Diplomatic-Pragmatic Korea and Northeast Asia
The diplomatic de-escalation of Japan-South Korean tensions in 2020 has brought attention on economic cooperation. Even when the issue of travel restrictions was resolved and bilateral economic initiatives were continued or grew.
Brown (2013) was the first to pioneer the documentation of pragmatic resistance in L2 Korean learners. His research found that a variety of factors such as personal identity and beliefs can influence a learner's pragmatic decisions.
The role of pragmatism lies in South Korea's foreign policy
In this time of change and flux, South Korea's foreign policy needs to be clear and bold. It must be willing to take a stand on principle and pursue global public goods such as sustainable development, climate change, and maritime security. It must also be able to project its influence globally through providing tangible benefits. However, it has to do so without compromising its stability within the country.
This is an extremely difficult task. South Korea's foreign policies are affected by domestic politics. It is crucial that the government of the country manages the domestic obstacles to build public confidence in the direction and accountability for foreign policies. This is not easy because the structures that guide foreign policy are a complex and varied. This article examines how to manage these domestic constraints to create a coherent foreign policy.
The current government's emphasis on a pragmatic partnership with like-minded allies and partners is likely to be a positive development for South Korea. This approach can help counter the advancing attacks on GPS on a values-based basis and allow Seoul to be able to engage with non-democratic countries. It will also strengthen the relationship with the United States which remains an essential partner in advancing the liberal democratic world order.
Seoul's complicated relationship with China - the country's biggest trading partner - is a further issue. The Yoon administration has made significant progress in building multilateral security structures, such as the Quad. However it must weigh this effort against its need to maintain economic ties with Beijing.
Long-time observers of Korean politics point to ideology and regionalism as the primary factors in political debate, younger voters appear less attached to this perspective. This generation is more diverse views of the world, and its beliefs and worldview are changing. This is reflected in the recent rise of K-pop, as well as the increasing global appeal of its culture exports. It's too early to know how these factors will impact the future of South Korean foreign policy. They are worth watching.
South Korea's diplomatic-pragmatic approach to North Korea
South Korea faces a delicate balance between the need to combat rogue state threats and the desire to stay out of being drawn into power struggles with its large neighbors. 프라그마틱 needs to take into account the trade-offs between values and interests particularly when it comes down to supporting human rights activists and interacting with non-democratic countries. In this respect the Yoon administration's pragmatic and diplomatic approach to North Korea is a significant departure from previous administrations.
As one of the world's most active pivotal states South Korea must strive for multilateral engagement as a way of positioning itself within the global and regional security network. In the first two years of office the Yoon administration has actively strengthened bilateral ties with democratically-minded allies and expanded participation in multilateral and minilateral forums. These initiatives include the Korea-Pacific Islands Summit, and the Second Asia-Pacific Summit for Democracy.
These efforts may appear to be tiny steps, but they have allowed Seoul to make use of new partnerships to promote its position on regional and global issues. For instance the 2023 Summit for Democracy emphasized the importance of reforms and practice in democracy to tackle issues like corruption, digital transformation and transparency. The summit also announced the launching of $100 million worth of development cooperation initiatives for democracy, including e-governance and anti-corruption measures.
In addition, the Yoon government has been actively engaging with other countries and organizations with similar values and priorities to support its vision of an international security network. These countries and organisations include the United States of America, Japan, China and the European Union. They also include ASEAN members as well as Pacific Island nations. Progressives may have criticized these activities for being lacking in values and pragmatism, but they are able to help South Korea develop a more robust toolkit for dealing with countries that are rogue, such as North Korea.
GPS's emphasis on values, however, could put Seoul in a difficult position in the event that it is forced to choose between values and interests. For instance, the government's sensitivity to human rights activism and its reluctance to deport North Korean refugees who have been accused of committing crimes may lead it to prioritize policies that appear undemocratic in the home. This is especially true when the government has to deal with similar circumstances to Kwon Pyong, an activist from China. Chinese activist who sought asylum in South Korea.
South Korea's trilateral cooperation with Japan
In the midst of global uncertainty and an unstable global economy, trilateral cooperation between South Korea and Japan is an opportunity to shine in Northeast Asia. While the three countries share a common security concern with North Korea's nuclear threat, they also share a strong economic interest in developing safe and secure supply chains and expanding trade opportunities. The three countries' resumption at their most high-level meetings every year is a clear indication that they want to push for more economic integration and cooperation.
However the future of their relationship will be tested by a variety of elements. The most pressing one is the issue of how to deal with the issue of human rights violations that have been committed by the Japanese and Korean militaries in their respective colonies. The three leaders agreed they would work together to address the issues and develop a joint system to prevent and punish abuses of human rights.
A third challenge is to find a balance between the competing interests of three countries of East Asia. This is especially important in the context of maintaining stability in the region and addressing China’s increasing influence. In the past, trilateral security cooperation has often been hindered by disagreements regarding territorial and historical issues. These disputes continue to exist despite recent signs of a more pragmatic stabilization.
The summit was briefly shadowed by, for instance, North Korea's announcement that it would launch a satellite at the summit, as well as Japan's decision that was met with protests by Beijing, to extend its military exercises with South Korea and the U.S.
It is possible to revive the trilateral relationship in the current context however, it will require the leadership and reciprocity of President Yoon and Premier Kishida. If they fail to act accordingly and the current era of trilateral cooperation will only be a brief respite from the otherwise turbulent future. In the longer term If the current trend continues the three countries will end up at odds over their mutual security interests. In this case the only way for the trilateral relationship can endure is if each country overcomes its own obstacles to peace and prosper.
South Korea's trilateral co-operation with China
The Ninth China-Japan-Korea Trilateral Summit wrapped up this week, with the leaders of South Korea, Japan and China signing a number of important and tangible outcomes. The Summit's outcomes include a Joint Declaration, a Statement on Future Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response and an agreement on Trilateral Intellectual property Cooperation. These documents are notable for setting out lofty goals that, in some cases are in opposition to Seoul and Tokyo's cooperation with the United States.
The goal is to create an environment of multilateral cooperation to the benefit of all three countries. It would include projects to develop low-carbon transformations, develop innovative technologies for aging populations and improve joint responses to global challenges like climate change, epidemics, and food security. It would also focus on enhancing exchanges between people and the establishment of a trilateral innovation cooperation center.
These efforts will also improve stability in the area. It is essential that South Korea maintains a positive relationship with both China and Japan particularly when confronted with regional issues, such as North Korean provocation, escalating tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and Sino-American rivalry. A deteriorating partnership with one of these countries could result in instability in the other and consequently negatively affect trilateral cooperation between both.
However, it is vital that the Korean government makes an explicit distinction between trilateral cooperation and bilateral engagement with one of these countries. A clear distinction will minimize the negative effects that a tension-filled relationship between China and Japan can impact trilateral relations.
China's primary goal is to gain support from Seoul and Tokyo in opposition to possible protectionist policies of the next U.S. Administration. This is evident in China's emphasis on economic cooperation. Moreover, Beijing is likely hoping to prevent security cooperation with the United States from undermining the importance of its trilateral military and economic ties with these East Asian allies. This is a strategic step to counter the growing threat of U.S. protectionism and establish a platform for countering it with other powers.