6th Annual Prague Conference on Asian Studies
November 7-8, 2014
Do Good Fences
Make Good Neighbors?
Borders and Borderlands
in the Asia Pacific
Department of Asian Studies
Centre for Indo-Pacific Studies
Metropolitan University Prague
Czech Republic
free photo from morguefile.com)
Friday, November 7, 2014
Venue:
Room 304, Metropolitan University Prague – Žižkov bulding, Prokopova 100/16, Praha 3
8:00 – 9:00 Registration and Morning Coffee
9:00 – 9:05
Welcome Address
Dr. Alica Kizekova – Head of Department of Asian Studies, MUP
9:05 – 9:15
Opening Speech
Dr. Maria Strasakova – Head of Centre for Indo-Pacific Studies, MUP
9:15 – 9:45
Keynote Speech
Dr. Alfred Gerstl – University of Vienna
9:45 – 10:00
Coffee Break
10:00 – 11:30
Panel I – Territorial Disputes in East Asia
11:30 – 13:00
Lunch
13:00 – 14:30
Panel II – Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea (Part 1)
14:30 – 14:45
Coffee Break
14:45 – 16:15
Panel III – Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea (Part 2)
18:00 – 21:00
Dinner
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Venue:
Room 1002, Metropolitan University Prague – Jarov building, Učňovská 100/1, Praha 9
8:00 – 9:00
Registration and Morning Coffee
9:00 – 10:30
Panel IV – Borders and Platforms for Cooperation –
Historical Perspectives
10:30 – 10:45
Coffee Break
10:45 – 12:15
Panel V – Individual Papers
12:30 – 14:00
Lunch
Please note that this program may be subject to change.
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
Welcome
Dear colleagues,
Welcome to the 6th Annual Prague Conference on Asian
Studies hosted by the Department of Asian Studies and the
Centre for Indo-Pacific Studies of Metropolitan University
Prague (MUP).
We are delighted by the enthusiastic response to our call
for papers and we are excited to present this program, which
showcases the complexity of issues surrounding territorial
disputes on land and sea. We note a particularly strong interest
in presenting research findings on South and East China Seas.
Countries involved in these respective disputes seem to be
unable to resolve their lingering tensions bilaterally, and thus
various multilateral solutions, through official and non-official
(track-one-and-half and track-two) diplomatic channels are needed. It is therefore fitting
that our opening keynote speaker, Dr. Alfred Gerstl, will address the topic of ASEAN’s
(Association of South East Asian Nations) “speech act” and he will outline some concrete
policies.
We want to extend our warm welcome to all delegates and we strongly welcome
participation of postgraduates, as it is our mission to facilitate discussions among
established and early career scholars, as well as doctoral students, to strengthen all levels
of academic development. This is the first time in our conference history that the Centre
for Indo-Pacific Studies will provide an opportunity to publish the research outcomes from
this event in a peer-reviewed edited monograph Prague Series in Contemporary Asian
Studies (PSCAS). The first issue will be titled “Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?”
and it is expected to be released in 2015. All participants at this conference are encouraged
to submit their chapters for consideration.
The 6th Annual Prague Conference on Asian Studies would not have been possible
without the tireless efforts of the main coordinator, the Head of Centre for Indo-Pacific
Studies, Dr. Maria Strasakova, co-workers and students from the Department of Asian
Studies. We also would like to thank our colleagues from other departments for their
organizational help and the Metropolitan University Prague for providing support and
sponsorship.
We hope that you will find conference presentations stimulating and we believe that
you will also manage to find an opportunity to explore the charming city of Prague!
Dr. Alica Kizekova
Head of Department of Asian Studies
Metropolitan University Prague
November 2014
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
1
Friday, November 7 | Keynote Speech
The South China Sea Conflict: Is ASEAN Shifting to a More
Proactive Role?
Alfred Gerstl (University of Vienna)
Despite the ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China
Sea (2002) the Association was in the last decade reluctant to actively promote a
multilateral conflict resolution for the overlapping territorial claims. The main reason
for ASEAN’s low profile in the conflict were, firstly, the lack of consensus (not least
among the four Southeast Asian claimant nations) and, second, the close economic
and political relations of certain members with China which favors a bilateral resolution.
Missing a strong diplomatic support of its fellow members, Vietnam and the Philippines
have intensified their internationalization strategy, either by engaging US, Indian or
European oil companies in exploration activities in the South China Sea or by pursuing
international legal dispute settlement mechanisms. Both countries have also further
strengthened their relations with Japan which has strategic incentives to interlink the
South China Sea with the East China Sea dispute. This internationalization, though,
threatens to further diminish the Association‘s mediation role in the conflict – and
its centrality in East Asia in general. Facing this double pressure, the ASEAN Foreign
Ministers backed Vietnam and the Philippines against China in a surprisingly strong
statement issued at a meeting in Myanmar in May 2014.
Apart from providing an overall overview of the conflict in the South China Sea, the
aim of this presentation is, firstly, to analyze whether a fundamental change in ASEAN’s
notion of the conflict and its role therein has started to occur since the failure of the
Foreign Minister Meeting in July 2012. In case of the emergence of a new approach
the second objective is to ask whether Myanmar as the current ASEAN Chair can be
regarded as one of its drivers. In the last decades it was a close Chinese ally but has
recently started to distance itself from Beijing through deepening its economic and
strategic relations with outside actors.
