Abstract
As Korea has to face tough foreign policy challenges at the dawn of the 21st century, this article intends to identify roughly four areas of challenge to be seriously addressed by the Korean: domestic demands from democratized Korea, Korea’s security posture in transition, the North Korean conundrum, and the need to invest more in public and middle power diplomacy. After articulating these challenges, this article also attempts to provide adequate recommendations for strategic responses in the future. These challenges and responses should be reviewed in the newly created conditions under which 21st century Korean diplomacy operates: the domestic political change since democratization in 1987 and the intensifying US-China rivalry in Northeast Asia.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For an overview of the history, players, and standard decision-making process of Korean foreign policy, see Lee and Kim (1993), Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2009), and Hamm and Namgung (2010). On the future tasks of Korean foreign policy in the early 21st century, see Ha (2013). On the Korean strategy in the context of the US-China rivalry in Asia, see Chun (2015).
- 2.
On the South China Sea issue, Korea was put into a dilemma when US President Obama asked President Park Geun-hye to speak publicly against China on the maritime territorial disputes in the South China Sea when she visited Washington in September 2015. To show Korean support, President Park said the issue should be resolved according to “the international agreement and code of conduct” during the East Asia Summit held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in November 2015. That remark reflects a position similar to that she was reported to take during her visit to the US (JoongAng Daily 2015).
- 3.
After the launch of the long-range missile by North Korea in February in 2016, however, Korea and the US finally signed the terms of reference on the composition of the Korea-US joint task force to discuss the THAAD installment in Korea.
- 4.
When Korea took pains to make President Park’s visit to China understood to the US during her Washington visit in October in 2015, this type of dilemma was succinctly shown. According to the media report, the US was infuriated at President Park’s participation in the military parade in Beijing, China, on the anniversary of Chinese victory in the Second World War. The US may have felt betrayed, although it cannot explicitly expose this genuine feeling in public. From the US perspective, the visit may have been untimely amid the US-China tension surrounding territorial issues. The alliance breach caused by the visit only appeared to be amended after President Park’s Washington visit.
- 5.
Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, on behalf of Prime Minister Abe, publicly apologized to Korea on the comfort girl issue on December 28, 2015 after he agreed with Korean Foreign Minister Yoon on the final deal on the governmental level. Many Korean citizens are not satisfied with the apology, especially because Prime Minister Abe refused to directly apologize to the victims who suffered as comfort girl for the Japanese imperial army during the Second World War.
- 6.
On the notion of public diplomacy and its sub-categories, see Cull (2008). On the public diplomacy strategies in the East Asian international relations and of Korea, see Melissen and Sohn (2015). On the notion of middle power diplomacy, see Cooper (1997) and Kim (2009). See Lee (2012) for the Korean middle power strategy in particular.
- 7.
While hard power, such as economic and military resources, is utilized to achieve immediate foreign policy goals, soft power is conceived of as a “milieu power”, a kind of power providing a context within which a nation can create favorable diplomatic conditions on a longer-term level. For more specifics on the notion of hard and soft power, see Chap. 1 of Nye (2004).
- 8.
Putting forward the so-called "national interest" for justifying specific policy options as a situation develops does not deliver much. It is because the “national interest” may appear as an ad hoc rationale for circumstance-driven policy options when they are not backed by a consistent set of principles. In one sense or another, the actions of whichever sort, once taken by the authority of the government, could be justified as an action for national interest whether they truly are so or not.
- 9.
As a matter of fact, during the process leading to the final 9.19 agreement in Beijing in 2005, North Korea committed itself to the verifiable denunciation of its nuclear project, and the US confirmed it has no intention of attacking North Korea. In addition, concerned parties (meaning the US and North Korea) agreed to begin discussing a process for a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula within the framework of the 6-party talk. In other words, the agreement was both a plan for North Korean denuclearization and a blueprint for establishing a peace regime and paving the way for eventual Korean reunification. The agreement, however, went nowhere because above all else North Korea did not hesitate to revoke what it had committed, always claiming continued US hostile policy toward North Korea.
References
Chun J (ed) (2015) East Asia and the Korea Peninsula in the US-China competition. Neulbom Plus, Seoul (in Korean)
Chun J, Choo J (2013) Changes in the US-China relationship and the future of Korean foreign policy. In: Ha Y (ed) Toward 2020: ten agenda for South Korea’s foreign policy. East Asia Institute, Seoul, pp 61–114 (in Korean)
Clinton H (2010) Remarks on regional architecture in Asia: principles and priorities. Honolulu, Hawaii. http://m.state.gov/md135090.htm
Clinton H (2011) America’s pacific century. Honolulu, Hawaii. http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2011/11/176999.htm
Cooper AF (1997) Niche diplomacy: middle powers after the cold war. Macmillan Press, New York
Cull N (2008) Public diplomacy: taxonomies and histories. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 616(1):31–54
Ha Y (ed) (2013) Toward 2020: ten agenda for South Korea’s foreign policy. East Asia Institute, Seoul (in Korean)
Hamm TY, Namgung G (ed) (2010) Korean foreign policy: history and agenda. Sahoepyoungron, Seoul (in Korean)
Jaung H (2008) Party politics and foreign policy making in Korea. Korean Polit Sci Rev 42(3):267–285 (in Korean)
JoongAng Daily (2015) Park appeals to Beijing on South China Sea. http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid=3011908
Kim CW (2009) Middle power as unit of analysis of international relations: its conceptualizations and implications. Korean J Int Relat 49(1):7–36 (in Korean)
Korea Herald (2015) U.S. urges Korea to speak out on China Sea dispute. http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150604001186
Lee C (1993) The decision-making structure and players of the Korean foreign policy-making. In: Lee B, Kim EG (eds) Korean foreign policy. Bummunsa, Seoul, pp 147–182 (in Korean)
Lee H (2003) Two level games under power asymmetry: agricultural negotiations between Korea, the US and EC. Korea Int Polit 19(3):173–193 (in Korean)
Lee S (2012) South Korea as new middle power seeking complex diplomacy. EAI East Asia Security Initiative Working Paper 25
Lee S (2013) Changes in development assistance order of the 21st century and Korea. In: Ha Y (ed) Toward 2020: ten agenda for South Korea’s foreign policy. East Asia Institute, Seoul, pp 329–368 (in Korean)
Lee B, Kim EG (eds) (1993) Korean foreign policy. Bummunsa, Seoul (in Korean)
Melissen J, Sohn Y (2015) Leveraging middle power public diplomacy in East Asian International relations. EAI Issue Briefing
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2009) Six decades of Korean foreign policy: 1948–2008. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Seoul (in Korean)
Namgung Y (2004) A critical approach to Kim Dae Jung administration’s North Korea policy. Youngnam J Int Relat 7(2):26–44 (in Korean)
Nye JS Jr (2004) Soft power: the means to success in world politics. Public Affairs, New York
Obama B (2009) Remarks by President Obama at Suntory Hall. Office of the Press Secretary. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-barack-obama-suntory-hall
Yu H. (2002) Domestic politics of Korea-Chile free trade agreement negotiation: interest groups and domestic institutions in domestic negotiations. Korean Polit Sci Rev 36(3):175–197 (in Korean)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sohn, B.K. (2017). The Challenges of Foreign Policy and Suggestions for Future Responses. In: Choi, J., Kwon, Hj., Koo, M. (eds) The Korean Government and Public Policies in a Development Nexus. The Political Economy of the Asia Pacific. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52473-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52473-3_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52472-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52473-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)