Identity and Security: Identity Distance Theory and Regional Affairs in Northeast and Southeast Asia The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Ryu, Yongwook. 2011. Identity and Security: Identity Distance Theory and Regional Affairs in Northeast and Southeast Asia. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10121969 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Copyright Notice © 2012 – Yongwook Ryu All rights reserved A. Iain Johnston Yongwook Ryu Identity and Security: Identity Distance Theory and Regional Affairs in Northeast and Southeast Asia Abstract The dissertation explores the relationship between identity and international security, and tests the effect of the former on the latter by analyzing a set of puzzling phenomena in East Asia—the emergence of mutual threat perception in Sino-Japanese relations; increasingly conflictual relations between Korea and Japan after Korea’s democratization; the establishment of a regional human rights mechanism by ASEAN; and the settlement of key territorial disputes by Southeast Asian nations. Coupled with the diverging frequency of militarized interstate disputes between both regions, these phenomena suggest that Northeast Asia (NEA) has become a region of conflict with high tensions, while Southeast Asia (SEA) has increasingly developed into a region of peace with decreasing tension. The dissertation advances a new theoretical framework, namely, identity distance theory, to understand these puzzling phenomena. Identity distance refers to perceived socio-psychological differences between groups, and its widening (narrowing) is hypothesized to increase (decrease) the likelihood of intergroup conflict. Using a variety of methods—content analysis of newspapers; political elite survey; and a controlled case study on territorial disputes—the dissertation shows that it is the contrasting evolution of identity distance in the two regions that is the key to explaining the cross-regional differences. The root cause of the widening identity distance in NEA is the rise of the so-called history problem (lishi wenti) in the 1980s, influencing China’s threat perception of Japan and altering the effect of Korea’s democratization on its relations with Japan. In contrast, the """! ! ! ! narrowing identity distance in SEA due to the construction of a regional identity and community since the 1990s enabled thorny issues such as human rights to be discussed more freely by raising the comfort level among regional countries, and resulted in the resolution of two key territorial disputes in SEA through the arbitration of the International Court of Justice. Identity distance theory proposes a connection between identity and security, and contends that identity-related issues are an important factor affecting different regional dynamics. The findings of the dissertation suggest that the relations of enmity and amity between states are socially constructed through interactions between actors, which engender certain social identities and relations favorable for peace or conflict. "#! ! ! ! Acknowledgements Writing a dissertation has been an arduous journey for me. During the journey I have been extremely fortunate to have met people who took interest in my project and rendered a great deal of kind assistance to me. First and foremost, I’d like to thank my dissertation committee members. Iain Johnston, the chair of the committee, has been a superb supervisor with his deep and clear knowledge of IR theory and East Asian affairs. Beth Simmons has provided many insightful remarks and sharp questions that forced me to think harder about my argument and findings. Susan Pharr has been a great scholar and mentor introducing me the field of Japanese studies and encouraging me to continue when I stumbled over. Bear Braumoeller has given me constructive comments, especially on methodology, whenever I needed them. Despite the differences in their theoretical and methodological orientations, all of them shared one thing in common: intellectual openness and generosity, a whole mark of great scholarship. They mentored me by their excellent examples and taught me more than I can adequately acknowledge here. Thank you very much! My sincere thanks also go to the following institutions and professors. I have traveled to six different countries for my field research, and owe much debt to many people. Kim Byung-Kook at Korea University made it possible for me to spend several months at the East Asia Institute. Tanaka Akihiko and Greg Noble at The University of Tokyo and Kokubun Ryosei at Keio University have kindly given me a visiting stint. Fan Shiming and Yu Tiejun at Peking University welcomed me in Beijing. Amitav Acharya, Ralf Emmers, and Tan See Seng at the RSIS, NTU, made my stay in Singapore productive and pleasant. Rizal Sukma at the CSIS, Jakarta, and Tan Sri