Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Political Geography Korea

11. China’s economic ‘miracle’ in context

Author:
Derek Scissors
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Abstract:
Contrasting China at various stages of reform to Japan and Korea at analogous stages shows China as less successful. The payoff is personal income, where China’s growth in local currency terms is similar to Japan’s. But it is slower than Korea’s, and, in comparable dollar terms, China is far behind Korea and Japan 40 years into the respective “miracles.” In evaluating key contributors to income gains—agricultural productivity, labor quantity and quality, leveraging, and innovation—China failed to extend education in the first 25 years of reform. A recent failure is the explosion in leveraging in the past decade. Other indicators of success roughly match Japan but trail Korea. China’s size makes it important even with less development success. For example, Chinese research and development spending affects the world while being inadequate to offset aging and indebtedness. When projecting economic size, though, trend extension is misleading. Korea and Japan illuminate how innovation and other factors will alter China’s trajectory.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Economics, and Reform
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, and Korea

12. The Candlelight Mandate & Moon Jae-in’s Inter-Korean Dilemma

Author:
John Delury
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
The question of the proper relationship between domestic sentiment and foreign policy is a vexed one. Historically, statesmen and strategists have tended to distrust or disparage the role of the demos in the elite enterprise of foreign affairs. In the immortal words of the then vice president Richard Nixon: “If we indulge in the kind of thinking which assumes that foreign policy decisions should be made on the basis of public opinion polls we might as well decide now to surrender our position of world leadership to the communists.” Yet from even the most condescending foreign policy establishment perch, it is hard to dispute the significance of securing public support for key foreign policy moves. Nixon as president was fully aware of this, carefully stage-managing his most dramatic maneuver, the visit to China in February 1972, in a way that would maximize support back home. And of course, Nixon’s loss of public trust over the Watergate scandal brought about the abrupt end of his influence on everything, including foreign affairs. Nixon’s impeachment, after years of public opposition to the war in Vietnam, strengthened the view in the United States that unsupervised elites were in fact the worst possible stewards of the instruments of national power, and that popular, democratic checks were critical ingredients in wise and prudent foreign policy. Once the public is accorded a decisive role in foreign affairs deliberation, we have to grapple with the problem of determining what “the public” thinks in the first place. Who represents “the public”? How can we assert “it” thinks one way or another? What do we mean by expressions such as “the public seems to have changed its mind”? French theorist Pierre Bourdieu, for example, challenged the validity of statistical representations of “public opinion” based on polling data. Bourdieu argues that public opinion so constructed is an “artefact” of the pollsters, rather than a reflection of an actual thing in the world. Polling data creates a false sense of certainty about public preferences—the illusion of a static and knowable thing, “the public,” where one does not exist. Despite the epistemological limitations and political biases embedded in the art of polling, public sentiment must be brought into the equation of foreign policy analysis. Particularly in a South Korean context, given the highly participatory nature of political culture, it would be foolish to adopt an elitist premise that the public factor can be ignored. South Korean president Moon Jae-in, for one, emphasizes the critical importance of democratic legitimacy and public input in all aspects of governance, including foreign policy.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, History, Governance, and Public Policy
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North Korea, and Korea

13. A Way Out of the North Korean Labyrinth

Author:
Stephen Blank
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
The sudden announcement of a North Korea-U.S. summit in March 2018 upended all previous diplomacy concerning North Korea’s nuclear program. In return for a bilateral presidential summit, Pyongyang has agreed to suspend testing of its nuclear and missile programs and accepted the continuation of scheduled U.S.-South Korea exercises as planned. While this unexpected development reduces tensions and opens up a political path to a solution on the Korean Peninsula, it also imparts increased urgency for a well-conceived U.S. diplomatic strategy so that the summit and any ensuing negotiations lead to positive outcomes for Washington and Seoul and the other interested parties, thus ensuring its sustainability. In this context, the author advances an assessment of the current situation and a proposal for a U.S. program that could reduce military tensions in and around Korea, lead to the stabilization of a new and legitimate equilibrium in Northeast Asia, and advance shared American, South Korean, and Japanese objectives.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Weapons, and Denuclearization
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, Korea, and United States of America

14. Chinese Views of Korean History to the Late 19th Century

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
In the tradition of imperial China and communism, Chinese publications see history as a morality tale. In the case of Korean history to the late decades of the nineteenth century there are essentially three actors: virtuous China, evil Japan, and variable Korea. There are three critical periods which receive the bulk of attention: the 7th century, the late 16th century trailing into the 17th century change of dynasty in China, and the last decades of the 19th century. The narrative advances the notion of competing visions of regional order, contrasting Chinese and Japanese frameworks and examining Korean policies in light of the choices made between these options. Official Chinese narratives couch today’s opportunities in historical context. A battle rages between socialism and capitalism, offering China a unique prospect to tip the balance. This is not only a present-day challenge; it is a struggle over consciousness of history—a campaign against “historical nihilism” that disagrees with orthodoxy in support of communist party legitimacy and the rectitude of Chinese civilization. A speech given by Xi Jinping in July 2010 at the Central Party School and only recently made available leaves no doubt about the tight censorship imposed on publications about history. South Korea’s history is especially sensitive as the poster-child for the benevolence of the imperial Chinese regional order, the battleground for the key war fought by China to maintain its surroundings against capitalist encroachment, and a chief testing grounds for the rejuvenation of China against U.S. hegemonism and Western civilization. Premodern history is an inseparable part of this agenda.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Imperialism, History, and Narrative
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and Korea

15. Chinese Views of Korean History

Author:
KEI
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
The way Chinese officials and writers view the history of Korea—from ancient times to the post- Cold War developments in South Korea—matters for at least three reasons. It is a commentary on Chinese national identity since Korea bears importantly on multiple dimensions of how that identity has recently been constructed. It is likewise a window on how Chinese view the order they seek to forge in East Asia, linking it to the earlier Sinocentric order. Finally, Chinese views of Korea’s history offer valuable insight into China’s vision of the future of the Korean Peninsula and its relationship to China. It is commonplace to regard historical narrative as a lens on views of the present and plans for future policies, but this is even more the case for a country with the tradition of Confucian historiography with its extraordinary stress on correct thinking about the past, and communist historiography redolent with socialist realism insistent on a zero-sum understanding of the past. We read in Chinese historical writings on Korea a morality tale with undoubted relevance to how China constructs both its identity and its international relations. The Korean Peninsula has significance for Chinese national identity beyond that of any foreign country except Russia and the United States with the possible exception of Japan. It is where ideology was honed as China sent the PLA to prevent the fall of North Korea after Mao had given his blessing along with Stalin to the North’s attack on the South. As ideology has grown again in importance, the significance of North Korea’s socialist pedigree and shared origins in the crucible of revolution against imperialism has risen. In the historical dimension of national identity, China’s leaders in the 1990s weighed allowing candor about the origins of the Korean War at a time when de-ideologization was fitfully taking place and there was no established narrative on history. Some saw sensitivity to North Korean reactions as the key to why China did not go further, but the resistance inside China proved more tenacious than they assumed. Historical purity toward Japan intensified apart from a short-lived interval with “new thinking” in 2003. With South Korea on the frontlines in China’s quest for demonization of Japan over history, its own history became a test case for the national identity gap between it and China. The history of Korea is so interwoven with that of China and it can reveal much about recent views.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Cold War, History, and Identity
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and Korea

16. Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies 2016 - Full Publication