Utilizing the Copenhagen School’s securitization approach, the presentation will
examine the Association’s “speech act” since 1989. Through a discourse analysis of
ASEAN declarations and statements, it will review as how severe the organization
perceives the security threats associated with the dispute (“existential”, “profound”,
“severe” …) and which realms of security they affect in its view (state, individual, military,
economy, energy …). In addition, the “speech act” of the Myanmar government will be
examined in regard to the conflict and ASEAN’s role therein. Subsequently, it will be
asked if ASEAN’s possible new perception of the conflict has been accompanied by a
credible change of its concrete policies and its stance towards China in the East Asia
Summit, ASEAN plus three and the ASEAN Regional Forum.
2
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
Friday, November 7 | Panel I
Territorial Disputes in East Asia
Chair: Petra Andelova
Paper 1
The Bear Turns East:
The Kuril Islands and the Next Step in Russian Expansionism
Dylane Kissane (Center d‘Etudes Franco-American de Management)
In the wake of Russia’s interventions in Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014) many
speculated that a re-emerging Russia might next target another former Soviet state in
the Caucuses or Eastern Europe as part of a clearly expansionist strategy in Eurasia.
Little attention has been paid to Russia’s eastern border, though, and less still to the
territorial dispute that continues between Russia and Japan over the southernmost
Kuril Islands. The two largest of the four disputed islands, Iturup and Kunashir, lie
within kilometers of Japan’s second largest island, Hokkaido, and Kunashir is within
sight of Hokkaido on a clear day. The proximity to Japan, the strategic location in the
Pacific, and the potential for projecting power deeper into the Pacific make the islands a
presumptive target for Russian expansion in East Asia, but how would Russia achieve
this and what impacts might be felt, both regionally and globally, by this redrawing of
the Russo-Japanese border?
This paper begins with an outline of the Kuril Islands dispute and the problems of
establishing a border between Japan and Russia/USSR in the post-WWII period. An
outline of the changes in the borders of the USSR and Russia since 1989 follows, and
the paper posits that Russia is currently pursuing a policy of strategic expansion in
relation to its periphery and borderland regions. The paper then suggests that, instead
of further immediate expansion in Eurasia, Russia might realistically look to the disputed
Kurils and seek an expanded position in the Asia-Pacific. After suggesting three means
by which this expansion might occur – a diplomatic option, a military option, and a
combination of the two – the paper offers an assessment of the key strategic and
security issues that this new border between Russia and Japan would have for the
most important Asia-Pacific powers: the United States, Japan, the People’s Republic of
China, and Russia itself. The paper concludes with the suggestion that as long as Russia
continues to pursue a policy of expansion, this disputed Kuril Islands border deserves
the attention of both Western and Eastern security strategists.
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
3
Friday, November 7 | Panel I
Territorial Disputes in East Asia
Chair: Petra Andelova
Paper 2
The impact of Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute on Civil-Military
Relations and Security Policies of China and Japan
Laura-Anca Parepa (University of Tsukuba)
After a long period in which cooperation seems to prevail over the historical issues,
and economic interdependence seems to be more important than political disputes,
China and Japan have reached a dangerous point of their bilateral relationship. Since
both countries have changed their leadership in 2012 and 2013, we witness worrisome
trends of their interactions in which competition replaced cooperation, mutual
accusations replaced diplomatic efforts and military buildup has become an important
feature of their security policies.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the impact of the Sino-Japanese dispute
related to Senkaku/Diaoyu on the security and defense policies of both countries in
an attempt to understand how such a dispute is shaping the civil-military relations in
China and Japan.
The nationalization of the Senkaku islands by the Japanese government provided
China with the opportunity to challenge the status quo and the de facto control of
Japanese over the islands by various means and led to a dangerous dynamic of actionreaction in their defense and security policies. Against a background of a complex
situation characterized by mutual distrust, growing nationalism and refreshed collective
memory, the interactions between three main actors – political elite, military and civil
society – are changing in both countries. As a result, the role of military, which is seen in
CMR as a result of a bargaining process between these three actors, is also undergoing
significant changes. The paper will demonstrate how the territorial dispute is used by
political elite and some nationalist groups of the society to reshape established patterns
of CMR and to reevaluate the roles of military in both countries.
4
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
Friday, November 7 | Panel I
Territorial Disputes in East Asia
Chair: Petra Andelova
Paper 3
Us and Them: Constructing South Korean National Identity
through the Liancourt Rocks Dispute
David Kozisek (Metropolitan University Prague)
While looking at the most recent frequency and development of the clashes in
South China and East China Seas, the issue of the Liancourt Rocks, perhaps better
known as Dokdo or Takeshima, may have been overshadowed by other well known
bilateral conflicts, which keep both the Republic of Korea and Japan busy spewing
negative critical remarks towards one another. Nevertheless, the status quo of Dokdo/
Takeshima remains very much unchanged.
Seoul actively asserts its control over the islets inhabited by a pair of permanent
South Korean residents, not only because the islets are located in rich fishing grounds
supposedly rich in natural gas deposits. Since the unprecedented official visit by the
then-president I Myeong-bak in 2012, regular tourist trips to the location have gained
even more popularity than before. Since then Japan, has attempted to bring the case
to the International Court of Justice several times, only to be turned down by Seoul‘s
claims that there actually is no territorial dispute whatsoever.
While the economic and strategic value of the Liancourt Rocks is easily discernible
and allows for justification of some of the claims on both sides, this paper argues that
the issue has been transcended by Korean nationalists beyond a mere territorial dispute
and thus the islets have now reached a status perhaps equal to a national symbol. This
fact is very much convenient for Seoul, as Baekdusan, the traditional symbol of Korean
identity, is located in the North Korean territory which undoubtedly makes its symbolic
value utilization less viable for the South.
Demonizing Japan is seen as a potent tool capable of constructing a simple „us
and them“ dichotomy and this essentially allows Seoul to affirm its legitimacy over
the Korean peninsula as well as other disputed territories and build a stable image of a
national identity that is specifically South Korean.
