Asia Pacific Regional Cooperation and Conflicts

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Divergences in Evolution
Japan and the Soviet Union after the Pacific War
The Cold War Consequences and the Post-Cold War Environment
The Conflict between Mainland China and Taiwan and Its Consequences
The China-Taiwan conflict and the United States
The Korean Conflict
Relationships between Japan and Korea
Conclusion
Reference List

The Asia Pacific region refers to the territories near Western Pacific Ocean, which include Asia, specifically its Eastern, Southern and Southeastern parts, Australia, the United States, Canada, Russia, Peru, and many other countries (Countries of the Asia-Pacific Region n.d.). As the result of historical circumstances, many of which are examined further in this paper, the regional cooperation between those countries has always been, and still is, rather complicated.

In 1989, the majority of the fore mentioned countries established the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, or so-called APEC (Ashizawa 2008, p. 581). Although it was a huge step forward, numerous challenges were still ahead of the APEC members. According to Wang (2013, para. 8), APEC now joins 21 economies and an overall population of nearly three billion people. The countries APEC includes are too different, and they have too much discord in their past to reach the agreements easily and quickly.

Divergences in Evolution

To start with, by the moment APEC was established, the US and the majority of Asian countries had already been at different stages of evolution. The United States was a well-developed and fast-growing country, which wanted to strengthen its internal power with the help of external cooperation. Many countries of the Asia-Pacific, on the contrary (to the exclusion of Australia, Japan, and New Zealand), did not progress at the same level, and that is why they did not strive for international institutions so much.

From the very beginning of the cooperation, the differences between the member countries made themselves felt. The Asian way to solve problems gradually and slow began to annoy some member countries of APEC, and especially the United States. The US leaders became more and more frustrated about the fact that Asian countries could not address issues in concrete and measurable terms. They started to insist on concrete results, and, obviously, that was not welcomed warmly by Asian countries. The United States took the position of liberalization of the market while most of the Asian countries were convinced that they just needed to encourage ‘a free flow of trade and investment’ (Togo 2010, p. 209). Gradually, these two sides began to win more and more support of other countries, and APEC split into two camps. That led to one of the greatest dilemmas, which the APEC members faced from the very beginning – the one between Japan and the United States.

The US continued to force the member countries of APEC towards liberalization. However, Japanese leaders were deeply convinced that ‘any decision which would apply greater pressure toward liberalization other than the WTO process was simply unacceptable’ (Togo 2010, p. 209). The arguments on that topic continued for several months, and unable to reach a consensus, APEC decided to take ‘a face-saving measure’ and let the WTO decide. America and like-minded countries were disappointed with such an inability of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation to find a concrete solution.

Still, the divergences remained the same. When the ASEAN countries created the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), it was agreed that all discussions would be held in ‘Asian way’, which meant ‘at a pace comfortable for to all participants’ (Togo 2010, p. 221).

Japan and the Soviet Union after the Pacific War

Even before the war, the relationships between Japan and Russia ‘were full of ups and downs’ (Togo 2010, p. 228). However, after its ending, those relationships became even more complicated and confusing. The roots of that complication probably lay in the arrangement, which leaders of the United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain concluded in 1945, the final year of the Pacific War. That arrangement was called Yalta agreement and, according to it, after the surrender of Germany, the Soviet Union would enter the Pacific War against Japan, and in exchange for that the country would get a piece of the Japanese territory, specifically the Sakhalin and Kurile Islands (Togo 2010, p. 228). The primary goal of the agreement was to make Japan surrender right after Germany.

However, Japan was not aware of Yalta agreement and, naturally, did not expect the Soviet Union to enter the war on the other side. What made it even more unexpected was the Pact of Neutrality that Japan and the Soviet Union signed in 1941 (Togo 2010, p. 228). According to it, the Soviet Union could not attack Japan while Japan was at war with the third country. Moreover, Japan saw the Soviet Union as an ally and expected for its support. Instead of this, the Soviet Union declared was to Japan and by September 1945, the country occupied not only those islands that had been promised to it by the Yalta agreement but even more of them, including Etorofu, Kunashiri, Shikotan, and Habomai (Togo 2010, p. 229). Besides, the Soviet Union also took over 600 000 captives, many of whom died, and the majority of those who survived could return home only in 10 years, after the signing of the Joint Declaration in 1956. (Togo 2010, p. 229).

