Diplomatic-Pragmatic Korea and Northeast Asia
The diplomatic de-escalation of Japan-South Korea tensions in 2020 has brought on the importance of economic cooperation. Even as the issue of travel restrictions was resolved by bilateral economic initiatives, bilateral cooperation continued or grew.
프라그마틱 슬롯체험 (2013) was the first to document the resistance to pragmatics of L2 Korean learners. His research revealed that a variety of factors, such as personal identity and beliefs, can influence a student's pragmatic choices.
The role of pragmatism in South Korea's foreign policy
In the midst of flux and changes South Korea's Foreign Policy needs to be bold and clear. It must be willing to take a stand on principle and pursue global public goods, such as climate change, sustainable development, and maritime security. It should also be able of demonstrating its influence globally by delivering tangible benefits. However, it has to do so without jeopardizing its stability in the domestic sphere.
This is a challenging 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 trust in the direction and accountability of foreign policies. It's not an easy job, because the structures that facilitate the development of foreign policy are diverse and complicated. This article focuses on how to deal with these domestic constraints to establish a consistent foreign policy.
The current government's emphasis on a pragmatic partnership with like-minded allies and partners is likely to be a positive thing for South Korea. This can help to counter the emergence of progressive criticisms against GPS its values-based foundation and allow Seoul to interact with non-democratic nations. It will also improve the relationship with the United States which remains an important partner in the development of an order of world democracy that is liberal and democratic.
Another issue facing Seoul is to improve its complex relationship with China the nation's largest trading partner. While the Yoon administration has made progress in building up multilateral security architectures such as the Quad but it must balance these commitments with its need to preserve relations with Beijing.
Long-time observers of Korean politics have pointed to regionalism and ideology as the primary drivers of political debate, younger voters appear less attached to this perspective. This new generation has more diverse views of the world, and its values and worldview are changing. This is reflected by the recent growth of Kpop and the rising global popularity of its exports of culture. It's still too early to determine whether these trends will affect the future of South Korean foreign policy. They are worth watching.
South Korea's diplomatic-pragmatic approach towards North Korea
South Korea must strike a delicate balance to shield itself from rogue states and to avoid getting caught up in power battles with its big neighbors. It also needs to consider the conflict between interests and values particularly when it comes down to supporting human rights activists and engaging with non-democratic countries. In this respect, the Yoon administration's pragmatic and diplomatic approach to North Korea is a significant departure from previous administrations.
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 global and regional security network. In the first two years of its office the Yoon administration has actively bolstered relations with democratic allies and increased participation in multilateral and minilateral forums. These initiatives include the Korea-Pacific Islands Summit and the Second Asia-Pacific Summit for Democracy.
These actions may appear to be small steps, but have enabled Seoul to make use of new partnerships to advance its position on regional and global issues. For instance the 2023 Summit for Democracy emphasized the importance of democratic practice and reform to address issues such as corruption, digital transformation and transparency. The summit also announced the launching of $100 million worth of development cooperation projects for democratic governance, including e-governance as well as anti-corruption efforts.
In addition to that, the Yoon government has actively engaged with organizations and countries that have similar values and goals to help support its vision of a global security network. These include the United States, Japan, China as well as the European Union, ASEAN members and Pacific Island nations. These activities may have been criticised by progressives for being lacking in pragmatism and values but they can help South Korea build a more robust toolkit for foreign policy in dealing with states that are rogue like North Korea.
However, GPS' emphasis on values could put Seoul in a difficult position when confronted with trade-offs between values and desires. The government's concern for human rights and refusal to deport North Koreans who are accused of committing crimes could lead it, for instance to prioritize policies that are not democratic in Korea. This is especially true if the government is faced with a situation similar to that of Kwon Pong, a Chinese advocate who sought asylum in South Korea.
South Korea's trilateral co-operation with Japan
In the midst of increasing global uncertainty and a fragile global economy, trilateral cooperation between South Korea, Japan, and China is an opportunity for Northeast Asia. While the three countries share a common security interest in the nuclear threat posed by North Korea, they also have a strong economic stake in creating safe and secure supply chains and expanding trade opportunities. The return of their top-level annual gathering is a clear signal that the three neighbors would like to promote closer co-operation and economic integration.
The future of their partnership is, however, challenged by a variety of circumstances. The most pressing issue is the question of how to tackle the issue of human rights violations that have been committed by the Japanese and Korean militaries in their respective colonies. The three leaders agreed they would work together to resolve the issues and create an integrated system to prevent and punish human rights violations.
Another challenge is to find a balance between the competing interests of three countries of East Asia. This is particularly important in the context of maintaining peace in the region and addressing China’s increasing influence. In the past, trilateral security cooperation was often hindered by disagreements over historical and territorial issues. Despite recent signs of pragmatic stability the disputes are still lingering.
The meeting was briefly overshadowed, for example, by North Korea's announcement it would launch a satellite during the summit and by Japan's decision that was opposed by Beijing to extend its military exercises with South Korea and the U.S.
The current situation provides a window of opportunity to revitalize the trilateral partnership, but it will require the initiative and commitment of President Yoon and Prime Minister Kishida to bring it to fruition. If they fail to take this step, the current era of trilateral cooperation could be only a brief respite from an otherwise rocky future. If the current trajectory continues in the future, the three countries may be at odds with each other due to their security concerns. In this scenario the only way for the trilateral partnership to last is if each of the countries can overcome its own domestic challenges to peace and prosperity.
South Korea's trilateral co-operation with China China
The Ninth China, Japan, and Korea Trilateral Summit concluded this week with the leaders of South Korea and Japan signing a number tangible and significant outcomes. The Summit's outcomes include a joint Declaration of Future Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response as well as an agreement on Trilateral Intellectual property Cooperation. These documents are significant for their lofty goals, which, in some instances, are contrary to Seoul's and Tokyo's collaboration with the United States.
The goal is to strengthen a framework for multilateral cooperation that will benefit all three countries. The projects would include low-carbon transformations, innovative technologies for an aging population and joint responses to global issues such as climate changes, epidemics and food security. It would also concentrate on enhancing exchanges between people and creating a trilateral innovation collaboration center.
These efforts will also help improve 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 negatively affect trilateral cooperation between both.
It is important to ensure that the Korean government makes a clear distinction between trilateral engagement and bilateral engagement with either of these countries. A clear separation can reduce the negative impact of a tension-filled relationship with either China or Japan on trilateral relations with both.
China's main goal is to gain support from Seoul and Tokyo in opposition to possible protectionist policies by the new U.S. Administration. This is evident in China's emphasis on economic cooperation. Furthermore, Beijing is likely hoping to stop security cooperation with the United States from undermining the importance of its own trilateral economic and military ties with these East Asian allies. This is a smart move to counter the increasing threat posed by U.S. protectionism and create an opportunity to combat it with other powers.