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
5
Friday, November 7 | Panel I
Territorial Disputes in East Asia
Chair: Petra Andelova
Paper 4
Possibility of Asian NATO from Japanese Perspective
Shingo Masunaga (Tallinn University)
In March 2014, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe held talks with the higher reaches
of the Liberal Democratic Party to order the implementation of a new interpretation of
the constitution. On the same day, Shigeru Ishiba, the secretary general of the LDP
revealed a concept of ‘Asian NATO’ to the media, which includes the U.S., ASEAN
states, and Australia in order to contain China’s aggressions in the South China Sea.
Only a month later, the ‘Right of Collective Self-Defense’ was implemented by the Abe
regime according to the new interpretation of the constitution. As the details of the new
interpretation are still under discussion, this shall be the first step to establish an Asian
NATO.
I am quite skeptical about the involvement of all ASEAN states to Asian NATO since
some of them have historically maintained friendly relations with China, e.g. Cambodia
and Thailand. Moreover, Indonesia and Singapore may take distance from such a tacit
encirclement against China as both countries are economically relying on China. On the
other hand, candidates to Asian NATO at their strong will also exist in the region, such
as Vietnam and the Philippines. The paradigm shift in Asia’s military balance would
occur around 2020 when most of the U.S. Marines in Okinawa are expected to retreat
to Guam, and in the sense of Chuck Hagel, the scale of the U.S. Army will be shrunk to
pre-WW2 level. Less military assistance from the U.S., China’s economic growth at its
height, unipolarity or bipolarity, the future of Asia in 2020 rests on the possibility of the
establishment of an Asian NATO.
6
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
Friday, November 7 | Panel II
Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea (Part I)
Chair: Maria Strasakova
Paper 1
SCS Territorial Disputes – Litmus Test for China‘s New Foreign
Policy
Tilman Pradt (Freie Universität Berlin)
Despite several approaches during the past decades to resolve the territorial
disputes in the SCS, no substantive progresses could be reached to improve the
situation. The territorial disputes of SCS, (i.e. conflicts over islets in the Paracel and
Spratly archipelagos) are of utmost importance for the whole region: 1) The geostrategic
importance of the islands along the sea lanes (SLOCs) through which approximately
2/3 of the annual global trade pass. 2) The waters surrounding the Spratly and Paracel
Islands are considered to bear substantive amounts of natural resources (oil + gas) and
fish stock. 3) The protracted conflicts led in the past to occasional clashes between
fishermen, coast guard ships, and naval forces. This could easily result in a perceived
‚security dilemma‘.
The announced ‚US Pivot to the Asia-Pacific‘ has the potential to aggravate the
situation (again) further given: 1) more assertive stances of ASEAN claimants, 2)
additional occupations of islets in the disputed areas, and 3) a rise of the occasional
clashes between fishermen, coast guards and naval forces.
Previous attempts to ease/resolve the disputes have failed, e.g. Indonesian
Workshop series (especially in the 1990s) and joint exploration efforts (e.g., JMSU)
So far, despite China‘s reluctance to discuss the issue(s) multilaterally, the most
important steps towards a solution of the dispute(s) have been reached within the
framework of ASEAN: 1) China‘s acceptance of UNCLOS; 2) Declaration on the Conduct
of Parties in the SCS (DOC); 3) Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC).
ASEAN will be the crucial facilitator to any improvement of the territorial disputes.
Possibly in the framework of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in which besides the
ASEAN members China and the US are participants.
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
7
Friday, November 7 | Panel II
Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea (Part I)
Chair: Maria Strasakova
Paper 2
The South China Sea Conflict: Ten Thousand Stones and a NineDash Line – Rethinking Maritime Concepts
Padraig Lysaght (University of Vienna)
The ongoing situation in the South China Sea has the potential of developing
into a major conflict with huge economic and political impact and the threat of war
looming over the global community. The center of attention and nucleus of the problem
with the South China Sea are territorial claims upheld by several littoral states made
about islands, rocks, shoals and the sea(bed) itself. In the last two years the number of
incidents around the island groups of the Spratleys/Nanshaqundao and the Paracels/
Xishaqundao has sharply risen. Control not only of the scarce patches of land but
more important the resources and trading routes in their vicinity is a core issue for all
claimants – alas up to now international law and the law of the sea do not provide viable
solutions for the problems at hand.
The presentation will try to tackle one of the most commonly made arguments in
this conflict – that of “historical waters” – a concept not recognized by the law of the
sea convention or international law and take the next step in examining historic spatial
and border theory, with a strong focus on the work of Karl Schlögl accompanied by
the English School approach. In doing so, it will show the necessity to rethink modern
maritime space and border concepts, as classical frontiers are breaking up in the light of
more recent developments in both society and technology and provide some food for
thought and possible solution models for the South China Sea region.
8
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
Friday, November 7 | Panel II
Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea (Part I)
Chair: Maria Strasakova
Paper 3
The Council on Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP)
EU Committee and Preventive Diplomacy in the Asian Context
Alica Kizekova (Metropolitan University Prague)
The readmission of the CSCAP EU committee to the Council for Security Cooperation
Organization in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP) in December 2013 has demonstrated the
interest of existing member committees in exploring the possibilities of European
„know-how“ in managing regional security issues. The European Union (EU) prides
itself in having the experience in the area of preventive diplomacy. The EU has
cooperated with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the ASEAN
Regional Forum (ARF) through workshops on best practices in conflict prevention and
third party mediation. Thus, there is a great potential for CSCAP EU to complement
these track one efforts by actively engaging in the CSCAP track two mechanism and
providing concrete recommendations applicable within the Asian context.