Mohamed Jawhar at the ISIS, Malaysia, have provided a collegial environment for me to conduct my elite surveys in the two countries. Due to their good will, my field research was enjoyable and meaningful in many ways. I could not have completed my dissertation without generous financial support from Harvard University. I thank the Committee on General Scholarships, especially Margot Gill, for the provision of a Frank Knox Fellowship for several years. The Asia Center and Reischauer Institute of Japanese Studies have also been generous in funding my summer language studies and field research. The Japan Foundation has given me a generous pre- doctoral fellowship for me to carry out field research in Japan, and Matsushita Foundation gave me a useful sum for me to do extra research in Southeast Asia. The Department of Government, Harvard, has also proven to be a fantastic place to do research on all aspects of political science, with its unsurpassed resources, an open and critical atmosphere and engaging fellow students. In particular, I want to thank Andy Kennedy, Amy Catalinac, Jeehye Kim, and participants in the IR Research Workshop as well as Shin Fujihira and Ted Gilman for useful suggestions. In addition, undergraduates who were in my sections supplied me with energy, curiosity and wit, which made my teaching experience at Harvard special and fun. And finally, I’d like to thank my family. It is often joked that Ph.D stands for “Parents have doubts.” Not in my case! They believed in me and have been very supportive every stage of the journey. My twin brother Justin Ryu provided a non-expert’s perspective on my research and put things into perspective when going got tough. I hope that this dissertation can, in a small way, be regarded as a reward for their unrelenting support. Despite the generous and kind assistance from many people, all views and errors in the dissertation are mine. I dedicate the dissertation to my parents. #!! ! ! Table of Contents PART I. Introduction and Identity Distance Theory Chapter 1: Conflictual Northeast Asia, Peaceful Southeast Asia Chapter 2: Theorizing Identity and Conflict: Role and Identity Distance Theory PART II. Falling Apart: The ‘History Problem’, Identity Distance, and NEA Chapter 3: The “History Problem”, War Memories, and Widening Identity Distance Chapter 4: The Emergence of Mutual Threat Perception in Sino-Japanese Relations Chapter 5: The ‘Black Swan’? Increasing Conflict between Korea and Japan PARTIII. Hanging Together: Regional Identity, Identity Distance and SEA Chapter 6: Constructing a Regional Identity and Community in Southeast Asia Chapter 7: Regional Identity, Community Building, and Human Rights in SEA Chapter 8: Case Study: Territorial Disputes in Northeast and Southeast Asia PART IV: Conclusions Chapter 9: Taking Identity Seriously #"! ! ! ! Figures Figure 1. Total Number of Militarized Interstate Disputes in NEA and SEA 1950 – 2000 p. 5 Figure 2. Total Military Expenditure in NEA and SEA 1988 – 2010 p. 7 Figure 3. Polity IV Scores for NEA and SEA Countries, 1975-2008 p. 15 Figure 4. Determinants of Role Behavior p. 50 Figure 5. Number of Revisionist Textbooks Used in Japanese Middle Schools p. 100 Figure 6. China’s Threat Perception of Japan, 1972-2009 p. 121 Figure 7. Annual Military Expenditures of China and Japan, 1988-2010 p. 124 Figure 8. Percentage of Articles on ‘Invasion’ and ‘Economy’ as Keyword p. 135 Figure 9. Percentage of Japanese with Like Feelings Toward USA and China, 1978-2010 p. 137 Figure 10. Number of Articles on Three ‘History Issues’ in the People’s Daily 1950-2010 p. 143 Figure 11. Percentage of ‘Japanese Friends’ Articles in the People’s Daily 1972-2010 p. 144 Figure 12. Number of ‘Japanese Friends’ Articles in the People’s Daily 1972-2010 p. 144 Figure 13. Korea’s Trade Volume with Japan 1972-2010 p. 157 Figure 14. Annual Number of Korean and Japanese Visitors, 1950 – 2010 p. 157 Figure 15. Polity IV Scores for Korea and Japan 1975 – 2008 p. 159 Figure 16. Relationship Between Democracy, Identity and Conflict p. 169 Figure 17. Number of Articles in Donga Daily, 1980 – 2008 p. 172 Figure 18. Number of Articles Depicting Japan in Donga Daily 1980 – 2008 p. 173 Figure 19. Annual Number of Summit and Minister-Level Meetings in ASEAN p. 205 Figure 20. Structure of the ASEAN Community p. 207 Figure 21. Decision-Making Structure of ASEAN p. 221 Figure 22. Sense of Community in ASEAN 1967 – 2010 p. 239 Figure 23. ASEAN’s Norms, Vision, and Objectives p. 244 Figure 24. Annual Number of Articles on Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute 1972 – 2010 p. 259 Figure 25. Annual Number of Articles on Senkaku/Diaoyu Dispute 1972 – 2010 p. 259 #""! ! ! ! Figure 26. Perceived Threat Level of Neighboring Countries in East Asia p, 272 Figure 27. Importance Attached to Security Cooperate with Neighboring Countries p.