The classic national security concerns of nuclear proliferation and the production, sale and use of weapons of mass destruction cannot be addressed in the Korean peninsula without at the same time considering the implications and interrelationship of what are these days known as the human security issues of food, poverty and, perhaps more controversially, freedom.We agree that East Asia and the world are more dangerous with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (the DPRK or North Korea) in possession of nuclear weapons. It is also argued, however, that a comprehensive security analysis identifies many equally significant threats to regional security, such as the risk from industrial and nuclear accidents and the potential for transborder crime arising from the lack of legal and productive avenues for economic activity for North Korea's poverty-stricken citizens. In this book Korea, soft security issues are as important as hard security matters and that the latter cannot be understood, or its dilemmas unravelled, without a clear engagement with the former.This book looks at Korean security dilemmas from the perspective of the various international actors, not just from the viewpoint of the major protagonists the DPRK and the United States. We show that different states and international organizations have different and multiple interests in their relationships with the DPRK and with each other.
This report is the fourth in a series on global security, and examines the foreign policy aspects of the United Kingdom's relationship with Japan, the Republic of Korea (South Korea) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea). The current political and economic scene in Japan and South Korea is outlined. The regional relations of Japan and South Korea are then examined, including those with the United States and China, trade agreements and regional security forums. The focus on North Korea covers the nuclear programme, human rights, food security, regime reform and stability, North-South Korea relations and military matters. The involvement of Japan and South Korea in international affairs is also scrutinised, including climate change, development assistance, and the United Nations. The report concludes with a review of economic and cultural relations between the UK and Japan and South Korea.
The economic growth of East and South-East Asia in the context of the global financial crisis has strengthened the view that this region is emerging in the 21st century as the most economically vibrant region in the world. With some of the largest economies, and generally high economic growth rates compared to the rest of the world, it is unsurprising that East and South-East Asia has become the subject of global interest. East Asia’s rise inevitably focuses attention on the issue of China’s emergence as a regional and global power. Such a prospect challenges the current status quo, in which the region is dominated by the USA and its regional allies, and issues in Sino-US strategic relations have raised global awareness of the need to understand this pivotal region better. In addition, the Taiwan issue continues to evoke nationalist sentiments in China, and North Korea continues to threaten regional stability. Non-traditional (or alternative) security issues are also of major importance in the region, including natural disasters and epidemics, as well as challenges relating to human rights and governance, transnational crime, demographic issues, economics and trade and regionalism. This Handbook aims to offer an insight into these issues. The volume is divided into two main sections. The first, International Relations and Security Perspectives, will focus on the international relations of the region, paying special attention to the key state players. The chapter contributions will examine the security perspectives, and foreign and defence policies of these states, as well as key bilateral relationships. The second section will examine key Regional Non-traditional Security Issues, including globalization, transnational health challenges, population growth and the environment.
The current research aims to provide analytical understandings on the costs and benefits of Korean unification from political, social, and economic aspects. Upon the two years of earlier works, we constructed an analytical model encompassing both spatial and temporal dimensions of the unification process, and built comprehensive architecture, ‘the Guiding Type of Unification.’ Based on this model, we have broaden the scope of the research by collecting diverse perspectives from the worldwide experts of the leading countries. We expect to observe the global trends of world governance. Indeed, the increasing importance of Group of Twenty (G‐20) countries in managing global problems reflects both political and social aspects of the changes occurring in global governance. Another reason for this would be South Korea’s diversified international relations in the recent years. Hence, it seems necessary to take a closer look on the international dimensions of Korean unification. In this vein, we requested thirteen experts of the leading countries to express their opinions on Korean unification. In order to collect international perspectives in a coordinated manner, scholars were provided with a guideline to include their perspectives on the expected effects of Korean Unification and the potential roles of their countries during and after the process. Participants were also asked to present candid implications for Korean unification. Argentina, whose food supply is abundant, laid stress on providing assistance in terms of food security during the unification. Australia, who has special concerns in Asian security, suggested a comprehensive support not only as a mediator but also as one of the U.S. alliance. Due to remote distance to Asia, Brazil is relatively less affected by the unification. Brazil, however, expressed that it has a keen interest in transmission of its experience regarding nuclear issues with Argentina. Similar to Brazil’s stance, the effects of the unification influence is indirect to Canada. Nevertheless, Canada could play a role in providing humanitarian assistance, and could be a potential destination for North Korean refugee resettlement. France, one of the most influential members in the European Union and the United Nations, made a suggestion to promote institution building in East Asia that can promote stability in the region. Germany, the only country who had experienced unification, presented its interest in participating actively in the process of Korean unification through public and private sectors. India assumed that the unification of Korea leads to the denuclearization of the peninsula, and would see this as a positive sign for stability of the region, since it would limit or end North Korea’s nuclear weapon transmits with Pakistan. Indonesia could contribute to regional peace and stability through ASEAN and its extensions as South Korea can call upon Indonesia to engage in the peace process. Italy, who especially pointed out the role of European Union as a whole, is well-poised to contribute to economic and social development with North Korea through technical assistance. Mexico can, and expressed its willingness to play an active role in the unification process through international organizations. South Africa, who had been successful in national reconciliation and denuclearization, is very likely to provide its experience and can be a strong voice for the NPT and arms control in the international society. Advocating South Korea’s policy in Korean unification, Turkey explicitly