This paper explores the viability of CSCAP EU’s role as leader in building confidence
in the domain of preventive diplomacy in the Asia Pacific in light of the already
accomplished assessments done by ARF. It argues that the greatest challenge for
CSCAP EU will be to convince the states in the Asia Pacific that the EU’s practices can
be applicable in the Asian context.
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
9
Friday, November 7 | Panel II
Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea (Part I)
Chair: Maria Strasakova
Paper 4
The Asian Supercomplex and the Internationalization of the
South China Sea Conflict – An Analysis of the Policies of the
Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia
Jorg Thiele (Univesity of Vienna)
In January 2014, the Philippine government submitted a case against China’s
territorial claims in the South China Sea to the UN’s Permanent Court of Arbitration.
Beside the legal implications of the tribunal’s judging, it challenges China’s pledge of
“peaceful rise” and the acceptance of international law and the international courts
ruling. Moreover, the actions taken by the Philippine government represents a further
act to internationalize the conflict in the South China Sea.
Internationalization in this sense means to lift a dispute from the local, to either the
regional, or global level, aiming a) to include more actors into the conflict settlement
process; b) to increase the leverage of the internationalizing country against another
country involved in the dispute; and c) is an option for weaker states to hedge against
stronger and more capable powers.
This paper tackles the question, whether or not the Philippines, Malaysia,
and Indonesia are internationalizing the conflict by analyzing the recent foreign
policy strategies towards the South China Sea dispute. For this reason, a threefold
framework was applied to analyze a) the form of internationalization; b) the degree
of internationalization; c) the effects of the internationalization. In addition to this, the
paper aims to contribute to the study of internationalization as part of the international
relations branch of academia by focusing on factors that conduce or impede the
internationalization of a conflict.
Drawn from the Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) there is certain evidence
that conflicts will be internationalized, regional or global, as the three regional security
complexes (South, Northeast, and Southeast Asia) are merging together into an Asian
Supercomplex. The paper’s result will shed new light on the analysis of one of the
world’s pivotal regions that goes beyond conventional thinking in terms of great power
politics.
10
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
Friday, November 7 | Panel III
Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea (Part II)
Chair: Alica Kizekova
Paper 1
The Spring 2014 Vietnam-China Conflict:
“Securitizing” the Conflict in Chinese Discourses
Josef Falko Loher (University of Vienna)
After China placed an oilrig within the exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical
miles in Mid-May 2015, anti-Chinese protests in Vietnam triggered street turmoil killing
dozens of people and forcing thousands of Chinese to flee the country. The conflict in
the SCS has thus seen unsettling developments which not only worsened ChineseVietnamese relations, but also added a new dimension to the already multi-faceted
South China Sea conflict: violence against Chinese citizens.
The Chinese government has ever used diverse techniques to frame the South
China Sea conflict as a threat to Chinese energy and state security. This paper asks
to what extent the Chinese government sees the recent developments in and around
Vietnam as potential threats to state security, to energy security or even to the security
of Chinese citizens. The paper scrutinizes discourses of each of different aspects of
the conflict (such as energy, territory, sovereignty, geopolitics, social unrests) and asks
whether the addition of another facet has altered or might alter China’s behavior in the
conflict. Moreover, the paper will evaluate whether one of the security discourses is
prioritized and to what extent the discourses are intertwined.
Methodologically, this paper adopts the securitization theory of the Copenhagen
school, which claims that states try to convince audience groups through “speech acts”
that a particular threat poses existential danger to a reference object. After the threat
is successfully securitized and the audience group convinced, extraordinary means
might be applied to solve the issue. This paper analyses “speech acts” by the Chinese
government through Chinese communication channels (such as Xinhua News Agency
or CNOOC) in order to find out whether and how securitization takes place.
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
11
Friday, November 7 | Panel III
Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea (Part II)
Chair: Alica Kizekova
Paper 2
Does the Deployment of the CNOOC 981 Oilrig Mean an End of
the Status Quo in the South China Sea?
Filip Kraus (National Chiao Tung University)
The paper is aiming to understand Beijing‘s strategic aims beyond the deployment
of „CNOOC 981 oilrig“ and predict its possible political consequences.
It is necessary to see the problem in a very complex way. By the temporal deployment
of drilling facilities, the PRC is not only probing the reaction of the neighboring states,
regional superpowers, and sounding the profitability of drilling in the area, but also
countering the gradual internationalization of the South China Sea dispute and building
a better position for further negotiations.
The PRC is not yet willing to endanger the status quo in the regional dispute, but
with the gradual elimination of ASEAN as a united platform, with decreasing interest
of traditional superpowers in the region, and with the international public attention
trapped in the Ukraine crisis, Beijing‘s strategic analysts may have found it seducing
to „embark on a strategy of gradually pressing its claims in the water by seeing what it
can get away with, if its much smaller neighbors will be unable or unwilling to stop“ the
PRC‘s pressure.
In this way, the paper argues that the PRC is not ready to brake the status quo and it
will depend on the reaction of Vietnam, and other countries with interests in the region,
whether the country will continue to press its claims in such an aggressive manner also
in the future.
12
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
Friday, November 7 | Panel III
Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea (Part II)
Chair: Alica Kizekova
Paper 3
Vietnam’s Strategy in the South China Sea
Maria Strasakova (Metropolitan University Prague)
Since the normalization of relations between Vietnam and the PRC in 1991, it is
possible to discern two contradicting trends in their relationship. On one hand, China and
Vietnam are expanding contacts and cooperation in many spheres (political, economic,
cultural, etc). On the other hand, both countries seem to struggle in overcoming their
territorial disputes over the Paracel and Spratly archipelagoes in the South China Sea.
