Advertisement

Democratization and National Identity in the China-Taiwan and Korean Conflicts

  • Shale Horowitz
  • Uk Heo
  • Alexander C. Tan

Abstract

Since September 11, 2001, international relations and conflicts in the Middle East and South Asia have attracted the lion’s share of attention from analysts and journalists. This is especially true in the United States, given that tens of thousands of U.S. troops are fighting insurgent-terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, there has been corresponding neglect in covering and analyzing other regions. Of these other regions, East Asia is undoubtedly the most important. Most people are well aware of the economic prowess of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, and over the last 25 years, of China’s rise to become the “factory of the world.” There is less awareness that the region harbors two of the world’s most dangerous conflicts—between China and Taiwan, and between North and South Korea. Both of these conflicts could involve the United States and its key ally Japan in massive conventional wars, which might escalate into nuclear wars.

Keywords

National Identity Chinese Communist Party Authoritarian Regime Democratic Progressive Party Nuclear Program 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: Random House, 1979);Google Scholar
  2. Shale Horowitz, “The Balance of Power: Formal Perfection and Practical Flaws,” Journal of Peace Research 38 (2001): 705–722;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Emerson M.S. Niou, Peter C. Ordeshook, and Gregory F. Rose, The Balance of Power: Stability in International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 2.
    Richard Rosecrance, Action and Reaction in World Politics: International Systems in Perspective (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1977);Google Scholar
  5. Richard Rosecrance and Arthur A. Stein, eds., The Domestic Bases of Grand Strategy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993);Google Scholar
  6. Bruce M. Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  7. 3.
    Raymond Aron, Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations (Garden City: Anchor, 1973);Google Scholar
  8. Peter J. Katzenstein, ed., The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996);Google Scholar
  9. Stephen D. Krasner, ed., International Regimes (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983).Google Scholar
  10. 4.
    Donald L. Horowitz, Ethnic Groups in Conflict (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1985);Google Scholar
  11. Joseph Rothschild, Ethnopolitics: A Conceptual Framework (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981).Google Scholar
  12. 5.
    Classic works taking various positions include Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1991);Google Scholar
  13. Walker Connor, Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994);Google Scholar
  14. Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983); andGoogle Scholar
  15. Anthony Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986). There are more extreme versions of both primordialist and instrumentalist arguments. Extreme primordialists might argue that objective characteristics define both group identity and interests in a precise manner, leaving little or no space to subjective interpretation and values. Extreme primordialists might also argue that group leaders always prioritize such objectively determined group goals. Extreme instrumentalists might argue that objective characteristics have little effect on group identity and interests, and that group leaders invariably place their own power and wealth interests above the group interests they claim to represent. We reject all of these arguments.Google Scholar
  16. 6.
    Zeev Maoz and Bruce Russet, “Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986,” American Political Science Review 87 (September 1993): 624–638;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ross A. Miller, “Regime Type, Strategic Interaction, and the Diversionary Use of Force,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 43 (1999): 388–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shale Horowitz, Uk Heo, Alexander C. Tan 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shale Horowitz
  • Uk Heo
  • Alexander C. Tan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations