Diplomatic-Pragmatic Korea and Northeast Asia
The diplomatic de-escalation of Japan-South Korea tensions in 2020 has refocused attention on economic cooperation. Even when the dispute over travel restrictions was resolved by bilateral economic initiatives, bilateral cooperation continued or expanded.
Brown (2013) was the first to document the resistance of pragmatics among L2 Korean learners. His study found that a variety of factors such as identity and personal beliefs, can affect a learner's practical choices.
The role of pragmatism in South Korea's foreign policy
In this time of uncertainty and change South Korea's Foreign Policy must be bold and clear. It should be able to stand by its principles and work towards achieving global public goods such as sustainable development, climate change, and maritime security. It must be able to demonstrate its influence globally by delivering concrete benefits. It must, however, be able to do this without jeopardizing the stability of its own economy.
This is a daunting task. Domestic politics are a major impediment to South Korea's foreign policy, and it is critical that the leadership of the president manage the domestic challenges in a manner that increase confidence of the public in the national direction and accountability of foreign policy. It is not an easy task, as the structures that support the formulation of foreign policy are varied and complicated. This article examines the challenges of managing these domestic constraints to develop a cohesive foreign policy.
South Korea will likely benefit from the current government's focus on a pragmatic partnership with allies and partners that share similar values. This approach can help counter the emergence of progressive criticisms against GPS its values-based foundation and create space for Seoul to engage with nondemocracies. It can also enhance the relationship with the United States which remains an essential partner in advancing a liberal democratic world order.
Another issue facing Seoul is to retool its complicated relationship with China the nation's largest trading partner. The Yoon administration has made significant progress in the development of multilateral security structures like the Quad. However, it must balance this commitment with the need to maintain economic relations with Beijing.
Younger voters are less influenced by this viewpoint. This new generation has an increasingly diverse worldview and its values and worldview are evolving. This is evident in the recent rise of Kpop and the increasing global appeal of its exports of culture. It's too early to determine how these factors will impact the future of South Korea's foreign policy. But it is worth keeping an eye on.
South Korea's diplomatic-pragmatic approach to 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 large neighbors. It also needs to think about the trade-offs that exist between values and interests, particularly when it comes to supporting nondemocratic countries and engaging with human rights activists. In this respect the Yoon government's pragmatic and diplomatic approach to North Korea is an important departure from past governments.
As one of the most active pivotal nations in the world, South Korea needs to engage in multilateral engagements to position its self within global and regional security networks. In its first two-year tenure, the Yoon Administration has actively strengthened bilateral ties and expanded participation in minilaterals as well as multilateral forums. These initiatives include the first Korea-Pacific Islands Summit and the second Asia-Pacific Summit for Democracy.
These actions may appear to be tiny steps, but they have helped Seoul to make use of new partnerships to further promote its views regarding regional and global issues. For instance, the 2023 Summit for Democracy emphasized the importance of reforms and practice in democracy to address challenges 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 measures.
The Yoon government has also actively engaged with countries and organisations that share the same values and has prioritized its vision of an international network of security. These organizations and countries include the United States, Japan, China as well as the European Union, ASEAN members, and Pacific Island nations. These activities may have been condemned by progressives as lacking in pragmatism and values, however, they can assist South Korea build a more robust foreign policy toolkit when it comes to dealing with rogue states 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. The government's concern for human rights and refusal to deport North Koreans accused of criminal activities may lead it, for instance, to prioritize policies that are undemocratic in Korea. This is particularly true if the government has to deal with an issue similar to that of Kwon Pyong, an activist from China. Chinese activist who sought asylum in South Korea.
South Korea's trilateral cooperation with Japan. Japan
In the midst a rising global uncertainty and a shaky global economy, trilateral cooperation between South Korea, Japan, and China is an optimistic signpost for Northeast Asia. The three countries share common security concerns regarding the nuclear threat posed by North Korea, but they also share a major economic interest in establishing a secure and safe supply chains and expanding trade opportunities. The return of their highest-level annual meeting is a clear sign that the three neighbors would like to push for greater economic integration and cooperation.
However, the future of their partnership will be tested by a number of issues. The most pressing issue is the issue of how to deal with 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 resolve these issues, and to develop a common procedure for preventing and reprimanding human rights abuses.
A third issue is to find a balance between the competing interests of three countries in East Asia. This is especially important when it comes to maintaining stability in the region as well as addressing China’s growing influence. In the past the trilateral security cooperation frequently been stifled by disputes over historical and territorial issues. Despite recent signs of pragmatic stability however, these disputes continue to linger.
The summit was briefly tainted by, for example, 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.
It is possible to revive the trilateral partnership in the current situation however, it will require initiative and cooperation of President Yoon and Premier Kishida. If they don't and they don't, the current trilateral cooperation may only provide a temporary respite in an otherwise rocky future. If the current trajectory continues, in the long run the three countries could be at odds with one another over their security interests. In such a scenario, the only way for the trilateral relationship to endure will be if each country can overcome its own domestic challenges to prosperity and peace.
South Korea's trilateral partnership with China China
The 9th China-Japan Korea-China Trilateral Summit wrapped up this week, with the leaders of South Korea, Japan and China signing a variety of important and tangible outcomes. They include the Joint Declaration of the Summit as well as a statement on Future Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response as well as a Joint Vision on Trilateral Intellectual Property Cooperation. These documents are noteworthy because they set high-level goals that, in some cases run counter to Tokyo's and Seoul's cooperation with the United States.
The goal is to strengthen the framework for multilateral cooperation that benefits all three countries. It could include projects to create low-carbon solutions, advance new technologies to help the aging population and improve joint responses to global challenges such as climate changes, epidemics, and food security. It would also concentrate on strengthening people-to-people exchanges and creating a trilateral innovation collaboration center.
These efforts could help to improve stability in the region. 프라그마틱 환수율 must maintain a positive relationship with China and Japan. This is especially important when dealing with regional issues, such as North Korean provocations, tensions in Taiwan Strait and Sino-American rivalry. A weakening relationship with one of these countries could lead to instability in the other, and negatively impact trilateral cooperation with both.
It is important to ensure that the Korean government makes an explicit distinction between bilateral and trilateral engagement with one or the other 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 primary goal is to get support from Seoul and Tokyo in opposition to possible protectionist policies of the next U.S. Administration. China's focus on economic cooperation particularly through the resumption of talks on a China-Japan Korea FTA and the joint statement regarding trade in services markets is a reflection of this goal. Additionally, Beijing is likely hoping to prevent security cooperation with the United States from undermining the importance of its own trilateral military and economic relations with these East Asian allies. This is a strategic decision to counter the increasing threat posed by U.S. protectionism and create a platform to counter it with other powers.