Despite the fact that both countries signed an Agreement on basic principles guiding
the settlement of sea-related issues encompassing six principles of conflict resolution
in 2011, Vietnam continues to remain vigilant vis-à-vis the Chinese intentions. The
mutual relations thus continue to be strained given the PRC‘s growing assertiveness
in the region, China’s annual fishing ban, arrests of Vietnamese fishermen, as well as
differences over oil concessions in disputed waters.
Aware of the inexorability of the “tyranny of geography” and its economic
dependence on China, Vietnam has been developing a multi-tiered, multidirectional
strategy to hedge its northern neighbor encompassing not only direct engagement and
economic integration, but also hard and soft balancing. Thus, the objective of this paper
is to analyze the hedging strategy of Vietnam since 2010, with special emphasis on soft
balancing, i.e. on diversifying and multilateralizing its relations with regional as well as
external state and institutional actors –U.S., Russia, EU etc. Attention will also be paid
to the limitations of such cooperation and their consequences on relations with China.
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
13
Saturday, November 8 | Panel IV
Borders as Platforms for Cooperation – Historical Perspectives
Chair: Alica Kizekova
Paper 1
Chinese Support of Communist Insurgencies in post-WWII Asia
Stanislav Mysicka (University of Hradec Kralove)
From the establishment of the PRC in 1949 the Communist government claims
that it is consistent in its foreign policy goals and means to their achievement. The
post-WWII Chinese foreign policy is supposedly based on principles such as mutual
respect, non-intervention, respect for internal political autonomy of various regimes,
and anti-hegemonism. During the Cold War, the Chinese elites held that for the third
world countries it is necessary to stand outside both Soviet and American influence
so they could start slowly to gain strength and eventually to threaten the superpower
dominance in the international system. However, Chinese policy makers have not
always stood up to their proclaimed principles of foreign policy. In addition, they have
not always approached international problems and crises in a rational and systematic
manner.
One of the most overlooked parts of post-WWII Chinese policy is its support for
various Communist movements and insurgencies in various Asian countries. This
support was in many ways guided by Maoist political ideology, but it was in clash
with the self-proclaimed principles that should have guided Chinese relations with its
neighbours.
This presentation wants to shed more light on this interesting case of Cold War
international relations in Asia, particularly in cases of Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia,
and Indonesia. Chinese support for communist insurgencies and guerrillas had many
destabilizing effects on particular governments and until 1970s and 1980s it was one
of the main sources of mistrust between China and its Asian partners. Many Chinese
diplomatic relations with Asian nations were soured by constant Chinese open or
covert support for communist based illegal groups and armies. Therefore, it seems very
valuable to analyse Chinese involvement in anti-government fighting among Asian
nations, because it helps us to achieve more objective and historically accurate picture
of Chinese foreign policy.
14
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
Saturday, November 8 | Panel IV
Borders as Platforms for Cooperation – Historical Perspectives
Chair: Alica Kizekova
Paper 2
Sino-Vietnamese Relations During Indochina Wars:
Strategic Cooperation in the Border Areas
Jan Ico (Faculty of Arts, Charles University)
Vietnam and China have a long history of complicated issues. Since the beginning,
China has viewed its southern neighbor as an under-developed region of barbarians,
though interesting in sense of valuable goods, later as a country, which had once
belonged to it and was taken from its heritage. Even in modern times there can be no
doubt that Vietnam, as well as whole of South -East Asia, is a region of China’s special
interest. For the Vietnamese, the relation towards China has varied from anxiety and
fierce resistance to admiration and role-model. Vietnamese history is often described
as a series of struggles – and most of the time the enemy came from the north. Yet
there have been a few periods, when both nations tried to reset the situation.
Shortly after the end of the WWII, Vietnam found itself in a conflict with France,
which was trying to re-establish its former dominion over Indochina. This war was
mostly of guerilla character and as the conflict escalated, the core of the Vietnamese
army organized by Vietminh had to pull back into mountainous regions at the border
with China. At the same time, Chinese Civil War – even a longer lasting conflict
between Nationalists and Communists - was gradually coming to its end. By the end of
1949 Chinese Nationalists retreated to Taiwan and the Communists seized power over
regions of Southern China. This way Chinese Communist could directly support their
Vietnamese partners. Military supplies and other goods greatly helped the Vietnamese
and even though the war continued until 1954, Chinese support greatly influenced its
outcome. The period marked a new stimulus for Chinese and Vietnamese relations,
since they gradually became “brothers-in-arms” on the hottest battleground of Cold
War. This -very rare - cooperation went on for a few more years, over the period of
peace and even during the Vietnam-USA conflict, until Vietnamese politicians changed
their minds and decided to tighten their relations with another Communist superpower
– Soviet Union.
The paper shall look closer on the period of this unique strategic cooperation,
describe its context and analyze outcomes.
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
15
Saturday, November 8 | Panel IV
Borders as Platforms for Cooperation – Historical Perspectives
Chair: Alica Kizekova
Paper 3
The Second Emergency in Malaysia (1968-1989):
Thai-Malaysian Cooperation in a Cross Border Insurgency
Ong Weichong (S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore)
Since its independence in 1957 to the end of the Communist Party of Malaya’s
(CPM) armed struggle in 1989, the primary security concern for Malaysia has been
the twin dangers of the communist insurgency and communalism. Having identified
the primary security threat as being internally generated, the Malaysian government
focused its efforts towards defeating the CPM through a ‘comprehensive’ approach
enshrined in the national security concept known as KESBAN.