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
10-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
Since our founding in 1982, the work of the Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI) has progressed to reflect the evolving nature of United States-Republic of Korea relations. Though many of the issues on which we seek to raise public discourse have transformed over the years, the same natural convergence of values continues to underpin the understanding and trust between our two peoples. Upholding our commitment to positive change based on a strong foundation of shared interests, KEI was excited to have a new partner in 2016 for our Academic Symposium, through which we strive to be a bridge between the academic and policy communities. This year, KEI traveled to Atlanta, Georgia to host part of our Academic Symposium at the International Studies Association (ISA) conference. The annual conference features international affairs scholars from around the world with a wide range of research interests and regional specializations to present papers and discussions on contemporary issues in their fields. We were pleased to contribute two panels on recent significant developments in Northeast Asia. Moreover, for the first time as part of our Academic Symposium, two panels were held in our Washington, D.C. office along with the two in Atlanta. Although the setting for this year’s Academic Symposium may have changed, KEI again turned to the skills and insights of Dr. Gilbert Rozman, the emeritus Musgrave Professor of Sociology at Princeton University, to serve as the Editor-in-Chief for this Joint U.S.- Korea Academic Studies volume and as an advisor to KEI’s programs at the ISA conference. This collaboration has once more brought together an excellent group of scholars and practitioners. The experts in this volume have thoughtfully addressed large, challenging themes that are pervasive throughout Asia and important for the U.S.-Korea alliance. China’s rise has garnered much attention, yet in the academic literature Beijing’s security intentions in Northeast Asia have tended to be overshadowed, a topic addressed in the first section. Major developments in South Korea-Japan relations over the past year, particularly the December 2015 agreement to address the “comfort women” issue, have led the authors in the second section to explore how the interaction with the other country factors into the national identity of each. Over the past year we have witnessed an increase in provocations by North Korea, met with increasingly punitive measures from the international community targeting its access to outside markets. Key to understanding how effective these efforts can be are the economic relationships the DPRK has with its neighbors, discussed in the third section. The final section looks to how the regional economic architecture in East Asia might be shaped in the future, a particularly timely discussion as the fate of the Trans- Pacific Partnership remains uncertain as this volume goes to print.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Economics, and Politics
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North Korea, Korea, and United States of America

17. Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies 2015 - Full Publication

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
02-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
At the Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI), we take pride in being able to connect people and ideas. In a globalized, networked world, connections are made constantly. It is often the ability to sustain those contacts, then collaborate and develop products or programs that makes meetings worthwhile. For KEI, one of our goals is to be a bridge between the academic community and the policy community. We want to be as an organization where information and ideas flow back and forth between the two sides. A main way we accomplish this goal is through our Academic Symposium. This year, KEI traveled back to my home state of Illinois for our annual Academic Symposium in conjunction with the Association for Asian Studies (AAS) conference. More and more, in a globalized, interconnected world, conversations about the importance of Korea and Asia are no longer just bridged between in Washington, DC and Seoul or any other foreign capital. Now various cities, states, and even Congressional districts can no longer ignore the trends in a rising Asia. Each year at our Academic Symposium, KEI tries to focus on key developments that are important for all of us to better understand. KEI again turned to the skills and insights of Dr. Gilbert Rozman, the emeritus Musgrave Professor of Sociology at Princeton University, to serve as the Editor-in-Chief for this Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies volume and as an advisor to KEI’s efforts with the AAS conference. This collaboration has once more brought together an excellent group of scholars and practitioners for this project. Both at the conference and in this volume, these experts have intelligently addressed large, challenging themes that are pervasive throughout Asia and important for the U.S.-Korea alliance. A major issue is how countries in Asia address their relationships with China and the United States. Often, China is the main economic partner for these countries while the U.S. provides the security and stability they need to thrive in a competitive Asia region. Another challenge is with North Korea creating more instability, causing the militaries in the region to make new calculations about North Korea’s capabilities and its capacity to create tensions that could quickly escalate into dangerous conflicts. Yet, even with the troubles North Korea provides at the nation-state level, we also wanted to better understand the growing implications for policy from the lives of the individual people living and interacting on the Korean peninsula and across the DMZ. This volume also discusses Korea’s and Japan’s development assistance efforts in Southeast Asia, which still raise questions about the ability for East Asian interaction and progressing in a way that benefits the countries themselves and the whole Asia region in a positive way. The connection between the academic and policy communities through the distribution of information about key issues in Asia permeates through this volume. Whether our connection with you is new or continuing, we hope you enjoy the 26th edition of the Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies volume and the excellent work inside.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, and Politics
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, China, South Korea, North Korea, Korea, and United States of America

