques with large loss of life and equipment
center for new american security slaughter in the east china sea, 2020: China seizure one of the Senkaku islands -> Japanese efforts to reclaim -> US assist -> conflict escalated despite effort not to -> US and Japan unable to reclaim the islands
center for new american security poison fog 2021: China seize Pratas Islands -> US nd allies push China out without escalatory military options while eco and info campaigns failed = clsoe cooperation Taiwan, US and Japan could isolate China but did not lead to return status quo
- recommends close cooperation, clear deterrence policies and Japan involvement
US army-backed wargame blog 2021: Taiwanese forces surrendered within a month, PLA use modern flexible forces near Taiwan -> created anti-access area denial capabilties created problems the US forces couln’t overcome
Red Dragon Rising? Insights from a Decade of China Conflict Studies and Wargames
studies post the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
Center for New American Security Dangerous Straits, June 2022
- set in 2026: strategic-operational war game over Taiwan
- PLA objective to decapitate Taiwanese leadership + inhibit US response with preemptive strikes on Japan and Guam
- no quick victory on either side: neither had upper hand after first week
- showed that PLA presence in northern Taiwan possessed vulnerable lines of communication
- highlighted rapid escalation, attacks on homelands and demonstrative nuclear detonation
- recommendation= long-range precision guided weapons, undersea capabilities, additional basing in the western Pacific + joint planning with Japan an Australia + require to plan for protracted conflict, mitigate escalation risk and support Taiwan’s military exposure
Center for Strategic International Studies The First Battle of the Next War, 2022:
- involves China, Taiwan, Japan and the US
- examines conflict variations over 24 diff iterations + details which factors increase/decrease Taiwan’s chances
- assessed China was able to get troops to Taiwan
- PLA forces so numerous and close that outright defeat at sea was impossible
- US couldn’t land forces on Taiwan
- US/Taiwan/Japan forces prevailed when = Taiwan ground forces could hold out + Taiwan is properly supplied before a conflict + US could access bases in Japan + US could rapidly strike the underway Chinese fleet
- recommendations: clarifying war plans with Taiwan and Japan + expanding US facilities near Taiwan + demosntrating political willingness to incur heavy casualties + preparing Taiwanese forces properly
Red Dragon Rising? Insights from a Decade of China Conflict Studies and Wargames
trends over time
worsening trend for Taiwan and its defenders
esp. scenarios 2025-2030
- studies before 2018: show China and US forces hold Taiwan at increasing cost
- after 2018: growing PLA capabilities + inability of US to project sufficient power -> Taiwan defeat
- after Russian invasion Ukraine: reversal in pessimistic trend: greater incertainy about result of Chinese invasion and capabilities of PLA
*became clear assessment need to model more factors, principally logistics, satellite enabled communication etc. (factors that impeded Russia’s invasion)
!!identified general trend will worsen unless US enacts major improvements: increasing nr missiles
+ with improvement the cost is still high for the allies: no retaking lost territory + loss ships, aircrafts and personnel + Taiwan econ is devastated
Red Dragon Rising? Insights from a Decade of China Conflict Studies and Wargames
explaining the differences between studies
wargaming does/can not guarantee success
they don’t tend to be done if the answer is self-evident and beyond doubt
- e.g. no wargame assumes Taiwanese forces are unwilling to fight as China could then accomplish objectives quickly and consolidate control
-> distinct scenarios use in various studies to seek insight in diff situations
many things need to be assumed (e.g. chances a missile can knock a ship out of action, e.g. which forces would be safed for other contingency reasons)
studies make different assumptions (unless bound by a common rulebook)
-> these can account for variations in results
+ as wargames look further into the future, more unknown variables come into play, all will affect play’s fidelity and outcome
modeling a future US-China conflict is difficult: woudl involve all domains of warfare at scale not seen since WW2, cover vast area of the Pacific + comrpise actors using new and unknown and classfied capabilities
Red Dragon Rising? Insights from a Decade of China Conflict Studies and Wargames
sensitivity analysis: what factors increase the chances the US, Taiwan and allies will prevail?
sensitivity analysis = attempts to understand how diff assumptions affect the outcome
Center for Strategic International Studies’ The First Battle of the Next War 2022 is the best example of comparative analysis of sensitive variables
- 25 diff games testing diff variables
- 4 conditions to success: Taiwan’s people and military must effectively resist, Taiwan must have sufficient stockpiles at the start of the war, US must begin operations against China immediately + US must use its bases in Japan for combat operations
- without these conditions allied missiles and US submarines were insufficient to defeat an invasion
from reading the studies in this review: variables most likely to determine the outcome of a conflict involving China, Taiwan and the US:
- role of Japan: increases and disperses nr of bases US can operate from + increases mass and nr of allied forces opposing China
- PLA Navy vulnerability, or the ability to absorb attrition = vital kinetic variable: the more long-range missiles the coalition possesses and can direct against PLA invasion elements, the greater Taiwan’s chances
- ? response time: if Taiwan has more stockpiles of material it buys it time to await US intervention
PLA success depends on:
- China’s ability to project its anti-access capabilities further from its coast -> makes it diff for US to deploy forces at sufficient ranges
- China’s ability to plan and execute an opposed amphibious assualt
2
Red Dragon Rising? Insights from a Decade of China Conflict Studies and Wargames
areas of most uncertainty that require further study
wargames tend to cover shorter periods than a conflict with the PLA might take (= for practical reasons)
+ many dev in warfare were demonstrated in Russia-Ukraine war -> wargames only started to attempt to model
strategic level variables that have been overlooked/marginalized:
- Xi’s long rule and centralization of power follow pattern of other authoritarian leaders -> lack of robust internal challenge could lead to greater chance of strategic misjudgments than wargames currently assume
- effects of nuclear weapons deterrence
- few wargames test Chinese effort to break up coalitions + other variations of alliances are not tested (China fears a multi-front war -> more consideration to Indian contingencies could be given + attention to other regional actors in South and South East Asia)
- will to fight for Taiwan’s population beyond its leadership has rarely been considered in depth
- more study is warranted on how attacks on homelands could escalate or be deterred
- role of PLA forces based outside China not covered: currently it is limited, but in later time periods could have bases worldwide that could complicate allied intervention
- studies that consider eco sanctions tend to not consider military action and vice versa
- games don’t consider longer conflicts (despite numerous predictions of long-duration): what would China do if it fails to take Taiwan, party/state threatens to collapse -> China would rearm and re-contest the war
- invasion of Ukraine shows not all allies perceive threat signs and came to diff conclusions
- effects of operational inexperience Taiwan and PLA should be better tested
- wargames haven’t caught up with increasing nr of drones on the battlefield
d
Red Dragon Rising? Insights from a Decade of China Conflict Studies and Wargames
conclusions
positive general trend over time for China
but the trend is not constant: early findings from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine indicate China might encounter more problems than previously thought
In most cases, wargaming studies still show that a China and Taiwan conflict, featuring a United States intervention, would be close run and incredibly bloody for all sides
outcomes of wargames is very sensible to small changes + war in Ukraine demonstrated new developments and uncertainty -> further analysis is needed
a greater range of smaller studies, which each interrogate more of the areas of uncertainty identified above, is recommended. should include:
- what follows an initial failed Chinese invasion
- different Chinese military options (especially blockades)
- the suse of drones and capabilti like Starlink or OneWeb
- potential benefits and risks of including more allies (like Australia and the UK)
these studies could then inform assumptions used by larger, more comprehensive wargames that happen periodically
d
