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. Despite the issue of travel restrictions has been rejected by the government and bilateral economic initiatives have been pushed forward or expanded.

Brown (2013) pioneered the documentation of resistance to pragmatics in L2 Korean learners. His research found that a myriad of factors, including personal beliefs and identity can influence a learner’s pragmatic decisions.

The role played by pragmatism is South Korea’s foreign policies

In a period of flux and change, South Korea’s Foreign Policy needs to be clear and bold. It should be ready to stand up for principles and pursue global public good including climate change as well as sustainable development and maritime security. It must also be able of demonstrating its influence internationally by providing tangible benefits. However, it has to be able to do this without compromising its domestic stability.

This is a difficult task. Domestic politics are a key obstacle to South Korea’s international policy and it is essential that the leadership of the president manage the domestic challenges in a manner that boost confidence in the direction of the nation and accountability of foreign policies. This is not easy since the underlying structures that support foreign policy development are complicated and diverse. This article focuses on how to manage these domestic constraints in order to establish a consistent foreign policy.

The current administration’s focus on pragmatic cooperation with like-minded allies and partners is likely to be a positive thing for South Korea. This approach can help counter the growing attacks on GPS on a values-based basis and allow Seoul in order 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 for Seoul is to improve its relationship with China, the country’s largest trading partner. The Yoon administration has made significant progress in establishing multilateral security structures such as the Quad. However, it must balance this commitment with its need to maintain economic connections with Beijing.

Younger voters are less attached to this view. This new generation is also more diverse, and its worldview and values are evolving. This is evident in the recent rise of Kpop, as well as the growing global appeal of its culture exports. It’s too early to tell if these trends will impact the future of South Korea’s foreign policy. They are worth watching.

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 avoid getting caught up in power battles with its larger neighbors. It also needs to consider the trade-offs between values and interests especially when it comes down to supporting human rights activists and working with nondemocracies. In this respect, the Yoon government’s pragmatic and diplomatic approach to North Korea is an important change from previous governments.

As one of the most active pivotal countries in the world, South Korea needs to participate in multilateral engagements to position itself within regional and global security networks. In its first two-year tenure, the Yoon Administration has actively bolstered bilateral ties and has increased participation in minilaterals and multilateral forums. These initiatives include the first Korea-Pacific Islands Summit as well as the second Asia-Pacific Summit for Democracy.

These efforts may appear to be small steps, but they have helped Seoul to make use of new partnerships to further promote its views regarding global and regional issues. The 2023 Summit for Democracy, for instance, highlighted the importance and necessity of democratic reform and practice to deal with issues like corruption, digital transformation, and transparency. The summit also announced the launching of $100 million worth of development cooperation projects to promote democratic governance, including e-governance as well as anti-corruption initiatives.

Additionally, the Yoon government has proactively engaged with organizations and countries that have similar values and goals to help support its vision of a global security network. These countries and organisations include the United States of America, Japan, China and the European Union. They also include ASEAN members and Pacific Island nations. These actions may have been criticized by progressives as lacking in pragmatism and values however, they can assist South Korea build a more robust foreign policy toolkit in dealing with states that are rogue such as North Korea.

However, GPS’ emphasis on values could put Seoul in a difficult position when confronted with trade-offs between values and interests. For instance the government’s sensitivity to human rights activists and its inability to deport North Korean refugees who have been accused of criminal activity could lead to it prioritizing policies that seem undemocratic in the home. This is particularly true if the government faces a scenario similar to that of Kwon Pong, Pragmatickr.Com a Chinese advocate who sought asylum in South Korea.

South Korea’s trilateral partnership with Japan

In the midst a rising global uncertainty and a shaky global economy, trilateral cooperation between South Korea, Japan, and China is a bright spot for Northeast Asia. While the three countries share a security interest in the nuclear threat posed by North Korea, they also share a strong economic interest in developing secure and safe supply chains and expanding trade opportunities. The resumption of their highest-level annual gathering is a clear signal that the three neighbors would like to encourage greater economic integration and cooperation.

The future of their partnership However, their relationship will be tested by several factors. The most pressing issue is the issue of how to tackle the issue of human rights violations committed by the Japanese and Korean militaries in their respective colonies. The three leaders agreed to work together to resolve these issues, and to create a joint procedure for preventing and reprimanding human rights abuses.

Another major issue is how to balance the 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 trilateral security cooperation was often hindered by disputes relating to territorial and historical issues. Despite recent evidence of stability in the pragmatics however, these disputes continue to linger.

The summit was briefly shadowed, for example, by North Korea’s announcement to launch a satellite during the summit, as well as Japan’s decision that was met with protests by Beijing to extend its military exercises with South Korea and the U.S.

It is possible to bring back the trilateral relationship in the current situation, but it requires the initiative and reciprocity from President Yoon and Premier Kishida. If they do not and they don’t, the current trilateral cooperation may only provide a temporary respite in an otherwise rocky future. In the longer term, if the current trajectory continues, the three countries will end up at odds over their mutual security interests. In this scenario the only way for the trilateral relationship to last is if each of the countries is able to overcome its own national obstacles to prosperity and peace.

South Korea’s trilateral partnership 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 tangible and significant outcomes. These include a Joint Declaration of the Summit as well as a statement on Future Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response and a Joint Vision on Trilateral Intellectual Property Cooperation. These documents are noteworthy because they set lofty goals, which, in some cases run counter to Seoul’s and Tokyo’s collaboration with the United States.

The aim is to establish a framework of multilateral cooperation to the benefit of all three countries. It will include projects to create low-carbon transformation, advance innovative technologies for aging populations and strengthen the ability of all three countries to respond to global challenges like climate changes, 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. South Korea must maintain a positive relationship with China and Japan. This is particularly important when dealing with regional issues, such as North Korean provocations, tensions in the Taiwan Strait and Sino-American rivalry. A deteriorating partnership with one of these countries could cause instability in the other and negatively affect trilateral cooperation between both.

It is vital that the Korean government promotes an explicit distinction between trilateral cooperation and bilateral relations with one of these countries. A clear distinction will aid in minimizing the negative effects of a strained relationship with either China or Japan on trilateral relations with both.

China’s main goal is to get support from Seoul and Tokyo in opposition to the possible protectionist policies of the next U.S. Administration. China’s focus on economic co-operation, particularly through the revival of talks for a China-Japan-Korea FTA and a joint statement regarding trade in services markets is a reflection of this goal. Additionally, Beijing is likely hoping to stop security cooperation with the United States from undermining the importance of its trilateral military and economic relations with these East Asian allies. Thus, this is a strategic step to combat the increasing threat of U.S. protectionism and establish an avenue to counter it with other powers.