Public Goods Supply on Korean Peninsular 1. Zhang Jingquan. Professor, Northeast Asian Studies College, Jilin University

Transcription

1 Public Goods Supply on Korean Peninsular 1 Zhang Jingquan Professor, Northeast Asian Studies College, Jilin University As we know, the scarcest resource on Korean Peninsular is security. However, what kind of public goods is needed, and how it is provided, both have shaped the past, present and future of Korean Peninsular directly. Traditional Public Goods and Its Supply Since the scarcest resource on Korean Peninsular is security, a traditional way of thinking to solve this problem is by providing public goods -- security, through military alliance. Actually, it is the true method that we have adopted in dealing with the Korean Peninsular issue over these years. It is widely acknowledged that alliance derived from international anarchy, which is a feature recognized by most scholars. Take Robert Keohane for instance, he believed that Neorealist and Neoliberal reach an agreement that the essence of the world system is the absence of central government. 2 In an international society, under anarchy, the world 1 2 Please do not cite without permission of the author. Robert Keohane, International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations 1

2 government, of which function has not yet beyond actors spontaneously to provide protection or help for interests-realization, so sets of principles, rules and decision-making procedure on which among actors agreed. That is, building mechanism to meet a certain requirement. Although it remains open to question, some scholars maintained that powers either be neutral or to join an alliance, in which a self-help system governed by, for self security concerns. Therefore alliance, in view of the regime, serves as an alternative for actors. Martin Wight pointed out that alliance born for interest realization. Alliance is a special regime. Alliance was born in association with war, conflict, and international crisis. Alliance is confined to given areas, involving international security and military fields. Alliance is a formal states union on which agreement whether using force or not, made in order to safeguard the participants safety and to advance common interests. 1 This union is made against specific nations, no matter these nations are confirmed or not. Bruce Russett and Harvey Starr contended that alliance was a formal cooperation conducted when common enemy or security threat was foreseen by allies, and it was usually limited to a certain period of time. Obviously, alliance mainly covers security and military affairs. Essentially, alliance is a kind of military cooperation, Theory, Boulder: Westview Press, 1989, p.7. 1 Glenn H. Snyder, Alliance Theory: A Neorealist First Cut, Journal of International Affairs, Spring 1990, Vol.44, No. 1,p

3 through which different countries are committed to seeking the common security interests. Although the alliance has often been applied in the evolution of international relations, it does not earn a worldwide recognition. The reasons lie in the global context when it was born, the area it covers, and the consideration of allies own national interests. Arnold Wolfers said that, there was no absolute advantage on any alliance. Under some circumstances, alliance would be damage rather than a supplement to the state. Besides, promise on aid might not be kept in the future. A state could possibly be dragged into clashes which are against their own interests. 1 Thus, every state is fairly prudent towards the alliance issue. When a state is confronted with imminent threat or war, it will appeal to alliance. Furthermore, the geopolitical features of alliance show that, neighboring countries are hostile to each other, while the neighbors of its neighboring country are considered as allies. Martin Wight explained that, it was a general rule that when powers were territorial neighbors they were hostile to each other; thus if your neighbor is your natural enemy, those powers which are neighboring countries of your neighbor, were your natural ally. Joseph.S. Jr also pointed out that, according to conventional 1 Arnold Wolfers, Alliances, Edited by David L. Sills, International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan, 1968.p

4 geopolitics, the actor s behavior was highly subjected to its geographic location and distance. Where there is contact, there is friction. No wonder that about 50% military conflicts happened from 1816 to 1992 broke out among territorial neighbors. Once a state found that it was under the threat posed by neighbors, it will follow the old saying that the power which is the enemy of your enemy is your natural ally. Such cases are not rare phenomenon in the anarchy system. It is concluded that, due to the specialties of alliance and the geopolitical way of thinking, the actors seldom make their policy based on the indigenous contradictions within the region, and always put the long term interests of the citizens and nations into the back seat. The constructions of regional cooperation and regional community are weakened by these adverse factors. The above analysis indicates that alliance is a special regime, relating to sensitive areas, including security, military affairs, and urgency in generating environment, and it is then always concerned about war, clash and international crisis. Particularly, whether it is an actor or not, any state will be prudent towards alliance or even reject it. Therefore, to what degree, the security, which is in need in Korean Peninsular and Northeast Asia, accords with the military alliance? This requires our prudent analysis on the functions of military alliance. Firstly, the security provided by military alliance is negative security. As 4

5 we know, military alliance has a specific target. In my opinion, this common security, which aims at the third party, reveals the negative common interest. If a military organization affirms that, the threat from a specific state does exist and is inevitable, such security concept is also negative. Meanwhile, military alliance regime is tough, closed, exclusive and forceful. Thus, the security provided by military alliance is negative. Secondly, the consumption of the security provided by military alliance is limited. Undoubtedly, military alliance has shaped the security and exerted its positive influence on it. That is, offer the public goods, security, to its members. On the other hand, the consumers for this public goods, is only confined to the members of the military alliance, other non-member countries may consume the goods to a limited extent, but they are more likely to regard the military alliance as a source of threat, which is against the regional cooperation between the members and non-members of the military alliance. New Public Goods and Its Supply Is it really true that the scarcest resource on Korean Peninsular is security? We may take another perspective to look at our cognition on the security subject. In another word, renew the traditional cognition that the state is 5

6 the subject of security. Actually, when we take military alliance as the main method to provide security, we are adopting the typical state-centered security concept. It is well acknowledged that alliance refers to two or above sovereign states taking the joint military actions according to their promises, when confronted with common threat. It is obvious that the subject in alliance is state, its target is also state, and the collective action they take is among the states. When we immerse in the state-centered security concept, and struggle with the security dilemma, it seems we have forgotten a basic question--what is security? Security, means the actor s independent identity, complete function, achieved values are not under the threat of losing, and not afraid of under any threat. The concept of security is thus an issue about objective scale, as well as subjective judgment. Firstly, security reflects the objective scale, and threat does exist. Secondly, security embodies subjective judgment, in another word, if the core values of the actor are not under threat, then we say it is secure. But how do we define the situation, whether it is under threat or not? That only depends on people s cognition, and this is the key point in security issues. Besides the realistic factors, people are much concerned about threat. When the threat disappears, people feel safe. 6

7 Due to the power of such subjective factors, if we only resort to so-called rational and abstract state, then we have gone too far from the concept of security, and abandoned the basic carrier of the concept -- people. Therefore, it is concluded that security is foremost, an issue about the concept. The decision-makers enable the material elements and events have its meanings, not vice versa. In one word, we need to put people at the center in security theory. Research on security should orientate to people s security, and the scale of security research should be expanded or restored to the individual. Since people are the subject of security, then we should review security issue from people s viewpoint, and make it serve for people. There is no doubt that trust is the pivotal condition and appeal in interpersonal cognition and interaction. State tends to weigh the advantage and disadvantage, and seeks the profits. For the realist, trust has to be guaranteed by power and regime. At present, both the international society and domestic society are lacking security on the surface, in fact, it is the trust that is in the absence. If there is no trust, there is no security. Thus if we switch the subject of security, we will find that security is not the rare source in international society, while trust is the public goods 7

8 need to be provided. As a result, we should focus on providing trust, the new public goods. In my opinion, discourse is the best way to build trust. Firstly, security is the outcome for discourse encryption on trust. At the very beginning, the words for international relations or international politics are simple and clear, because they derive from people s original cognition. While as the countries interactions intensified, people s original cognition has been encrypted by the state or elites in the state, and become an abstract, obscure and complicated discourse system. Security has been deviated from its subject. Thus we could find that the building of security is also a construction for discourse. But it is not sufficient to build security only on discourse. To build trust through discourse is the first step. Providing that trust is available, security could be perceived and cognized. Secondly, security is the outcome of discourse securitization. Security is a kind of inter-subjective security. The essence of security is cognition, a common and collective response, and cognitive process to certain threat. Just during this process, some problems turn into security issues. 8

9 In specific, the security discourse shaped by cognitive interactions between the subjects, has been put forward with the highest priority and tagged, after rendering. This is securitization. Due to this process, some problems have been transformed into security issues. Thus non-security is not only caused by the real threat, but is regarded as a threat in terms of cognition. Security is a process of speech act. Security is not only in line with the changes of inner or natural element, but also has to update with the ups and downs of dominant speech. The world is like a work, whose existence is based on people s explanation. Security, therefore, is a speech act. Post-modernists hope to use a language that has an advantage in human emotions and communication, to replace the rational and objective language. The changes in language bring about new ideas, and thus give birth to the new reality. Suggestions In order to build the new US-China partnership relation, and realize the goal of denuclearization and maintain the stability and peace in Korean Peninsular, I put forward the following suggestions: First, release the discourse which benefits the mutual trust at the strategic level, enhance mutual trust through the summit and improve people-to-people exchange. 9

10 Second, set up a 2+1 mechanism, that is set up US-Korea Alliance + China Communication Mechanism. The existence of alliance constrains the improvement of relation between China and the United States. On one hand, we should recognize the existence of US-Korea Alliance and US-Japan Alliance are historical reality. On the other hand, China and the United States should recognize mutual trust is the precondition of security, mutual security is the real security. We may remit the negative effect of alliance through trust construction instead of underscoring the transparence construction. Third, turn the nuclear crisis into nuclear cooperation mechanism. Korea nuclear issue has directive effect on the trust among states. However, if we change our nuclear view of national threat and national deterrence into our nuclear view of people s security and happiness, and then, the construction of nuclear monitoring cooperative mechanism and civilian nuclear technology cooperative mechanism is possible among China, the United States and South Korea. Fourth, turn unilateral rebalance strategy into bilateral reassurance strategy. Balance is balance, if underscore military alliance system on one side, obviously, it will lead unbalance in this region. 10