Diplomatic-Pragmatic Korea and Northeast Asia
The de-escalation of tensions between Japan and South Korea in 2020 has brought the focus back to economic cooperation. Even as the dispute over travel restrictions was resolved and bilateral economic initiatives were continued or grew.
Brown (2013) was the first researcher to study the resistance to pragmatics of L2 Korean learners. His research revealed that a myriad of factors, including personal identity and beliefs can affect a learner's practical decisions.
The role played by pragmatism is South Korea's foreign policies
In a period of flux and change South Korea's Foreign Policy must be bold and clear. It should be able to stand up for the principle of equality and promote global public goods such as sustainable development, climate change and maritime security. It must also possess the capacity to expand its global influence through tangible benefits. However, it must do this without jeopardizing stability of its own economy.
This is a challenging task. South Korea's foreign policies are restricted by domestic politics. It is crucial that the government of the country is able to manage these internal constraints to increase public trust in the direction and accountability for foreign policy. This is not easy, as the underlying structures that guide foreign policy are complex and diverse. This article examines the challenges of managing these domestic constraints to develop a cohesive foreign policy.
The current administration's focus on a pragmatic partnership with like-minded allies and partners is likely to be a positive step for South Korea. This can help to counter progressive attacks against GPS the foundation based on values and allow Seoul to interact with non-democratic nations. It could also help strengthen its relationship with the United States, which remains an essential partner in advancing the liberal democratic world order.
Another challenge facing Seoul is to revamp its relationship with China as the country's biggest trading partner. The Yoon administration has made significant progress in building multilateral security structures such as the Quad. However, it must be mindful of its need to maintain its economic relations with Beijing.
While long-time observers of Korean politics have pointed to regionalism and ideology as the primary drivers of political debate, younger voters are less influenced by this outlook. This new generation has a more diverse worldview, and its beliefs and worldview are evolving. This is reflected in the recent rise of K-pop and the growing global appeal of its cultural exports. It's too early to know how these factors will impact the future of South Korea's foreign policy. It is worth keeping an eye on them.
South Korea's diplomatic and pragmatic approach to North Korea
South Korea must strike a delicate balance in order to safeguard itself from rogue states and to avoid being entangled in power struggles with its larger neighbors. It must also consider the trade-offs that are made between values and interests, especially when it comes to helping non-democratic countries and engaging with human rights defenders. In this respect the Yoon administration's diplomatic and pragmatic approach to North Korea is a significant contrast to previous administrations.
As one of the most active pivotal nations in the world, South Korea needs to participate in multilateral engagements to position itself within global and regional security networks. In the first two years of its office, the Yoon administration has proactively strengthened bilateral ties with democratically-minded allies and expanded participation in minilateral 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 allowed Seoul to make use of new partnerships to promote its opinions on global and regional issues. For example, 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 execution of $100 million worth of development cooperation initiatives for democracy, including e-governance and anti-corruption efforts.
The Yoon government has also engaging with organizations and countries that share the same values and priorites to support its vision for a global network of security. These organizations and countries include the United States, Japan, China and the European Union, ASEAN members and Pacific Island nations. Progressives have been criticized by some for these activities as lacking in values and pragmatism, but 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 faced with the dilemma of balancing 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 criminal activities may lead it to prioritize policies that are not democratic in the home. This is especially true if the government faces a scenario similar to that of Kwon Pong, who was a Chinese advocate who sought asylum in South Korea.
South Korea's trilateral collaboration with Japan
In the midst of global uncertainty and a volatile global economy, trilateral cooperation between South Korea and Japan is an optimistic signpost in Northeast Asia. While 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 return of their top-level annual meeting is a clear sign that the three neighbors want to promote closer economic integration and cooperation.
However, the future of their alliance will be tested by a number of elements. The issue of how to handle the issue of human right violations committed by the Japanese or Korean militaries within their respective colonies is the most pressing. The three leaders agreed they would work together to resolve the issues and establish a joint system for preventing and punishing human rights violations.
Another issue is how to find a balance between the three countries' competing interests in East Asia, especially when it comes to ensuring international stability and addressing China's increasing influence in the region. In the past the trilateral security cooperation often been hampered by disagreements over historical and territorial issues. Despite recent evidence of stability in the pragmatics, these disputes remain latent.
For instance, the summit was briefly tainted by North Korea's announcement that it would attempt to launch a satellite during the summit, and also by Japan's decision to extend its military drills with South Korea and the U.S. The move drew protests from Beijing.
It is possible to bring back the trilateral relationship in the current context, but it requires the leadership and reciprocity of President Yoon and Premier Kishida. If they fail to do so, the current era of trilateral cooperation could be a brief respite from the otherwise rocky future. In the long term, if the current trajectory continues the three countries will find themselves at odds with respect to their respective security interests. In such a scenario, the only way for the trilateral partnership to last will be if each nation can overcome its own domestic barriers to peace and prosperity.
South Korea's trilateral co-operation 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 variety of significant 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 laying out ambitious goals that, in some instances, run counter 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 include low-carbon transformations, new technologies to help an aging population as well as joint responses to global issues such as climate changes, epidemics and food security. It will also focus on enhancing exchanges between people and establishing a trilateral innovation cooperation pragmatic center.
These efforts will also increase stability in the area. South Korea must maintain a positive relationship with China and Japan. This is particularly important when dealing with regional issues like North Korean provocations, tensions in the Taiwan Strait and Sino-American rivalry. A weakening partnership with one of these countries could cause 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 relations with one of these countries. A clear distinction will aid in minimizing the negative impact of a conflicted relationship with either China or Japan on trilateral relations with both.
China is mostly trying to build support among Seoul and Tokyo against possible protectionist policies that could be implemented by the next U.S. administration. China's focus on economic cooperation especially through the resumption of talks for a China-Japan-Korea FTA and an agreement on trade in services markets, reflects this aim. Furthermore, Beijing is likely hoping to stop security cooperation with the United States from undermining the importance of its own trilateral economic and military relationships with these East Asian allies. This is a smart move to counter the growing threat from U.S. protectionism and create an avenue to counter it with other powers.