The Malaysian government, however, could never have resolved the prickly crossborder insurgency by unilateral means alone. Reminiscent of Mao’s Long March, the
CPM began a phased withdrawal of its main combat units to the jungles of Southern
Thailand in April 1952. At the outbreak of the second shooting war in 1968, the CPM had
a HQ in the Betong Salient and three regiments deployed along the Thai border areas
facing Peninsular Malaysia. Control of the Thai border areas provided the CPM with
permanent bases from which it could launch cross-border operations into Malaysia and
safe havens in which to organise, train, raise subscriptions from the local population,
purchase weapons from the Thai black market and regroup when pursued by security
forces.
In short, for the Malaysian counterinsurgent, this was a ‘long war’ that required the
assistance of its immediate neighbour across the border. Gradually, with the assistance
of their Thai military counterparts, a joint approach allowed the Malaysian security
forces to maintain military pressure on the CPM and, at the same time, open a channel
of negotiation with the CPM.
This paper demonstrates that in a cross-border insurgency such as the Second
Emergency, cross-border cooperation at all levels (tactical to strategic) does play
an instrumental role in determining the success or failure of a Counterinsurgency
campaign.
16
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
Saturday, November 8 | Panel V
Individual Papers
Chair: David Kozisek
Paper 1
Protecting Indonesia’s Borders
Dominik Cholewski (Univesity of Lodz)
The paper focuses on how Indonesia is reacting to the changing dynamics in the
South-East Asian and Pacific region, especially regarding its border and maritime
security with emphasis on the coming change of leadership. Traditionally, Indonesia
has focused much more on keeping peace and stability within its borders, as the
most pressing dangers came from quelling separatist parties and domestic terrorism.
However, with the ever-changing regional dynamic that is present in South-East Asia,
Indonesia has begun to realize its predicament when it comes to protecting its own
maritime and land borders.
When it comes to maritime security, Indonesia’s has to face both traditional threats
(incursions of foreign military vessels), and non-traditional ones (illegal fishing, piracy,
as well as drug and people trafficking). Regarding land borders, the most pressing issue
is the age-old conflict in western Papua, and its border with Papua New Guinea.
Having an ageing and ever more inferior maritime force in comparison to some of
its regional neighbors, Indonesia needs to begin to modernize and adjust to the military
threats of the 21st century. In 2013, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono announced
his initiative to implement within the Indonesian Armed Forces a Minimal Essential
Force (MEF) by the year 2024, pooling together a 9% increase in the Indonesian defense
budget to help complete the task. The essence of this initiative is to create a force that is
not only modern and able to combat today’s threats, but also balanced. Though this is a
good beginning, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s term in office is soon coming
to an end; thus, the way in which his successors approach to completing this task will
determine how effectively Indonesia will be able to protect its own borders.
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
17
Saturday, November 8 | Panel V
Individual Papers
Chair: David Kozisek
Paper 2
Defence of the Unknown Borders – Applying Aganotology in
Ferghana Valley
Martina Varkockova (Metropolitan University Prague)
Ferghana valley in Central Asia is one of the few fertile regions in the post-soviet
southern space otherwise characterized by extreme climatic conditions, shortage of
irrigation sources and lack of arable land. It is a very densely populated territory (of
approximately the size of Israel) shared between three relatively new independent
states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, the heirs of soviet nationalities policy
and soviet economic system legacies. The „unfinished“ border between these republics
which the soviet planners had never intended as an international border seemed to be
yet another burden for the new republics to struggle with.
Surprisingly, during the first years of independence the exact borders remained
unknown and unnecessary; the zigzagging lines on paper maps meant nothing in the
daily lives of families, of communities, of local traders and shepherds. It was only about
ten years after gaining the independence that for different reasons the borders started
to materialize. Much of the recent fieldwork from this area suggests that the reification
of borders in Ferghana valley leads in many cases to conflict rather than conciliation, to
alienation rather than association and the presence of checkpoints and border guards
makes inter-ethnic relations much more strained and conflict-prone.
In my paper, I draw on the study of non-knowledge (agnotology), which proposes
that lack of knowledge, in this case the lack of properly demarcated and manned border,
does not necessarily bring about negative outcomes. Even though a lack of knowledge
is generally viewed as something undesirable, as something to be eradicated,
agnotology advocates the rehabilitation of some of the known unknowns. By pointing
to the example of recent developments in Ferghana valley where the reification (the
knowledge) of borders significantly increased the conflict potentials in comparison
to the times when the border remained unknown or contested, I aim to contribute to
the current discussions concerning the borders and the notion of territorial state by
advocating potentially provocative idea of the eventuality of leaving some contested
borders unknown and...contested.
18
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
Saturday, November 8 | Panel V
Individual Papers
Chair: David Kozisek
Paper 3
Security Challenges in the Borderland Area:
China‘s Peaceful Rise on the Mekong River
Richard Grunwald (Metropolitan University Prague)
This article focuses on trans-boundary issues of the People‘s Republic of China.
There are many contemporary challenges in the South East Asia such as energy or
food security, but what about water security?
The Mekong River is the 10th world‘s longest river, on which more than 56 million
people are existentially dependent. The potential risks on the Mekong River are generally
based on various interstate conflicts like trans-boundary pollution, overexploitation of
fishery, issues of piracy, water scarcities, and potential impacts by the completion of
the Mekong Cascade and the so called “resources dilemma”. The struggle between the
People‘s Republic of China, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam over
Mekong River as sources of energy, food, transportation and geo-strategic borderline
are significant.
There is no common institution, which could effectively solve these various
interstate conflicts, except for the Mekong River Commission, which is partly trying
to find a compromise between these states, but unfortunately without China and
Myanmar nothing will change. Moreover, the management of common water resources
in South-East Asia became steadily a serious problem due to Chinese implications of
using the “Harmone doctrine”. This peculiar Chinese policy according to the “Chinese
peaceful growth” concept could be a very dangerous way how to set a new undesirable
precedent where the management of all the water resources will be legally under fullcontrol of strong states via its boundaries.
