Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Political Geography South Korea

91. Sisyphus

Author:
David C. Kang and Jiun Bang
Publication Date:
05-2012
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Comparative Connections
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
The most dramatic events affecting relations in early 2012 concerned North Korea. The power transition appears to be proceeding smoothly, although mixed signals give signs that a clear foreign policy has not yet been worked out by the leadership in Pyongyang. Meanwhile, relations between South Korea and Japan continued on their seemingly disconnected tracks. In economic relations and day-to-day issues, they continue to move closer together on issues from dealing with tax evasion to joint disaster relief planning. Yet, territorial claims or claims about history are a constant irritant that threaten to derail relations at any time. Both sides seemingly wanted relations to worsen by picking fights over Dokdo/Takshima and making claims about history. One could dismiss the squabbling as peripheral to the main relationship, but these disputes hinder coordination and planning over important issues, divert diplomatic attention, and remain salient for domestic politics of both sides.
Topic:
Foreign Policy
Political Geography:
South Korea, North Korea, and Pyongyang

92. Reluctant India, Rising China and Alliance Politics in the Asia-Pacific

Author:
Yogesh Joshi
Publication Date:
04-2012
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
US President Barack Obama used his 2012 State of the Union speech to explain that evolving geopolitical realities continue to make the United States indispensable in global politics. In the Asia-Pacific this indispensability emanates, in part, from the waves caused by the rise of China. Consequently, demands for an increased US presence echo around the region. In response, the United States has renewed its commitments to Japan, South Korea and Australia, stepped up its relations with Southeast Asia, and reasserted itself as an important player in multilateral institutions including the East Asia Summit, APEC, and ASEAN. Clearly, in the 21st century, US strategic focus has shifted from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, International Security, and Power Politics
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, India, South Korea, Australia, and Southeast Asia

93. Rising South Korea: A Minor Player or a Regional Power?

Author:
David Shim and Patrick Flamm
Publication Date:
07-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Global and Area Studies
Abstract:
South Korea’s rising status in regional and global affairs has received much attention in recent years. But in academic, media and policy debates South Korea is usually regarded as a mere middle power that, due to its geopolitical situation, has only limited leeway in its foreign policy. Accordingly, it must constantly maneuver between its larger neighbors: China, Japan and Russia. However, this perspective neglects the fact that the same geopolitical constraint also applies to other states in the region. No country can easily project its power over others. We use the concept of “regional power” as a template to discuss South Korea’s rising stature in regional and global politics. We argue that Seoul seems quite capable of keeping up with other assumed regional powers. Hence, we not only provide a novel account of South Korea’s foreign policy options but also go beyond current approaches by asking about the (undetermined) possibilities for Seoul’s regional relations.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, and Power Politics
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, China, Israel, and South Korea

94. South Korean National Identity and its Strategic Preferences

Author:
Andrew Kim
Publication Date:
04-2012
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
Natural disasters are known to draw nations closer together. The 2004 tsunami relief efforts of various states, especially the United States, were widely credited with improving relations with Indonesia. An outpouring of sympathy and, especially, a major assistance program, elicited public gratitude at a time of great need. Yet, heightened sensitivity in the aftermath of a tragic disaster holds the potential for negative sentiments as well. Readiness to believe that other nations regard the disaster as fitting punishment can translate into exaggerated reactions, especially in this age of Internet postings and blogs. In 2008, China suffered a major earthquake. In 2011, Japan experienced an earthquake, tsunami and nuclear reactor leakages. South Korea is located between these two states, and the way its response to these devastating events were interpreted by its neighbors opens a window into its dynamic national identity and how such developments shape its strategic outlook.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Natural Disasters, and Identity
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, and South Korea

