Abandonment, Entrapment, and Neoclassical Realism in Asia: The United States, Japan, and Korea

Abstract

For decades, area specialists have argued that international relations IR! theory cannot adequately explain security dynamics in East Asia as a result of cultures, histories, and traditions distinct from the West. A shining anomaly put forth in this regard is the relationship between Japan and the Republic of Korea~ROK!. Why have these two powers had such volatile relations, despite their élite ties, economic complementarities, and shared security adversaries throughout the Cold War and Post-Cold War eras? Area scholars point to historical antagonism as the primary explanatory variable; however, this at best explains only part of the picture~i.e., the friction but not the cooperation!. Balance of threat theorists might explain Japan-Korea volatility as a function of changes in the level of external threat; however, variations in threats posed to the two powers do not correlate well with outcomes in bilateral interaction. Developing the concept of quasi-alliances~two states that remain non-allied but share a third power as a common ally!, this article argues that Japanese and Korean perceptions of their common great power patron's security commitment~the United States! directly affects the level of political-military cooperation between the two quasi-allied states. Fears of U.S. abandonment determine when and under what conditions historical anger most affects the tenor of relations. The level of patron commitment is also a better determinant of alliance behavior than the level of external threat. Framing the relationship in this manner, I attempt to acknowledge area scholars' concerns about the critical role of history and culture, but consider history's salience in the context of equally critical but acultural security ties that underlie the two states' triangular relations with the United States. For alliance theory, this East Asian case shows how alignment choices are not a direct function of external threat but threats as refracted through perceptions of patron commitment. In security relationships with high degrees of asymmetrical dependence, patron promises matter more than adversarial threats because promises can mitigate threats, leading to behavior not predicted by balance of threat theory. Moreover, in extreme cases, promises or lack thereof ! can affect alliance behavior irrespective of variations in the objective level of external threat.

Interdependence, asymmetric crises, and European defence cooperation

“…In the event of an asymmetric crisis, typical problems that constitute the 'alliance security dilemma ' (Snyder 1984, Kupchan 1988, Cha 2000, Press-Barnathan 2006, Kim 2011 are more likely to occur. First, the states whose interests are most affected can be abandoned by their partners (Snyder 1984, 466-467).…”

Nationalism and Power Politics in Japan’s Relations with China: A Neoclassical Realist Interpretation

“…Comparable hypotheses and models are found in other "mid-range" theoretical conceptualisations. See Mastanduno, Lake, and Ikenberry (1989), Cha (2000), and Nau (2003), among others. What differentiates this thesis' NCR-based hypotheses with the "two-level-game" or, other mid-range hypotheses adopted by the likes of Bong (2002) and Downs and Saunders (1998/9), are theoretical nuances like: i) its espousal of the primacy of external factors; ii) nationalism's "intervening" role on state-elites' intersubjective perception of the external-domestic conditions; iii) auxiliary assumptions regarding the potential irrationality of state behaviour, iv) ontological positioning of the "external" as environment rather than processbased variables; and v) conceptualisation of analytical framework.…”

“…The NCR framework has been utilised in previous studies to incorporate ideational explanations in specific areas of East Asian diplomacy, namely those by Cha (2000), Davidson (2002), and Nau (2003). For example, Cha (2000) elucidates the role of historical animosity within an NCR model of "quasi-alliances versus balance-of-threat" to address the concepts of abandonment and entrapment in the triangular alliance dynamics between the US, Japan, and South Korea during the Cold War.…”

“…For example, Cha (2000) elucidates the role of historical animosity within an NCR model of "quasi-alliances versus balance-of-threat" to address the concepts of abandonment and entrapment in the triangular alliance dynamics between the US, Japan, and South Korea during the Cold War. Meanwhile, Davidson (2002) introduces the "balance of allied resolve" model with domestic political pressure serving as the "intervening" variable, in his proposed solution to the "puzzle" of whether a rising China would become a status-quo, or revisionist power, whereas Nau (2003) seeks to explain the balance of power in Asia, via a structural model of power and identity.…”

“…Zakaria (1992); Desch (1998);Sterling-Folker (1997);and Finel (2001/2); among others, have begun "paying more attention to interactions between international and domestic politics", and "integrating domestic political concerns into the realpolitik framework" (Sterling-Folker 1997:3) to enhance realism's explanatory power. Major neoclassical realist works (Gideon Rose 1998;Zakaria 1998;Taliaferro 2001;Schweller 2003;Cha 2000;Christensen 1996;Wohlforth 1993;and Nau 2003) (1998:146-147;Schweller 2004:164;Taliaferro 2006:485). Instead, constraints/opportunities offered by the international system are defined and translated through the complex domestic political process that serves "to channel, mediate, and (re)direct policy outputs" (Schweller 2004:164) in response to such external forces.…”