What is behind the image of Chinese peaceful growth policy? A positive effort to
bring stability and prosperity in South East territory or more likely a tactical usurpation
in order to win hearts and minds of money-lusted neighbours? One way or another
there will be sooner or later no way out to change their previous decisions against
expanding Chinese interests on the Mekong River, especially when loss of face is not
only at stake.
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
19
Biographies
Cholewski, Dominik, is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Department of East Asian Studies,
University of Lodz. An Australian native, and a graduate of the University of Queensland,
the author completed his master’s degree at the University of Lodz in 2013. His master’s
thesis was devoted to Chinese investments in Oceania between 2005-2009 and
whether or not they had changed the security dynamics within the region. Currently,
the author’s main area of interest is China’s military rise and the implications for the
security of the Indo-Pacific region.
Contact at: [email protected]
Gerstl, Alfred, MIR, Dr., is post-doc researcher at the Chair of East Asian Economy
and Society (EcoS) at the Department of East Asian Studies, University of Vienna
(Austria). He has previously lectured at this Department and those of Political Science
and Development Studies. 2007–2009 he has been Lecturer for International
Security Studies in Sydney (Macquarie University). Alfred is former editor-in-chief of
the Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies (ASEAS) and a former researcher
at Vienna‘s Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS). His research and publications focus
on regional cooperation and conflicts in Southeast Asia, ASEAN‘s centrality and the
changing notion of security, in particular human security.
Contact at: [email protected]
Grunwald, Richard, is a Ph.D. student at the Department of International Relations
and European Studies, Metropolitan University Prague. His research interests include
Trans-European comparative analysis in the context of EU enlargement process, as well
as contemporary challenges of the People‘s Republic of China.
Contact at: [email protected]
Ico, Jan, MA, Ph.D., is a researcher in the field of Vietnamese studies. He works at the
Institute of East Asia Studies at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague. He
focuses on older Vietnamese literature and Asian religions. He is one of the contributors
to the first complete history of Vietnam published in Czech Republic (Dějiny Vietnamu:
2008) and award-winning dictionary of Vietnamese literature (Slovník vietnamské
literatury: 2011).
Contact at: [email protected]
20
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
Biographies
Kissane, Dylan, earned his doctorate at the School of International Studies of the
University of South Australia in 2010. A specialist in international relations theory and
a leader in applications of complexity and chaos theory to international politics, he has
published widely on security issues and Asia-Pacific affairs in Australia and Europe.
Since 2009, he has taught international politics in Lyon, France, at both CEFAM and
the Ecole de Commerce Européenne, and since 2011 he has directed the international
MBA and a specialized graduate program at CEFAM. His most recent book is Beyond
Anarchy (Ibidem) and he will soon publish a co-edited collection on collective action in
contemporary politics.
Contact at: [email protected]
Kizekova, Alica, Ph.D. is the Head of Department of Asian Studies at the Metropolitan
University Prague. She holds an Honorary Adjunct Research Fellowship at the Center
for East-West Cultural & Economic Studies at Bond University, Queensland, Australia.
Previously she worked as a Teaching Fellow at Bond University and she was a National
contact point for the Slovak Republic in the European Union communitary programme
- IDABC (Interoperable Delivery of European eGovernment Services to public
Administrations, Businesses and Citizens). Her research interests include the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization, soft power, soft balancing, security, Russian regional politics,
China-Southeast Asian relations (ASEAN), the European Union, Track Two Diplomacy,
regionalism and great power relations in the Greater Central Asia and the Asia Pacific.
Contact at: [email protected]
Kozisek, David, is a Ph.D. student at the Department of International Relations and
European Studies at Metropolitan University Prague (MUP). David completed his
undergraduate studies at Charles University Prague, followed by a Master’s degree in
Asian Studies and International Relations at MUP. His research interests are primarily
focused on East Asia, specifically the phenomena of collective memory and national
identity and their impact on bilateral ties between Japan and the Republic of Korea. More
broadly, he is also interested in modern social history of the Sinosphere.
Contact at: [email protected]
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
21
Biographies
Kraus, Filip, is currently pursuing his Ph.D. degree in the Doctoral Program in Social
Research and Cultural Studies at National Chiao Tung University Taiwan. In his research
interests in colonial and postcolonial studies he focuses especially on former French
Indochina and the colonial legacy in contemporary Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laos
societies. His contemporary research splits to four directions: international politics and
problems in international relations of Southeast Asian states (border conflicts and their
impact on the process of the Southeast Asian integration); Vietnamese colonial literature;
nationalism and identity problems in contemporary Southeast Asia, especially in the
nations of former French Indochina and the People’s Republic of China (PRC); and last
but not the least Vietnamese diasporas living abroad – particularly in the Europe and
East Asia (Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and the PRC).
Contact at: [email protected]
Loher, Josef Falco, is a research assistant and a Ph.D. candidate at the Chair of
East Asian Economy and Society at the University of Vienna. He holds a BA degree
in Sinology and a MA degree in East Asian Economy and Society. He studies Chinese
intensively at Leiden University, the Netherlands, and Fudan University, PR China. He
spent over two years living and working in China. Mr. Loher’s research interests include
China and the South China Sea, environmental and climate change politics in East Asia,
environmental technology and Austrian companies in North and Southeast Asia as well
as state-society relations in China.