95. Asia at a Tipping Point: Korea, The Rise of China, and the Impact of Leadership Transitions

Author:
Gilbert Rozman
Publication Date:
06-2012
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 (KEI) invited leading Korea and Asia scholars and experts from around the world for its annual academic symposium. Each year, KEI partnered with a leading university in the United States and organized a three-day conference covering Korea’s economy, politics, foreign affairs, and regional affairs. The event was held at a university campus and was open to the local academic community to participate in this world-class Korea conference. Starting in 2012, KEI embarked on a new initiative to reenergize this series and partner with the Association of Asian Studies (AAS) to incorporate the symposium within 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 our Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies series. A new addition to our endeavor is the involvement of Dr. Gilbert Rozman, the Musgrave Professor of Sociology at Princeton University, who worked tirelessly as the Editor-in-Chief for this Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies volume and consulted with us on forming the most reputable conference panels for this new initiative. His involvement not only raised the profile of this academic symposium series, but also heightened the quality and rigor of the volume for our subscribers’ benefit. This year’s volume is particularly rich with the dramatic leadership transitions within the Asia-Pacific region, the growing uncertainty of North Korea’s future, and the growing influence of China and South Korea globally. This year’s presenters covered a breadth of issues ranging from the political and security dynamics around the Korean peninsula and in Northeast Asia to increasingly contentious national identity and migration issues to the future of Asia-Pacific economic integration. Scholars from the U.S., South Korea, Japan, and China all contributed to this compilation. I trust you will not be disappointed by the scholarship and insights of these chapters.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Economics, and Domestic Politics
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, Korea, and United States of America

96. South Korea in the Chinese Political Imagination

Author:
Sook-Jong Lee
Publication Date:
03-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
States form images of each other based on assessments of each other’s material capabilities or on interpretations of each other’s intentions. Images matter in the foreign policy making process since they form popular public opinion on official policies and, in more basic ways, construct people’s identity toward other countries. Some images are more transient and therefore manageable. Remarks by foreign leaders, official documents, or media coverage tend to belong to this category. States try to make their images favorable in the minds of a foreign audience through their public diplomacy efforts. On the other hand, some images are more fundamental and hard to change, so that foreign policies are pressed to operate within their perimeter. Political ideology, religious orientation, and accumulated bilateral historical experiences tend to form these more durable images. Today’s globalized world has witnessed the rise of the Internet as an important medium constructing popular images of a foreign country. As mass communication across countries becomes more open and instant, foreign policy makers face the increasing challenge of controlling information flows and separating foreign policy agendas from domestic interests. Citizens with less direct contact are more prone to embracing popular images mediated by mass media. Elites, in contrast, who have more direct contact and knowledge, tend to have more rationally interpreted images of foreign countries. Formerly, elites used to monopolize foreign policy inputs. In the porous world of today, however, it is difficult for elites to resist and persuade popular opinion, which is more emotionally driven. This challenge is felt in China, where the leadership is sometimes at odds with irrational populism. In this respect, it is important to understand Chinese images of South Korea. How do elites and ordinary citizens of China hold South Korea in their political imagination? What are the implications of Chinese images of Korea for Seoul’s China policy?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Globalization, Regional Cooperation, and Populism
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and South Korea

97. Blame Game under Fire: Parsing South Korean Debate on North Korea Policy

Author:
Dong Sun Lee
Publication Date:
07-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
In late 2009, a North Korean warship attacked South Korean naval vessels near Daecheong Island. The following year witnessed a further elevation of North Korean aggression expressed in attacks on the South Korean corvette Cheonan and Yeonpyeong Island. These shocking developments have sparked a heated debate in the South, inter alia, on whether and how Seoul’s North Korea policy has increased Pyongyang’s belligerence. This paper aims to critically evaluate key arguments pervading the debate and offer an alternative perspective. (I limit my scope to examining how Seoul’s policy has affected Pyongyang’s recent aggressiveness, instead of offering a more comprehensive account of the provocations or a theory of North Korean behavior.) I argue that all conventional wisdom (which either denies the significance of North Korea policy or views the level of engagement as mainly shaping Pyongyang’s behavior) has only weak empirical support, but remains salient because it serves parochial political interests in the partisan blame game. In reality, Seoul’s policy toward Pyongyang has significantly amplified North Korean belligerence primarily because it has been partisan in nature—not because inter-Korean engagement has been excessive or insufficient. Resolving this problem requires promoting post-partisanship, to which independent scholars and institutions can contribute significantly.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

