Diplomatic-Pragmatic Korea and Northeast Asia
The diplomatic de-escalation of Japan-South Korea tensions in 2020 has brought attention on economic cooperation. Even as the dispute over travel restrictions was rebuffed and bilateral economic initiatives were continued or expanded.
Brown (2013) was the first to pioneer the study of the phenomenon of resistance to pragmatics in L2 Korean learners. His research revealed that a variety of factors, including personal beliefs and identity can affect a learner's practical choices.
The role of pragmatism South Korea's foreign policy
In a period of flux and change, South Korea's Foreign Policy has to be clear and bold. It must be prepared to defend its values and promote global public good, such as climate changes, sustainable development and maritime security. It must also be able to project its influence internationally by delivering concrete benefits. It must, however, do this without jeopardizing stability of its own economy.
This is an extremely difficult task. South Korea's foreign policy is hindered by domestic politics. It is crucial that the government of the country is able to manage these domestic constraints to promote public confidence in the direction and accountability of foreign policies. This is not easy, as the underlying structures sustaining foreign policy formation are complicated and diverse. This article examines the challenges of overcoming these constraints domestically to project a cohesive foreign policy.
South Korea will likely benefit from the current government's emphasis on a pragmatic relationship with allies and partners that have similar values. This can help to counter progressive attacks against GPS its values-based foundation and open the way for Seoul to engage with nondemocracies. It will also strengthen Seoul's relationship with the United States, which remains an essential partner in advancing the liberal democratic world order.
Another challenge facing Seoul is to improve its relationship with China the nation's largest trading partner. While the Yoon administration has made progress in establishing multilateral security structures, such as the Quad but it must weigh these commitments against the need to maintain the economic ties with Beijing.
Long-time observers of Korean politics have pointed to ideology and regionalism as the primary drivers of the political debate, younger people seem less inclined to this outlook. This new generation has a more diverse worldview, and its worldview and values are changing. This is reflected by the recent rise of Kpop and the rising global appeal of its exports of culture. It's still too early to tell whether these trends will affect the future of South Korea’s foreign policy. They are worth watching.
South Korea's diplomatic-pragmatic approach towards North Korea
South Korea must strike a delicate balance in order to shield itself from rogue states and to avoid getting drawn into power struggles with its larger neighbors. It must also be aware of the conflict between values and interests especially when it comes down to supporting human rights activists and working with nondemocracies. In this regard, the Yoon government's diplomatic and pragmatic approach to North Korea is an important contrast to previous governments.
As additional resources of the most active pivotal states, South Korea must strive for multilateral cooperation as a means of establishing itself in a regional and global security network. In its first two years in office, the Yoon administration has proactively strengthened bilateral ties with democratic 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 efforts could appear to be small steps but they have helped Seoul to make use of its new partnerships to spread its opinions on global and regional issues. For instance the 2023 Summit for Democracy emphasized the importance of reforming democratic practices and practices to address issues such as corruption, digital transformation, and transparency. The summit announced $100 million in development cooperation projects to help the democratic process, including anti-corruption and the e-governance effort.
The Yoon government has also engaged with other countries and organizations that share the same values and has prioritized its vision for an international network of security. These include the United States of America, Japan, China and the European Union. They also include ASEAN members and Pacific Island nations. These activities may be criticized by progressives as lacking in pragmatism and values, however, they can help South Korea build a more robust foreign policy toolkit when dealing with states that are rogue such as North Korea.
However, GPS' emphasis on values could put Seoul in a strategic bind when confronted with trade-offs between values and interests. The government's concern for human rights and its refusal to deport North Koreans who are accused of committing crimes could lead it, for instance to put a premium on policies that are undemocratic in Korea. This is particularly true if the government faces an issue similar to that of Kwon Pyong, a 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 opportunity to shine in Northeast Asia. Although the three countries share a security interest in North Korea's nuclear threat they also have a significant economic stake in establishing safe and secure supply chains and expanding trade opportunities. The three countries' resumption in their highest-level meeting every year is an obvious signal that they are looking to promote more economic integration and cooperation.
However the future of their alliance will be tested by a variety of elements. The most pressing one is the issue of how they can address the issue of human rights violations that have been committed by the Japanese and Korean militaries in their respective colonies. The three leaders agreed to work together to solve these issues and establish a joint procedure for preventing and reprimanding human rights violations.
A third issue is to find a balance between the competing interests of three countries in East Asia. This is especially important in the context of maintaining peace in the region and dealing with China's growing influence. In the past, trilateral security cooperation was often impeded by disputes over historical and territorial issues. Despite the recent evidence of stability in the pragmatics however, these disputes continue to linger.
The summit was briefly shadowed, for example, by North Korea's announcement to launch a satellite at the summit and by Japan's decision, met with protests by Beijing to extend its military exercises with South Korea and the U.S.
The current situation offers a window of chance to rejuvenate the trilateral relationship, but it will require the leadership and cooperation of President Yoon and Prime Minister Kishida to bring it to fruition. If they do not and they don't, the current trilateral cooperation will only provide a temporary respite in an otherwise rocky future. If the current trajectory continues over the long term, the three countries may be at odds with each other over their security interests. In this scenario, the only way 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 and saw the leaders of South Korea, Japan and China signing a variety of tangible and significant 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 laying out lofty goals that, in some cases are in opposition to Seoul and Tokyo's cooperation with the United States.
The objective is to develop a framework of multilateral cooperation for the benefit of all three countries. The projects will include low-carbon transformations, innovative technologies for an aging population and coordinated responses to global issues like climate change as well as food security and epidemics. It would also focus on strengthening people-to-people exchanges and the establishment of a trilateral innovation cooperation center.
These efforts will help to improve stability in the region. South Korea must maintain a positive relationship with China and Japan. This is particularly important when dealing with regional issues, such as North Korean provocations, tensions in the Taiwan Strait and Sino-American rivalry. A weakening relationship with one of these countries could cause instability in the other, and negatively affect trilateral cooperation between both.
It is vital that the Korean government promotes the distinction between trilateral cooperation and bilateral engagement with one of these countries. A clear distinction will aid in minimizing the negative effects of a tension-filled relationship with either China or Japan on trilateral relations with both.
China's main goal is to get support from Seoul and Tokyo in opposition to any protectionist policies that will be implemented by the next U.S. Administration. This is evident in China's focus on economic cooperation. Beijing is also hoping to stop the United States' security cooperation from affecting its own trilateral economic ties and military relationships. This is a smart move to counter the growing threat posed by U.S. protectionism and create a platform to counter it with other powers.