Contact at: [email protected]
Lysaght, Padraig, is currently working as Project Manager with Eurasia-Pacific Uninet,
focusing on scientific cooperation between Europe and Eastern Asia. He holds a MA in
Global Studies and Global History, a BA in Sinology and is presently concluding his PhD
Thesis concerning the history of the South China Sea, his main research focus being
Insular Studies. After having graduated from the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, he
spent one year in the Austrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, for which he continues to
work occasionally as China expert. Next to the work in the EPU he is also supporting the
Confucius-Institute Vienna.
Contact at: [email protected]
Masunaga, Shingo, is currently pursuing his Master‘s degree at Tallinn University
in Tallinn, Estonia. His scholarly interests include political philosophy, China-Japan
relations, and Geo-Economics claimed by Prof. Andrew Hurrell.
Contact at: [email protected]
22
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
Biographies
Mysicka, Stanislav, earned his doctorate in political sciences at Palacky University
in Olomouc. A present, he works as a senior lecturer at the Department of Political
Sciences, University of Hradec Králové. His scholarly interests include Chinese history,
international relations in Asia Pacific, and political philosophy in East and West.
Contact at: [email protected]
Ong, Weichong, is an Assistant Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International
Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He is attached to the Military Studies
Programme at the school’s constituent unit, the Institute of Defence and Strategic
Studies (IDSS) where he is coordinator of the Asia Pacific Programme for Senior Military
Officers (APPSMO). He is also Course Director of the Campaign and War Studies (CWS)
and Operations Other than War (OOTW) modules at the Goh Keng Swee Command and
Staff College (GKS CSC), Singapore.
Contact at: [email protected]
Parepa, Laura-Anca, is currently a research assistant and a Ph.D. candidate in
International Public Policy, University of Tsukuba (Japan). Graduated from Beijing
Language and Culture University (B.A.) and National School of Political Studies and
Public Administration, Bucharest (M.A.), she served as defense foreign liaison officer and
diplomat (Romania). Research interests: East and Central Asia, Civil-Military Relations,
PMSC, Defense Diplomacy, Security Policy, Political and Military Discourse. Recent
publications: “Challenges for Civil-Military Cooperation in Peace Support Operations:
Examining the Framework of Comprehensive Approaches” (UNU Peace and Progress,
2014), “The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Chinese Strategic Interests in
Central Asia” (Quarterly Bulletin of Third World Studies, 2014).
Contact at: [email protected]
Pradt, Tilman, Ph.D., is a graduate of political sciences at the Freie Universität Berlin.
In his doctoral thesis, he analysed China‘s New Foreign Policy in regard to China‘s
participation in regional multilateral organisations (i.e., ASEAN + SCO). During his
studies, he spent several months in Taiwan (R.O.C.) and Indonesia. He works as a
consultant for international companies in Berlin and is a supervisor and contributing
analyst at the global geopolitical consultancy Wikistrat.
Contact at: [email protected]
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
23
Biographies
Strasakova, Maria, earned her doctorate in theory and history of Asian and African
literatures, Faculty of Arts and Letters, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
She holds the post of the Head of the Centre for Indo-Pacific Studies at Metropolitan
University Prague, affiliated to the Department of Asian Studies, where she also teaches.
Her research areas include Vietnamese history, politics and culture of the 20th century
as well as current security issues in the Asia-Pacific. She has co-authored several
publications such as: “Vietnamese history” (NLN, 2008), “Dictionary of Vietnamese
Writers” (Libri, 2011) with her colleagues from the Department of Vietnamese Studies at
Charles University, and “South China Sea in International Relations” co-edited with Dr.
Petra Andelova (MUP Press, 2013).
Contact at: [email protected]
Thiele, Jorg, is a 4th semester student of the MA East Asian Economics and Society
(chaired by Prof. Rüdiger Frank) at the University of Vienna. B.A. Sociology, and B.A.
Political Science at the University of Innsbruck. Research interests: international
relations studies, especially Copenhagen School and Foreign Policy Analysis; East Asia,
especially the international and cross-Strait relations of China and Taiwan; Security
Studies, especially in Northeast, and Southeast Asia.
Contact at: [email protected]
Varkockova, Martina, is pursuing her Ph.D. in International Relations and European
Studies at Metropolitan University Prague, Czech Republic. Her thesis combines
sociological concept of status-enhancement strategies and national role conceptions on
the analysis of foreign policy of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. She is an associate research
fellow at the Institute of International Relations in Prague, Czech Republic.
Contact at: [email protected]
24
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
Key contacts
Conference coordinators:
Dr. Maria Strasakova Mgr. David Kozisek
[email protected]@mup.cz
+420 606 133 193
+420 725 058 125
Conference Venue
Friday November 7, 2014
Metropolitan University Prague
Žižkov bulding
Prokopova 100/16
130 00 Praha 3
Tachovské náměstí
1 minute walk from “Tachovské náměstí” stop
(bus 133, 175) or
3 minute walk from “Lipanská” (tram 5, 9, 26)
The conference will take place in room
no. 302 (3rd floor), refreshments will be
prepared in the attic (5th floor).
Lipanská (tram.)
Saturday November 8, 2014
Metropolitan University Prague
Jarov building
Učňovská 100/1
190 00 Praha 9
2 minute walk from “Spojovací” (bus stop
109, 177, 183, 195; tram terminus 1, 9, 11, 20)
The conference will take place in rooms
no. 1002 (10th floor), refreshments will be
prepared in no. 1102 (11th floor)
Prague public transport connection lookup link: http://spojeni.dpp.cz
Entering your nearest bus/tram stop or subway station and your destination will
provide you with the simplest and fastest connection.
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
Metropolitan University Prague Press
Dubečská 900/10
100 31 Praha 10 – Strašnice
www.mup-press.cz