98. From Preponderance of Power to Balance of Power? South Korea in Search of a New North Korea Policy

Author:
Jihwan Hwang
Publication Date:
12-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
The global and East Asian orders of power are now represented by China's economic, military, and diplomatic rise and America's decline. The result is often called Chimerica or G2, leading to U.S.-China competition in every aspect of the international agenda. After the Bush administration's foreign policy in the first years of the millennium, when many scholars and policy makers focused on U.S. unipolarity or at least its preponderance of power after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the current state of affairs is a great change. While U.S.-China relations represent a set of the most important variables in world politics, the meaning of China’s rise is much greater in the East Asian regional order. The Korean Peninsula, of course, cannot escape from the influence of its neighbors. Although the world order of the 1990s saw the unprecedented economic prosperity and overwhelming military power of the United States, the recent order has been characterized by the relative decline of the United States and the fast and strong rise of China. The Chinese economy has grown more than 10 percent per year for the last thirty years and is now the world's second-largest economy. Although the Chinese GDP is still only one-third that of the United States, as TABLE 1 shows, it is not at all unheard of to say that China may economically catch up with the superpower by 2030. Moreover, China's trade with Northeast Asian countries is much larger than that of the United States. As TABLE 2 shows, China's exports and imports with South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are almost twice as large when compared with those of the United States. Given America's economic recession and China's incessant growth, the gap between the two is likely to get much larger. China's increasing economic interdependence with regional powers will have a great effect on the changing balance of power in the region, and will have a much greater effect on the Korean Peninsula. On the other hand, China has also made every effort to build up its military capability. Supported by its strong economic growth, Chinese military spending has been hugely increased, more than 10 percent per year on average. China spent 40 billion U.S. dollars in 2001, but it spent 119 billion in 2010, an increase of almost three times in ten years. TABLE 3 indicates that Chinese military spending is still less than one sixth compared to the American figure, but one must recognize that while the United States plans to cut its military spending in the next decade due to its budget deficit, China is certain to keep increasing its, unless its economy falls into deep trouble in the near future.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, Military Strategy, and GDP
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

99. Korean Futures: Challenges to U.S. Diplomacy of North Korean Regime Collapse

Author:
James J. Przystup and Ferial Ara Saeed
Publication Date:
09-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
There is no shortage of plausible scenarios describing North Korean regime collapse or how the United States and North Korea's neighbors might respond to such a challenge. Yet comparatively little attention has been paid to the strategic considerations that may shape the responses of the United States, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Japan, China, and Russia to a North Korean crisis. These states are most likely to take action of some kind in the event the North Korean regime collapses. For the ROK (South Korea), North Korean regime collapse presents the opportunity for Korean reunification. For the other states, the outcome in North Korea will affect their influence on the peninsula and their relative weight in Asia. This study identifies the interests and objectives of these principal state actors with respect to the Korean Peninsula. Applying their interests and objectives to a generic scenario of North Korean regime collapse, the study considers possible policies that the principal state actors might use to cope with such a crisis.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Communism, Diplomacy, and Regime Change
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Israel, South Korea, and North Korea

100. Debunking Chinese Thinking on a Peace Agreement and Peace Regime for the Korean Peninsula

Author:
Jaewoo Choo
Publication Date:
07-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
At least for the time being, China’s foreign policy goals are focused on the preservation of the status quo in its peripheries, including the Korean Peninsula. China sees its long absence of war or military conflict as evidence of the well-preserved peace and stability of its security environment. Conversely, it conceives that this status quo has been conducive to achieving its foremost national goal, economic modernization. It continues to strive to improve its security environment within the equilibrium. There seems to be one growing exception, however, in the case of the Korean Peninsula, however. China’s support for the replacement of the Korean War Armistice with a peace agreement and a peace regime is in stark contrast to its status quo policy. Given China’s long advocacy as a peace-loving nation, it seems only logical that putting an end to Korea’s current technically-at-war status would make sense. Beijing has its own reasoning and logic behind its supportive call for a new peace arrangement on the peninsula. A confrontational international structure around the peninsula, for instance, can only be overcome by a peace agreement, a precondition necessitated by the Armistice. Hence, a peace agreement before normalization of this structure is perceived to be path-dependent. However, serious challenges arise if a call for a peace agreement and regime is put forth without much thinking regarding the strategic implications. Chinese scholars and experts tend to overlook this factor in their appraisal. On the surface, theirs is a just and righteous call that a peace agreement must replace the Armistice. It is critical to the installment of “perpetual peace” on the peninsula. It is also logical that such peace can be guaranteed by forging a peace regime, an assurance mechanism that will supplement the “peace” endowed by the agreement. If Chinese claims are correct, why are they not embraced by others? There must be something wrong in what the Chinese widely believe. Although their analysis of the imperatives for a peace agreement and regime is undeniable, as we shall see, their call for a peace agreement and regime still remains contradictory to the status quo orientation of their mother country’s foreign policy. Moreover, their work seems to lack insight regarding the strategic and structural implications of the full implementation of such a peace arrangement. Furthermore, Chinese pundits must define the meaning of a new peace in a more articulated way in the context of a new regional order to effectively defend their nation’s support for a peace agreement and regime.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Political stability, and Peace
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea