After more than a century of recurring conflict, the countries comprising East Asia and the Pacific have managed something remarkable: avoiding war among nations. Since 1979, this greater region has endured threats, near-miss crises and nuclear proliferation but no interstate war. What are the sources of this “Asian peace?”

In his new book “Pacific Power Paradox,” Van Jackson identifies the Asian peace as a layered, historically contingent peace that, at the regional level and over time, includes sources such as Sino-U.S. détente, intra-Asian economic interdependence, the general deterrence afforded by U.S. alliances, regionalism, and sometimes even democratization. But all of these sources are under strain today, putting the Asian peace at greater risk going forward. 

On February 15, USIP hosted a conversation with Dr. Jackson and Dr. Kang that explores how policymakers might use his layered understanding of East Asia’s regional stability to inform a statecraft that consolidates, rather than embrittles, peace.

Continue the conversation on Twitter using the hashtag #PacificPowerParadox.

Speakers

Van Jackson
Senior Lecturer in International Relations, Victoria University of Wellington

David C. Kang
Professor of International Relations and Business, University of Southern California

Frank Aum, moderator
Senior Expert, Northeast Asia, U.S. Institute of Peace

Related Publications

How Northeast Asian Geopolitics Impact Peace on the Korean Peninsula

How Northeast Asian Geopolitics Impact Peace on the Korean Peninsula

Tuesday, September 17, 2024

Amid today’s renewed great power competition, the Korean Peninsula has entered a new Cold War winter without having enjoyed the spring of the previous post-Cold War era. During the post-Cold War period, the South Korean and U.S. governments anticipated that the seismic changes occurring in Europe would be replicated on the Korean Peninsula. However, over the past 30 years, none of their main policy goals regarding North Korea — such as reform and opening, denuclearization, peace settlement and unification — were fulfilled due to several factors in Northeast Asian geopolitics that favored the status quo. The enduring nature of these factors means the United States and South Korea should adjust their North Korea strategy and goals to enhance peace and security on the Korean Peninsula more effectively.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

Russia’s War and China’s Rise Set a New Path for South Korea-NATO Relations

Russia’s War and China’s Rise Set a New Path for South Korea-NATO Relations

Tuesday, August 20, 2024

July 2024 marked the third time South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol joined a NATO summit along with the leaders of the alliance’s other Indo-Pacific partner countries (Australia, Japan and New Zealand), informally known as the IP4. This represents a new phase in South Korea’s relations with the Atlantic alliance, but building a lasting friendship will take time and requires navigating a series of challenges. Amid an emerging global division of democratic and authoritarian camps and the challenges posed by China and Russia for both the Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic regions, it is incumbent on both Brussels and Seoul to build a more cooperative relationship. That journey, however, has just begun.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

With Russia’s U.N. Veto, Where Do North Korea Sanctions Go From Here?

With Russia’s U.N. Veto, Where Do North Korea Sanctions Go From Here?

Tuesday, July 30, 2024

Earlier this spring, Russia vetoed a U.N. Security Council proposal to extend the “panel of experts” that had been monitoring the implementation of U.N. sanctions on North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs since 2009. While many saw the veto coming, the decision stands to majorly disrupt not just the enforcement of U.N. sanctions on North Korea but could undermine the effectiveness of U.N. sanctions as a whole. USIP spoke with George Lopez, who served previously on the panel in 2010-2011 and again in 2022-2023, about why Russia vetoed the renewal, what the international community loses now that the panel is finished, and what options there might be to replace it.

Type: Question and Answer

EconomicsGlobal Policy

 70 Years After the Geneva Conference: Why is the Korean Peninsula No Closer to Peace?

70 Years After the Geneva Conference: Why is the Korean Peninsula No Closer to Peace?

Monday, July 22, 2024

July marks the anniversary of the 1953 armistice agreement that ended the Korean War and the 1954 Geneva Conference, convened to resolve the issues that the war could not. In the seven decades since, efforts to achieve peace on the Korean Peninsula have been limited and flawed. Today, the security situation in the region is arguably more precarious than ever, with a nuclear armed-North Korea and dysfunctional great power relations. Recent foreign policy shifts in North Korea do not augur well for peace in the near term. Thus, even moving the needle toward peace will likely require Washington to undertake bold initiatives.

Type: Question and Answer

Mediation, Negotiation & DialoguePeace Processes

View All Publications