Diplomatic-Pragmatic Korea and Northeast Asia
The de-escalation of tensions among Japan and South Korea in 2020 has brought the focus back to economic cooperation. Even though the dispute over travel restrictions has been denied by the government bilateral economic initiatives have remained or expanded.
Brown (2013) was the first to identify the resistance to pragmatics of L2 Korean learners. His research found that a myriad of factors such as personal beliefs and identity can influence a learner's pragmatic decisions.
The role of pragmatism in South Korea's foreign policy
In a period of flux and change South Korea's Foreign Policy has to be bold and clear. It should be able to stand by its principles and pursue global public goods, like sustainable development, climate change, and maritime security. It must be able to demonstrate its influence globally by delivering tangible benefits. It must, however, do so without compromising the stability of its economy.
This is a challenging task. Domestic politics are a major obstacle to South Korea's foreign policy and it is essential that the leadership of the president manage these constraints domestically in ways that boost confidence in the direction of the nation and accountability of foreign policy. It is not an easy job, as the structures that support the development of foreign policy are diverse and complex. This article focuses on the challenges of overcoming these constraints domestically to develop a cohesive foreign policy.
The current government's emphasis on pragmatic cooperation with like-minded allies and partners is likely to be a positive step for South Korea. This approach can help counter progressive attacks against GPS' values-based foundation and allow Seoul to engage with nondemocracies. It will also strengthen Seoul's relationship with the United States, which remains an indispensable partner in advancing the liberal democratic world order.
Another issue facing Seoul is to revamp its complex relationship with China, the country's largest trading partner. While the Yoon administration has made strides in establishing multilateral security structures, such as the Quad but it must weigh these commitments against its need to keep relations with Beijing.
Long-time observers of Korean politics point to ideology and regionalism as the main drivers of political debate, younger voters are less influenced by this perspective. This generation is more diverse views of the world, and its values and worldview are evolving. This is reflected in the recent growth of K-pop, as well as the increasing global appeal of its cultural exports. It is too early to tell if these trends will impact the future of South Korea's foreign policy. It is worth keeping an eye on them.
South Korea's diplomatic and pragmatic approach to North Korea
South Korea faces a delicate balance between the need to confront rogue state threats and the desire to avoid being entangled into power games among its major neighbors. It also has to take into account the trade-offs between interests and values particularly when it comes down to supporting human rights activists and interacting with non-democratic governments. In this regard, the Yoon government's diplomatic-pragmatic approach to North Korea is an important contrast to previous governments.
As one of the most active pivotal states, South Korea must strive for multilateral engagement as a way of positioning itself within a regional and global security network. In its first two-year tenure, the Yoon Administration has actively boosted bilateral ties and has increased participation in minilaterals and multilateral forums. These initiatives include the first Korea-Pacific Islands Summit and the second Asia-Pacific Summit for Democracy.
These efforts may seem like small steps, but they have positioned Seoul to make use of its new partnerships to spread its opinions on regional and global issues. The 2023 Summit for Democracy, for instance, highlighted the importance and necessity of a democratic reform and practice to address challenges such as corruption, digital transformation and transparency. The summit announced $100 million in development cooperation projects to support democracy, including anti-corruption as well as electronic governance efforts.
The Yoon government has also actively engaging with organizations and countries that share the same values and priorites to support its vision of the creation of a global security network. These include the United States, Japan, China, the European Union, ASEAN members, and Pacific Island nations. Progressives may have criticized these actions as lacking values and pragmatism, however they can help South Korea develop a more robust toolkit for dealing with countries that are in a state of rogue, like North Korea.
However, GPS' emphasis on values could put Seoul in a precarious position when faced with the dilemma of balancing values and interests. For instance the government's sensitivity to human rights advocacy and its reluctance to deport North Korean refugees who have been accused of committing crimes could cause it to prioritize policies that are not democratic in the home. This is especially true when the government has to deal with similar circumstances to Kwon Pyong, a Chinese activist who sought asylum in South Korea.
South Korea's trilateral partnership with Japan
In the midst of global uncertainty and a volatile global economy, trilateral cooperation between South Korea and Japan is a bright spot in Northeast Asia. While the three countries share a common security concern with North Korea's nuclear threat they also share a strong economic stake in establishing secure and safe supply chains and expanding trade opportunities. The three countries' resumption in their highest-level meeting each year is a clear signal that they are looking to push for more economic integration and cooperation.
However the future of their relationship will be tested by a variety of factors. The most pressing is the question of how they can address the issue of human rights violations allegedly committed by the Japanese and Korean militaries in their respective colonies. The three leaders agreed to work together to resolve these issues, and to establish a joint mechanism for preventing and punishing human rights abuses.
Another challenge is to find a compromise between the competing interests of three countries in East Asia. This is especially important in the context of maintaining peace in the region and addressing China’s growing influence. In the past the trilateral security cooperation often been hampered by disagreements about territorial and historical issues. These disputes are still present despite recent signs of pragmatic stabilization.
For example, the meeting was briefly tainted by North Korea's announcement of plans to attempt to launch satellites during the summit, and by Japan's decision to extend its military exercises with South Korea and the U.S. 프라그마틱 이미지 prompted protests from Beijing.
The current circumstances offer a window of opportunity to revitalize the trilateral relationship, however it will require the initiative and reciprocity of President Yoon and Prime Minister Kishida to bring it to fruition. If they fail to do so and the current era of trilateral cooperation may only be a brief respite from an otherwise rocky future. In the longer term If the current trend continues, the three countries will be at odds over their mutual security interests. In this situation, the only way the trilateral relationship will last is if each nation overcomes its own challenges to prosper and peace.
South Korea's trilateral partnership with China China
The 9th China-Japan Korea-China Trilateral Summit wrapped up this week with the leaders of South Korea, Japan and China signing a number of tangible and significant outcomes. They include the Joint Declaration of the Summit as well as a statement on Future Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response as well as a Joint Vision on Trilateral Intellectual Property Cooperation. These documents are notable because they set high-level goals, which, in some instances, are contrary to Seoul's and Tokyo's collaboration with the United States.
The goal is to establish a framework for multilateral cooperation that will benefit all three countries. The projects would include low-carbon transformations, innovative technologies to help an aging population as well as coordinated responses to global issues such as climate changes, food security, and epidemics. It will also focus on strengthening people-to -people exchanges, and establishing a three-way innovation cooperation center.
These efforts will also increase stability in the area. It is essential that South Korea maintains a positive relationship with both China and Japan, especially when faced with regional issues, such as North Korean provocation, escalating tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and Sino-American rivalry. A weakening relationship with one of these countries could lead to instability in the other and consequently negatively affect trilateral cooperation between both.
It is crucial however that the Korean government makes a clear distinction between bilateral and trilateral engagement with either of these countries. A clear separation can help to minimize the negative impact of a strained relationship with either China or Japan on trilateral relations with both.
China's main objective is to gain support from Seoul and Tokyo in opposition to the possible protectionist policies by the new U.S. Administration. China's focus on economic cooperation particularly through the resumption of talks on a China-Japan Korea FTA and a joint statement regarding trade in services markets, reflects this aim. Beijing is also seeking to stop the United States' security cooperation from threatening its own trilateral economic ties and military relations. This is a deliberate move to counter the threat from U.S. protectionism and create an avenue to counter it with other powers.