Hence, at the end of the Pacific War, Japan “was left with an entirely different memory of the Soviet Union vis-a-vis other nations” (Togo 2010, p. 229).

The Cold War Consequences and the Post-Cold War Environment

Another notable factor that has had (and still has) a significant impact on the regional cooperation between the APEC countries is the Cold War.

First of all, the Cold War aggravated relations between the Soviet Union and Japan. In order to develop ‘security ties with the US’ and somehow protect itself, Japan decided to side America and democratic countries (Togo 2010, p. 231). The Soviet Union considered Japan’s decision as a threat and Japan itself as an adversary. Naturally, the Soviet Union tried to break the security relations between the US and Japan. They promised that they would return Habomai and Shikotan islands provided that ‘all foreign troops had been withdrawn from Japan’ (Togo 2010, p. 236). Surely, this proposal only angered Japan and finally was rejected.

The occupied islands became a barrier to cooperation between the Soviet Union and Japan more than just once. Although these two countries did establish the economic relations, those were ruined because of the ‘four islands’ several times (Togo 2010, p. 230). A prime example is an agreement about the salmon fishing in the Pacific. Both countries turned out to be rather successful in this matter and even became good trade partners. However, in 1977, the Soviet Union took the liberty of establishing new demarcation lines, slightly changing existing fishing zones (Togo 2010, p. 241). A part of those new zones covered the waters around the ‘four islands’, and Japan could not let that happen since it would mean that the Soviet Union’s jurisdiction in those territories was admitted (Togo 2010, p. 230). That is why the strained relations between these countries resumed with new vigor.

Later, when APEC already existed, and the ending of the Cold War made its members think about multilateral security cooperation, Japan was still very suspicious of the Soviet Union, even though this country was weak. The Soviet Union had always tried to break the US-Japan security relations and weaken the presence of the American naval in the Pacific. Hence, although Gorbachev visited Japan in the early 1990s, and it did bring some relief, Japan still could not afford itself to trust this country. As the proof, when Japan suggested the framework of the multilateral dialogue, it did not include the Soviet Union, even though other regional countries did not support this plan.

So, when the Cold War was ended, countries of the Asia-Pacific region revised their security issues. The definition of security is now greatly expanded and considers not only military threats but also such issues as the international crime, political borders, migration, and even some ethnic conflicts. The countries have become suspicious. Although political and economic stability in the Asia-Pacific has improved in comparison with the times after the World War II, its countries still face a lot of problems, which hinder the cooperation. And many of those problems are the legacies of the Cold War.

The Conflict between Mainland China and Taiwan and Its Consequences

The question of the separation of Taiwan from China has existed for more than a hundred years. Firstly, Taiwan was separated from the mainland China in 1895 but that time it was ceded to Japan (Columbus 2004, p. 101). Then, the island was returned to China in 1945 (Columbus 2004, p. 101). However, when in 1949, the Nationalist government was overthrown by the Communist party, the Nationalists had to leave the mainland China and escaped to Taiwan, where they reestablished their rule (Columbus 2004, p. 101). That is when the global conflict between China and Taiwan firstly occurred.

Since that time, the relations between these two countries had been unstable and strained and could be described neither as peace nor as war. The People’s Republic of China, which began its existence in 1950, tried to attack Taiwan and return its territories by force several times. However, due to the interference of the United States that had always considered the communism as a threat and that is why had chosen the Taiwan side, Taiwan could withstand the attacks of China. The situation worsened when China reunited with Macao and Hong Kong, and it became apparent that the final unification of this country was dependent only on the status of Taiwan.

That is why the efforts to return the island of Taiwan were renewed and became even more explicit, frequent, and persistent. At the same time, Taiwan was ‘gradually moving towards independence’, and its leaders still did not intend to give up (Columbus 2004, p. 101). So, in the late 1990s, the relations between China and Taiwan became even more complicated. Moreover, they became unpredictable, and no one could be sure that these two countries would not launch a war against each other. Such kind of an outcome would be threatening not only to the main parties to the conflict but to the United States as well since this country both provided military support for Taiwan and was involved in the economic cooperation with China.

