Diplomatic-Pragmatic Korea and Northeast Asia
The diplomatic de-escalation between Japan and South Korea tensions in 2020 has brought attention on cooperation in the field of economics. Even when the issue of travel restrictions was resolved, bilateral economic initiatives have continued or increased.
Brown (2013) pioneered the study of the phenomenon of resistance to pragmatics among L2 Korean learners. His research found that a myriad of factors, including personal beliefs and identity can affect a learner's practical decisions.
The role played by pragmatism is South Korea's foreign policy
In a time of flux and change, South Korea's foreign policy must be bold and clear. It must be prepared to stand by its principles and promote global public goods such as sustainable development, climate change and maritime security. It should also be able to project its influence globally by delivering tangible benefits. But, it should do so without jeopardizing its stability within the country.
This is a difficult task. Domestic politics are a major impediment to South Korea's foreign policy, and it is critical that the leadership of the president manage these domestic constraints in ways that increase confidence of the public in the national direction and accountability for foreign policies. This isn't easy, as the underlying structures that guide foreign policy are complex and diverse. This article will discuss how to handle the domestic constraints to project a coherent foreign policy.
South Korea will likely benefit from the current administration's focus on a pragmatic partnership with allies and partners that have the same values. This can help to counter the progressive attacks on GPS' values-based basis and open up the possibility for Seoul to be able to engage with non-democratic countries. It can also strengthen its relationship with the United States, which remains an essential partner in advancing the liberal democratic world order.
Seoul's complicated relationship with China which is the country's largest trading partner - is a further problem. The Yoon administration has made significant progress in establishing multilateral security structures, such as the Quad. However, it must balance this commitment with its need to maintain economic connections with Beijing.
While long-time observers of Korean politics have pointed to regionalism and ideology as the main drivers of the political debate, younger voters appear less attached to this view. The younger generation is more diverse, and their worldview and values are changing. This is reflected in the recent growth of K-pop and the rising international appeal of its cultural exports. It is still too early to determine whether these trends will affect the future of South Korean foreign policy. It is worth keeping an eye on them.
South Korea's pragmatic and diplomatic approach to North Korea
South Korea must strike a delicate balance to safeguard itself from rogue states and to avoid getting caught up in power battles with its larger neighbors. It also has to consider the trade-offs between values and interests, especially when it comes down to supporting human rights activists and working with nondemocracies. In this respect the Yoon government's diplomatic and pragmatic approach to North Korea is an important departure from past governments.
As one of the most active pivotal states, South Korea must strive for multilateral engagement as a means of establishing itself in a regional and global security network. In the first two years of office, the Yoon administration has proactively strengthened bilateral ties with democratically-minded allies and increased participation in minilateral and multilateral forums. These initiatives include the first Korea-Pacific Islands Summit, and the second Asia-Pacific Summit for Democracy.
These actions may appear to be tiny steps, but they have allowed Seoul to leverage new partnerships to promote its position on global and regional issues. The 2023 Summit for Democracy, for instance, stressed the importance and necessity of a democratic reform and practice to tackle issues such as digital transformation, corruption, and transparency. The summit announced $100 million in development cooperation projects to support the democratic process, including anti-corruption and e-governance efforts.
In addition to that, the Yoon government has proactively engaged with 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 might have criticized these actions as lacking values and pragmatism, however they are able to help South Korea develop a more robust toolkit to deal 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 it comes to balancing values and desires. For instance the government's sensitivity towards human rights activists and its refusal to deport North Korean refugees who have been accused of criminal activities could cause it to prioritize policies that are not democratic at home. This is particularly true if the government is faced with a situation like that of Kwon Pyong, the Chinese activist who sought asylum in South Korea.
South Korea's trilateral partnership with Japan
In the face of global uncertainty and a volatile global economy, trilateral cooperation between South Korea and Japan is an optimistic signpost in Northeast Asia. Although the three countries share a security concern with North Korea's nuclear threat, they also have a significant economic stake in establishing safe and secure supply chains and expanding trade opportunities. The resumption of their highest-level annual gathering is a clear signal that the three neighbors want to push for greater economic integration and co-operation.
However the future of their relationship will be tested by a number of factors. The issue of how to handle the issue of human right violations committed by the Japanese or Korean militaries in their respective colonies is most pressing. The three leaders agreed to work together to resolve these issues, and to create a joint procedure for preventing and reprimanding human rights abuses.
Another major issue is how to balance the three countries' competing interests in East Asia, especially when it comes to maintaining international stability and addressing China's growing influence in the region. In the past the trilateral security cooperation frequently been stifled by disagreements over historical and territorial issues. Despite recent evidence of stability in the pragmatics however, these disputes continue to linger.
For example, the meeting was briefly overshadowed by North Korea's announcement of plans to attempt to launch a satellite during the summit, and by Japan's decision to extend its military drills with South Korea and the U.S., which drew protests from Beijing.
The current situation offers an chance to rejuvenate the trilateral relationship, however it will require the initiative and commitment of President Yoon and Prime Minister Kishida to bring it to fruition. If they do not, the current era trilateral cooperation will only be a temporary relief in a rocky future. If the current trajectory continues over the long term the three countries could find themselves at odds with one another over their security interests. In this case the only way for the trilateral relationship will last is if each nation overcomes its own barriers to achieve peace and prosperity.
South Korea's trilateral cooperation with China China
The 9th China-Japan-Korea Trilateral Summit wrapped up this week, with the leaders of South Korea, Japan and China signing a number of tangible and significant outcomes. The Summit's outcomes include a Joint Declaration, a Statement on Future Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response as well as an Agreement on Trilateral 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 Intellectual property Cooperation. These documents are notable for laying out lofty goals which, in some cases may be in contradiction to Seoul and Tokyo's cooperation with the United States.
The goal is to establish the framework for multilateral cooperation that benefits all three countries. The projects would focus on the use of low-carbon technologies, innovative solutions for a aging population, and collective responses to global challenges like climate change, epidemics and food security. It would also focus on strengthening people-to-people exchanges and the establishment of a trilateral innovation cooperation center.
These efforts could also contribute to improving stability in the region. South Korea must maintain a positive relationship with China and Japan. This is particularly crucial when it comes to regional issues, such as North Korean provocations, tensions in the Taiwan Strait and Sino-American rivalry. A weakening partnership with one of these countries could lead to instability in the other and therefore negatively impact trilateral cooperation with both.
It is vital to ensure that the Korean government draws clear distinctions between trilateral engagement and bilateral engagement with any of these countries. A clear separation will minimize the negative impact that a strained relationship between China and Japan could impact trilateral relations.
China's main goal is to gain support from Seoul and Tokyo in opposition to the possible protectionist policies by the new U.S. Administration. This is reflected in China's focus on economic cooperation. Furthermore, Beijing is likely hoping to prevent security cooperation with the United States from undermining the importance of its own trilateral military and economic relations with these East Asian allies. This is a strategic decision to counter the growing threat from U.S. protectionism and create an avenue to counter it with other powers.