Jeju Peace Institute

YOON Tae-Ryoung (Assistant Professor, Konkuk University), JANG JunYoung (Senior Research Fellow, Center for Southeast Asian Studies in HUFS), YI Seong-Woo (Senior Research Fellow, Jeju Peace Institute)

● A Case of the Settlement of a Territorial Dispute between China and Russia: Its Significance for Maritime Disputes in East Asia

Recently, concerns have been expressed about the possibility of a new Cold War breaking out between

the Western and Eastern Blocs due to the conflict between the USA’s current strategy of rebalancing toward

Asia and the strategic alliance between China and Russia. That, along with the currently deepening maritime

disputes in East Asia, casts a dark shadow over the prospects for stability in the region. Nonetheless, the

successful settlement of a territorial dispute between China and Russia, which had lasted for more than 300

years, is worth looking back on as the basis for a ray of hope for East Asian countries entangled in similar

disputes.

There is no such thing as inevitability in history or international politics. After all, it is people who make

history, although they are restricted by the environment (structure) formed by earlier history. National leaders

are not people who respond to the international political environment as a robot would, but are rather persons

with the power to influence events and transform a dismal reality for the better by pushing ahead with the

necessary policies with resolve and commitment.

That said, the future of East Asia very much depends on the types of leaders elected by the people of

the countries in the region. The reality of international politics is always formed through interaction between

the parties involved rather than by extremes of people and structure (or determination and determinism). The

abovementioned case involving China and Russia suggests that it is possible to achieve regional peace in East

Asia, provided that the politicians who are intent on inciting nationalistic fervor are removed from the equation

and replaced by those who can apply the lessons of history to reality with adequate vision and capability.

● 60 Years of Maintaining the Five Principles for Peaceful Coexistence: Are China and Myanmar Capable of Brotherly Relations?

Prior to President Xi Jinping’s state visit to South Korea this year, China held a meeting in commemoration

of the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence (in 1954), inviting

Indian Vice President Mohammad Hamid Ansari and Myanmar President Thein Sein to attend. The tripartite

meeting was the first top-tier summit to be held over a joint agenda since Mr. Xi Jinping’s inauguration as

China’s president.

The leaders of the three countries reached an agreement to the effect that they would jointly cope with

supranational crime and terrorism, including narcotic/human trafficking, according to the five principles.

However, what was really on the minds of the three leaders appeared to differ markedly.

The leaders of the three countries reached an agreement to the effect that they would jointly cope with

supranational crime and terrorism, including narcotic/human trafficking, according to the five principles.

However, what was really on the minds of the three leaders appeared to differ markedly.

Following the launch of the new government in Myanmar in 2011, Chinese leaders expected that they would

be able to maintain or improve diplomatic relations with Myanmar. However, Myanmar’s new government

attempted to shed its image as a vassal state of China by prioritizing political freedom over the economy and

reflecting anti-Chinese sentiment in its realpolitik. Moreover, it succeeded in mitigating the sanctions that

Western countries had imposed upon the country due to the previous military dictatorship, by striving to

improve diplomatic relations with them. It also obtained the international community’s recognition of its status

as a legitimate government.

Having failed to cope with changes in Myanmar’s political situation, China saw the need to improve its

relationship with the country in the post-2011 period. In 2014, China is trying to adopt a moderate policy

toward Myanmar by presenting itself as a country that will offer opportunities to Myanmar and by dispelling

fears that China poses a threat to Southeast Asia regarding the status of Myanmar as the chair of ASEAN in

2014.

As for India, which has succeeded in bringing about an internal power transfer in 2014, it sees the need

to expand its influence eastward, using Myanmar as a bridge. In the event of its establishment of friendly

relations with Myanmar, India will be able to complete the economic corridor linking Southwest Asia with

Southeast Asia, and eventually join the ranks of powers with the potential to persuade China to exercise

restraint.

● A Scientific Approach on Territorial Disputes in East Asia: behavioral pattern of China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea

Concerning the territorial dispute is East Asia, South Korean has endorsed the silent diplomacy in order

to avoid Japanese strategic movement to make Dok-do as an international dispute area. However, Japanese

government has adopted an aggressive strategy to extend its maritime territory including 4.47 million km2

territorial water and exclusive economic zone as the 9th largest country in the world. Facing an aggressive

neighbor country, I would like to review the international academic trend of studies on territorial disputes

including issues, methodology, and perspectives.

This employs one of the most popular conflict data sets, Territorial Claims Data 1919-1995 by Huth and

Allee and analyzes the conflictual behaviors of the relevant parties in East Asia including South Korea, China,

Russia, and Japan. Unlike the factual reality that South Korea has never claimed any territorial disputes as

a challenger country, it is coded as a challenger country who tries to revise the territorial status quo. That

is a result of misunderstanding that Japan effectively controls Dokdo.

As a conclusion of data analyses, this will provide policy suggestions to strengthen the territorial sovereignty

of South Korea via the effective control on Dokdo. As a part of strategic approach, South Korea needs to

cooperate with Russia who has no conflict of interest concerning the territorial issue in East Asia. Based on

the initial cooperation, South Korea will be able to include China as another cooperation partner. Finally,

South Korea can request the norm of “one nation-one rule” against Japanese political maneuvers concerning

territorial dispute in East Asia.