Relations somehow improved when China retreated from Communism but then Chen Shui-bian’s victory in the elections aggravated the situation. In 2005, the Chinese government signed the Anti-Secession Law and claimed that in case if Taiwan decided to ‘move from its current status of de facto to de jure independence’ than China would apply force against it (Chow 2007, p. 5). Naturally, Chen Shui-bian considered that as a threat, and it seemed that he was willing to separate the country from China at any price.

Fortunately, in 2005, Ma Ying-jeou succeeded Chen Shui-bian, and the China-Taiwan conflict became less acute. Ma Ying-jeou admitted the possibility of reintegration, at least theoretically, and although he could do it just to pacify the Chinese leaders, it was a wise move, and it worked. In 2010, the countries signed the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, and after that their relations, as well as the economic partnership, significantly improved (Brown 2010).

Nevertheless, the history still remains a fundamental barrier to the cooperation between these two countries. Most importantly, there is the ‘lack of mutual understanding and trust’ (Columbus 2004, p. 122). Many political leaders of Taiwan, particularly those of Democratic Progressive Party, are suspicious of the Chinese government and concerned about too close economic cooperation since it can lead to the growing dependence on China and hinder the country’s independence in the future. Hence, the political collaboration between China and Taiwan is still very weak. Ma Ying-jeou is always guided by the politics of ‘no independence, no reunification, no war’, and it considerably affects every his decision (Goldstein 2012, para. 4).

The China-Taiwan conflict and the United States

When the People’s Republic of China was established, and China attempted to attack Taiwan in 1950, the US interfered and repelled that attack. Moreover, ‘the Taiwan factor’ determined in which direction the relations between China and the US would develop (Wei 2012, p. 1). Since the United States tried to make every effort to prevent the spread of communism, they signed the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979 and committed to help Taiwan in case of any further attacks (Wei 2012, p. 1). Additionally, they maintained the Taiwanese army, by sending arms, including not only small arms but also ships, and military aircrafts. In 2008, the United States reiterated its commitment to assist Taiwan in military matters.

On the other hand, the US now tries to preserve the status quo since it still has many economic and political ties to both parties to the conflict, and billions of dollars are invested in their economies. So, America’s leaders take measures to prevent the escalation of the China-Taiwan conflict, which is currently nonviolent. They are very cautious in matters related to this conflict and try to preserve the relative peace in those territories since otherwise a war will blow the US economy. As a prime example, the US takes China’s side on the issue of the international space for Taiwan. They disapprove the Taiwanese leaders’ efforts to make a country a member of the United Nations since it will probably worsen the current situation considerably.

The Korean Conflict

As well as the China-Taiwan conflict, the Korean one can be partly considered as the legacy of the Cold War. The conflict between South Korea and North Korea began in 1950 when the Korean War burst out. Both the Korean War and all subsequent events of the Cold War were about ‘whether the communist North or the anticommunist South would become the sole, legitimate government of the Korean people’ (Horowitz, Uk & Alexander 2007, p. 2). Apart from the main parties to this conflict, the Soviet Union and China took part in it on the North Korean side and the United States sided with South Korea. After the end of the Cold War, the situation on the Korean Peninsula changed considerably – the North Korea lost the political and economic support of both the Soviet Union and China. Many economic problems occurred, and the whole regime and the ideology were brought into question. At the same time, South Korea became only stronger.

Although ‘communism is now little more than a historical memory’, the Korean conflict is still one of the greatest concerns of the Asia-Pacific. Presently, the border between North and South Korea is probably the most heavily armed. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, there are nearly 1.2 million soldiers from North Korea and approximately 640,000 soldiers from the South Korea (Council on Foreign Relations 2015, para. 3). The conflict remains unpredictable and acute because of North Korea’s efforts to develop missiles and even nuclear weapons, which threatens not only the neighboring countries but also the whole world. Besides, since now North Korea remains internationally isolated and tries to deal with economic crisis, its future collapse is very likely. If it happens, neighboring countries, such as South Korea (first of all), Japan, and China will probably face massive flows of refugees. Besides, all of this forces the United States and like-minded countries to impose sanctions on North Korea and raises many additional conflicts.

Relationships between Japan and Korea

Another example of a situation when history becomes a barrier to the well-being of the Asia-Pacific is the relations between Japan and Korea. These two countries have plenty reasons to cooperate with each other, both economic and political ones. First of all, they are close territorially, and the flight from Tokyo to Seoul or vice versa takes no more than two hours. Secondly, these countries are ‘the most similar entities in terms of political maturity, economic affluence and social justice’ (Park 2008, p. 13). Both of them have democratic systems and market economies. Besides, as practice shows, Japan and Korea are actually linked together, and during the previous fifty years, their relationships have been steadily improving. The total number of Japanese visiting Korea and Korean visiting Japan has raised to nearly 5 million people in 2007 (the statistics of 1965 showed only 10,000 people) (Park 2009, p. 248). Besides, according to data of 2008, there were 4,192 flights connecting these two countries. The bilateral trade has also improved. In 1965, it was nearly 250 million of dollars, and by 2006, it raised to 78 billion of dollars (Park 2009, p. 248).

However, Park (2008, p. 14) still describes the collaboration between Japan and Korea as ‘turbulent’. Indeed, relations between these two countries repeatedly become more critical. For example, in 2005, there was a conflict around Takeshima Day when the Japanese prefecture announced that February 22 would mark the celebration of ‘the annexation of the island to Japan in 1905’ (Park 2008, p. 14). After that move, the anti-Japanese sentiments in Korea increased. Moreover, in 2015, after Japan had celebrated this holiday for the tenth time, Korea also took some measures. Korean leaders published and distributed pamphlets, which contained their own opinion about the rights on that island. Moreover, there are numerous similar examples, and without any doubts, they considerably worsen the economic cooperation between these countries.

Still, it is not surprising that the Japan-Korea relations are strained. During several decades of the last century, Japan occupied Korea and tried to assimilate this country, imposing its own rules and traditions. And although Japan chose the right side in the conflict between South Korea and North Korea, the psychological scars left by the events that occurred before would not disappear quickly and easily.

Conclusion

The Asia-Pacific region consists of a several dozen of countries. They share the history, which has not always been easy and spotless. The list of the conflicts discussed in this paper can be greatly expanded. For example, there still is the debate around the South China Sea that involves the governments of such countries as China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines. All of them claim that they have the rights to some part of that territory. There is also domestic instability in China and many other political and security issues. All of them affect the relations between the members of the Asia-Pacific and hinder cooperation, which is essential for these countries. The only way to overcome historical issues is to play fair and try to understand the second side.

Reference List

Ashizawa, K 2008, ‘When Identity Matters: State Identity, Regional Institution-Building and Japanese Foreign Policy’, International Studies Review, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 571-598.

Brown, DG 2010, ‘China-Taiwan Relations: Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement Signed’, Comparative Connections, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 77-86.

Chow, PC 2007, Economic Integration, Democratization and National Security in East Asia: Shifting Paradigms in US, China and Taiwan, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.

Columbus, F 2004, Asian Economic and Political Issues, Nova Publishers, Hauppauge.

Council on Foreign Relations 2015, North Korean Crisis. Web.

Countries of the Asia-Pacific Region n.d. Web.

Goldstein, S 2012, Cross-strait Relations on the Eve of Ma Ying-jeou’s Second Term. Web.

Horowitz, SA, Uk, H & Alexander CT 2007, Identity and Change in East Asian Conflicts: The Cases of China, Taiwan, and the Koreas, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Park, CH 2008, ‘Cooperation Coupled with Conflicts: Korea – Japan Relations in the Post-Cold War Era, Asia-Pacific Review, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 13-35.

Park, CH 2009, ‘The Pattern of Cooperation and Conﬂict between Korea and Japan: Theoretical Expectations and Empirical Realities’, Japanese Journal of Political Science, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 247–265.

Togo, K 2010, Japan’s Foreign Policy, 1945-2009: The Quest for a Proactive Policy, 3rd edn, Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden, Netherlands.

Wang, R 2013, Preview of Issues to Be Addressed at the Upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. Web.

Wei, D 2012, China-Taiwan Relations in a Global Context: Taiwan’s Foreign Policy and Relations, Routledge, Abingdon.

Click Here To Order Now!