Diplomatic-Pragmatic Korea and Northeast Asia
The de-escalation in tensions between Japan and South Korea in 2020 has refocused the attention on economic cooperation. Even as the issue of travel restrictions was resolved by bilateral economic initiatives, bilateral cooperation continued or grew.
Read Even more (2013) was the first researcher to study the resistance of pragmatics among L2 Korean learners. His research revealed that a variety of variables, such as the identity of the person and their beliefs, can affect a student's practical choices.
The role of pragmatism South Korea's foreign policy
In this time of uncertainty and change South Korea's Foreign Policy has to be bold and clear. It should be able to stand up for principles and promote global public goods like sustainable development, climate change and maritime security. It must also possess the capacity to expand its global influence by delivering tangible benefits. However, it must be able to do this without jeopardizing the stability of its economy.
This is a daunting task. Domestic politics are a key obstacle to South Korea's international policy and it is essential that the presidential leadership manages the domestic challenges in a manner that increase confidence of the public in the direction of the nation and accountability of foreign policy. This isn't easy since the underlying structures sustaining foreign policy formation are a complex and varied. This article examines the difficulties of overcoming these constraints domestically to create a coherent foreign policy.
South Korea will likely benefit from the current administration's focus on a pragmatic partnership with allies and partners who have the same values. This strategy can help in resolving the progressive attacks on GPS values-based principles and create space for Seoul to be able to engage with non-democratic nations. It will also strengthen the relationship with the United States which remains an important partner in the development of the liberal democratic world order.
Another challenge facing Seoul is to retool its complicated relationship with China as the country's biggest trading partner. While the Yoon administration has made progress in establishing multilateral security structures like the Quad, it must balance these commitments with its need to preserve economic ties with Beijing.
Younger voters are less attached to this view. This new generation is more diverse, and its worldview and values are changing. This is reflected in the recent growth of K-pop and the rising global appeal of its culture exports. It's too early to know if these trends will impact the future of South Korea's foreign policy. However, they are worth keeping an eye on.
South Korea's diplomatic-pragmatic approach to North Korea
South Korea faces a delicate balance between the need to confront rogue state threats and the desire to stay out of being drawn into power struggles with its large neighbors. It must also consider the trade-offs that are made between interests and values, especially when it comes to helping non-democratic countries and engaging with human rights activists. In this regard the Yoon government's diplomatic-pragmatic approach to North Korea is an important change from previous governments.
As one of the world's most active pivotal states South Korea must strive for multilateral engagement as a means of positioning itself within a regional and global security network. In its first two-year tenure, the Yoon Administration has actively strengthened bilateral ties and expanded participation in minilaterals and multilateral forums. These initiatives include the Korea-Pacific Islands Summit, and the Second Asia-Pacific Summit for Democracy.
These initiatives may seem like small steps, but they have helped Seoul to build new partnerships to advance its position on global and regional issues. For example the 2023 Summit for Democracy emphasized the importance of democratic practice and reform to address challenges such as corruption, digital transformation and transparency. The summit also announced the implementation of $100 million worth of development cooperation projects to promote democratic governance, including e-governance as well as anti-corruption measures.
The Yoon government has also engaging with organizations and countries that share similar values and has prioritized its vision for an international network of security. 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. However, they can assist South Korea develop a more robust toolkit to deal with countries that are rogue, such as North Korea.
However, GPS' emphasis on values could put Seoul in a precarious position when confronted with trade-offs between values and interests. For instance the government's sensitivity to human rights advocacy and its refusal to deport North Korean refugees who have been accused of criminal activity could lead to it prioritizing policies that seem undemocratic at home. This is particularly true if the government is faced with a situation similar to that of Kwon Pong, who was a Chinese advocate who sought asylum in South Korea.
South Korea's trilateral partnership with Japan
In the midst of increasing global uncertainty and a weak global economy, trilateral cooperation between South Korea, Japan, and China is an optimistic signpost for Northeast Asia. While the three countries share a common security interest in North Korea's nuclear threat they also share a strong economic stake in creating 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 push for greater economic integration and cooperation.
The future of their relationship, however, will be challenged by a variety of circumstances. The question of how to deal with the issue of human right violations committed by the Japanese or Korean militaries in their respective colonies is the most pressing. The three leaders agreed to work together to solve these issues, and to establish a joint mechanism for preventing and punishing human rights violations.
Another major issue is how to find a balance between the competing interests in East Asia, especially when it comes to ensuring international stability and addressing China's growing influence in the region. In the past trilateral security cooperation was often impeded by disputes relating to territorial and historical issues. Despite recent evidence of stability in the pragmatics however, these disputes continue to linger.
For instance, the summit 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. This prompted protests from Beijing.
It is possible to revive the trilateral relationship in the current situation however, it will require the initiative and reciprocity from 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 long term, if the current trajectory continues all three countries will be at odds over their mutual security interests. In that case the only way for the trilateral relationship to last is if each of the countries can overcome its own domestic obstacles to peace and prosperity.
South Korea's trilateral partnership with China
The Ninth China-Japan-Korea Trilateral Summit wrapped up this week, with the leaders of South Korea, Japan and China signing a variety of important and tangible outcomes. The Summit's outcomes include a joint Declaration and a Statement on Future Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, and an Agreement on Trilateral Intellectual property Cooperation. These documents are noteworthy for their lofty goals that, in some cases run counter to the collaboration between Tokyo and Seoul with the United States.
The goal is to strengthen the framework for multilateral cooperation that benefits all three countries. It would include projects that will help develop low-carbon transformations, develop innovative technologies for aging populations and strengthen joint responses to global challenges like climate change, epidemics, and food security. It will also be focusing on enhancing exchanges between people and establishing a 3-way innovation cooperation center.
These efforts will also improve stability in the region. It is important that South Korea maintains a positive partnership with both China and Japan particularly when faced by regional issues such as North Korean provocation, escalating tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and Sino-American rivalry. A weakening partnership with one of these countries could cause instability in the other, and therefore negatively impact trilateral cooperation with both.
It is important, however, that the Korean government makes a clear distinction between trilateral engagement and bilateral engagement with any of these countries. A clear distinction can help reduce the negative impact that a strained relationship between China and Japan could affect trilateral relations.
China's primary goal is to get support from Seoul and Tokyo in opposition to possible protectionist policies that will be implemented by the next U.S. Administration. China's focus on economic co-operation especially through the resumption of talks on a China-Japan Korea FTA and an agreement regarding trade in services markets reflect this intention. Moreover, Beijing is likely hoping to stop security cooperation with the United States from undermining the importance of its own trilateral economic and military relations with these East Asian allies. This is a strategic decision to counter the increasing threat posed by U.S. protectionism and create an opportunity to combat it with other powers.