Critique of Jennifer Lind's Article on Democratization and Stability in East Asia

Critique of Jennifer Lind's Article

Lind, J 2011, ‘Democratization and stability in East Asia’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 55, pp. 409-36.

In the article, ‘Democratization and stability in East Asia’, Jennifer Lind (2011) disputes scholarly predictions that future democratic transitions in China and Korea will cause instability in East Asia. She argues that domestic actors, interest groups and firms, would promote and logroll trade interdependence, thereby restraining bellicose foreign policy and advancing peace and stability, during future democratic transitions in the two countries. To support her claims, she reviews past East Asian democratic transitions in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, and finds that those transitions did not lead to regional instability because these states pursued export oriented growth, which made them economically interdependent on their neighbors and other non-East Asian countries. She therefore concludes that ‘due to regional economic integration and interdependence in East Asia, China and Korea are unlikely to pursue nationalistic, belligerent foreign policies during their expected political transitions’ (p.427). This reading has been assigned nine points out of ten due to the empirical evidence Lind provided to support the argument.

Lind (2011) provides empirical evidence to back up her argument. First, she points out that during South Koreas’ democratic transition, North Korea bombed a South Korean airliner killing all 115 passengers on board (Oberdorfer 1997, p.143), and provoked nuclear tensions on the Peninsula in 1992. These provocations could have triggered an interstate war between North and South Korea. However, South Korea did not cultivate aggressive nationalist persuasions and bellicose foreign policy in response to the North’s provocations. South Korea rather pursued ‘a benign policy aimed at improving trace relations between the two Koreas (Lind 2011, p. 415). Second, Japan and South Korea had territorial disagreement over Takeshima Island, but in furtherance of economic interdependence, the two countries shelved the territorial dispute and held their first bilateral cooperation summit in 1983, following which Japan loaned North Korea US$4b to fund its development (p. 416). This instance also demonstrates a convincing link between trade interdependence and peaceful democratic transition in East Asia. 

Third, during Taiwan’s democratic transition, China provoked Taiwan in 1995 by firing four M-9 missiles into the East China Sea in order to cow Taiwan against declaration of independence. Taiwan, however, did not respond aggressively (Lind 2011, p. 420), but rather increased trade ties with Beijing, consequently neutralizing tensions for interstate war. This is another substantive evidence of stable democratic transitions underpinned by regional trade and economic independence. Hence these empirical evidence and current regional economic interdependence further justify that future democratic transitions will unlikely cause regional instability. 

Although Lind’s (2011) analysis provides a plausible conclusion, her argument focuses on the absence of interstate wars. She does not consider the possibility of intrastate civil conflicts during future democratic transitions in China and Korea. For instance, there are separatists in China that carry on terrorist attacks, including the Kunming train massacre, which the Chinese government blames on separatists from Xinjiang, home to the Turkic-speaking Muslim ethnic Uighur minority (Wen 2014). 

During China’s democratic transition, these separatists could provoke internal conflict that might affect China’s neighbors and the region.  Such conflicts and their consequences could undermine trade interdependence, thereby leading to regional instability. It could therefore be more convincing were she to analyze such probable conflicts before concluding that future democratic transitions would not cause regional instability.

  

References

Hellmann, C 1969, Japanese foreign policy and domestic politics: The Peace Agreement with the Soviet Union, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Kang, J & Lee, H 2007, ‘The determinants of location choice of South Korean FDI in China’, Japan and the World Economy, vol. 19, pp. 441-460.

Lind, J 2011, ‘Democratization and stability in East Asia’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 55, pp. 409-36.

Oberdorfer, D 1997, The two Koreas: a contemporary history, Basic Books, New York.

Wen, P 2014, ‘Internet behind terrorism in China, including Kunming railway massacre: Xinjiang leader’, The Sydney Morning Herald (online edition), 7 March, viewed 14 April 2014,

<http://www.smh.com.au/world/internet-behind-terrorism-in-china-including-kunming-railway-massacre-xinjiang-leader-20140307-hvghi.html#ixzz2yvtqKBpw>.