18. North Korea's Strategic Goals and Policy towards the United States and South Korea

Author:
Sue Mi Terry
Publication Date:
02-2014
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Journal of Korean Studies
Institution:
International Council on Korean Studies
Abstract:
Pyongyang under the Kim dynasty has pursued three broad and consistent strategic goals: (1) The pursuit of nuclear weapons program in order to gain international acceptance of the North as a bona fide nuclear weapons state; (2) securing a peace treaty in an effort to remove U.S. forces from the Korean Peninsula; and, (3) reunification with South Korea on its own terms—the ultimate if increasingly unrealistic objective. To achieve these goals, the North has followed a policy of brinksmanship with the U.S. and South Korea: provoke when Washington or Seoul seem preoccupied, up the ante in the face of international condemnation, and pivot back to a peace offensive, which usually ends with some form of dialogue and negotiation, culminating, finally, in concessions for the North. This article reviews in detail how such policies have been pursued by Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, and Kim Jong-un. It shows that, while there have been changes in North Korean policy, they have been primarily tactical not strategic—the North has changed how it pursues its goals (sometimes using military forces, at other times covert actions, or even negotiations), but it has remained consistent in its objectives. Not even the regime's literal bankruptcy has convinced the regime to change course, and for good reason: such brinkmanship tactics have paid off for the North by making possible the regime's survival for more than sixty years. Kim Jong-un, accordingly, has continued this strategy. This article ends by suggesting how the U.S. and South Korea should deal with the North's militaristic foreign policy. In brief, the two allies need to break the cycle of provocation by making clear they will no longer reward North Korea's destabilizing behavior while pursuing a longer-term goal of their own.
Topic:
Foreign Policy
Political Geography:
United States, Washington, South Korea, North Korea, Korea, and Sinai Peninsula

19. Asia's Uncertain Future: Korea, China's Aggressiveness, and New Leadership - Full Issue

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
09-2013
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
For over twenty years, the Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI) invited leading Korea and Asia scholars and experts from around the world to its annual academic symposium. Starting in 2012, KEI embarked on a new initiative to revamp this series by partnering with the Association of Asian Studies (AAS) to incorporate the symposium into the AAS annual conference. To this end, KEI organized four conference panels, advertised KEI’s outreach work to over 3,000 conference participants at AAS, and raised the profile of the Institute on a global stage. As before, KEI edited, compiled and published the research papers presented by the distinguished speakers at the symposium as part of its Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies series. Part of this new endeavor is the involvement of Dr. Gilbert Rozman, the Musgrave Professor of Sociology at Princeton University. As the Editor-in-Chief for this Joint U.S.- Korea Academic Studies volume, his knowledge and work with the authors is visible throughout this publication. Dr. Rozman also helped KEI organize four timely and topical panels at the AAS conference. His involvement is part of KEI’s constant effort to bring our subscribers high quality and informative resources on issues impacting the U.S.-Republic of Korea relationship. The events and actions in Northeast Asia continue to have important implications for the future of the region. Many of these interactions have both bilateral and multilateral effects, which our authors examine in four themes. The rise of the Asia-Pacific region is characterized by both an increase in cooperation and competition among countries, and our experts look at this dynamic through key bilateral relationships. Moreover, economics has been a vital driver of cooperation in Asia, and this volume examines this continuing trend with the development of the China-Japan-Korea trilateral relationship and the possibility of a free trade agreement among the three countries. We have a section that further analyzes the national identity aspects of the U.S.-China relationship and how national identity issues are often at the core of how other countries view themselves in the region compared to that huge bilateral relationship. Lastly, one section looks at the ever-looming question of reunification on the Korean Peninsula. As you can see, all of these are important areas for understanding and succeeding in an Asia-Pacific century.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Economics, Politics, Bilateral Relations, and Leadership
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, Korea, and United States of America

20. Korea–European Union relations: beyond the FTA?

Author:
Robert Kelly
Publication Date:
01-2012
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Relations of the Asia-Pacific
Institution:
Japan Association of International Relations
Abstract:
In 2009, Korea and the European Union (EU) signed a free trade agreement. Using a traditional list of state goals in foreign policy–national security, economic growth, prestige-seeking, and values-promotion–I examine the prospects for cooperation and integration in the future. I find that deeper engagement is unlikely. Most importantly, neither side is relevant to the basic security issues of the other. Specifically, the EU cannot assist Korea in its acute security dilemma, and 'sovereigntist' Korea does not share EU preferences for soft power, regionalization, and multilateral collective security. However, Korea is likely to pursue the relationship for cost-free prestige-taking. And the EU will under-stand this 'Asian bridge'as a success for the promotion of liberal-democratic values in a non-European context. Pro-regionalist elites, most notably the 'eureaucracy', may pursue 'inter-regional'ties for internal institutional reasons, but deep Korean attachment to the Westphalian state model will likely stymie such efforts.
Topic:
Foreign Policy
Political Geography:
Europe and Korea