mentioned that it will side with Seoul if there is a possible conflict in the peninsula. The author emphasized that the international community must be well-informed on how Korean unification will take place. Last but not least, the United Kingdom author suggested that Koreans will have to resolve emotional conflicts for reconciliation. Considering how both Koreas have dealt educational matters concerning the division of the peninsula, this may face a major challenge in the future generation. Thirteen countries’ diversely manifested positions on the unifying process are indicative of perceptual change that the issue of Korean unification is no longer a regional issue, but an international one, in which multiple actors have their own stakes within. Upon the previously suggested implications, we categorized the countries into three groups: bystanders, supporters, and interveners. This categorization reflects the assertiveness of each country, or coercive level of each country’s assistance instrumented towards the two Koreas during the unifying process. In the conclusion, based on our final analysis, we provided recommendations for the policy makers. First, diversified diplomacy creates an amicable international environment for unification policies beyond the power politics of the Four Powers. Second, activation of leading countries’ roles is strategically advantageous to activate the meaningful roles of these leading countries to minimize the Four Powers’ concerns. Third, emphasizing the formation of multilateral system would provide leading countries with an additional motivation to actively participate in the unification process. Furthermore, multilateral efforts to achieve Korean unification are also expected to contribute to the furtherance of democratic elements in the dynamics of international relations as a whole. Fourth, it is now high time for us to conduct more public diplomacy by devising new and creative methodologies. The global research project of this kind could be one of the most effective public diplomatic tools. Lastly, the unification between two Koreas can no longer be considered as a regional issue within Northeast Asia since others, including the leading countries, conceive their national interests along the process of unification on the Korean peninsula in diverse ways. Overall, thirteen countries’ recommendations underline the significance of collective efforts in addressing the unification process and suggest South Korea to learn lessons from the experience that they have undergone in the past. Keywords: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom, Expectation, Role, Effect ------------- CONTENTS ------------- Acknowledgments Abstract Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION Ⅱ. EFFECTS AND ROLES 1. Argentina 2. Australia 3. Brazil 4. Canada 5. France 6. Germany 7. India 8. Indonesia 9. Italy 10. Mexico 11. South Africa 12. Turkey 13. United Kingdom Ⅲ. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 1. Expected Effect 2. Potential Roles 3. Classification of Leading Countries Ⅳ. CONCLUSION References Recent Publications
The events of September 11, 2001 were a significant watershed in the emerging global order. However, the nature and consequences of this changing global order remain unclear. This book argues that this new order is as much the result of issues relating to the evolving methods and forms of governance, as of the new role and position of the United States in the world system. Using an innovative framework, derived from the work of Carl Schmitt, Kanishka Jayasuriya explores the nexus between domestic political and constitutional structures and the global order, and examines how the post-war framework of international liberalism is crumbling under the new pressures of globalization. As well as looking at the implications of 9/11 for the global order, this new study: relates the events of 9/11 to the deep transformations of the post war global order emphasizes the importance of the rise of the new regulatory state examines the new politics of fear in liberal democracies including the US, UK and Australia studies the appropriation of the 'language of the left' by conservative forces explores the illiberal outcomes of actions undertaken in the name of liberalism. This unique and timely study will be of great interest to students and researchers of international political economy, globalization and international political theory.
This edited collection explores how East Asia’s painful history continues to haunt the relationships between its countries and peoples. Through a largely social-psychological and constructivist lens, the authors examine the ways in which historical memory and unmet identity needs generates mutual suspicion, xenophobic nationalism and tensions in the bilateral and trilateral relationships within the region. This text not only addresses some of the domestic drivers of Japanese, Chinese and South Korean foreign policy - and the implications of increasingly autocratic rule in all three countries – but also analyses the way in which new security mechanisms and processes advancing trust, confidence and reconciliation can replace those generating mistrust, antagonism and insecurity.
For many in the West, North Korea is a secretive, reclusive, and enigmatic country, a rogue state that threatens the world with its nuclear program and ballistic missiles. Confronted with its numerous provocations involving nuclear tests and missile launches, however, the international community still has not formulated a coherent response. So how do we understand the crisis on the Korean peninsula that has persisted well beyond the end of the Cold War? Christoph Bluth presents an in-depth analytical account of North Korea's development from a Soviet satellite to a failed state in the post-Cold War period. He also explains South Korea's transition from a military dictatorship to a modern democracy with a thriving economy. Based on interviews with key policymakers and experts located in South Korea, Bluth's study throws light on Korean hopes for unification and the future of the U.S.-Republic of Korea alliance. U.S. policy toward North Korea has been politically controversial, with some supporting engagement and negotiations, and others calling for isolating the regime on the basis that it cannot be trusted. Neither approach will work, according to Bluth, who explains that North Korea's foreign and security policy is the result of both the internal and external threats to the survival of a regime that can no longer sustain itself. A suitable text for undergraduates as well as postgraduates, this book will be of interest to anyone with an interest in Korea, international security, and, in particular, nuclear nonproliferation.
This book critically addresses the potential of the liberal concept of collective security to provide a solution to conflict in East Asia, with a focus on the Korean peninsula.
This edited volume examines how the transition and diffusion of power in global politics is impacting on stability and order in Asia. Both in the academic field of International Relations (IR) and among policymakers, the big question today concerns the rise of China, the relative decline of the United States, and the increasing importance of Asia in global politics. The level of impact the international power transition will have in the region remains unclear, but observers agree that Asia is a potential tinderbox for crises and conflict. This volume brings together leading scholars from around the world to assess current thinking in IR on these issues. The authors apply appropriate theories and methods of analysis in their specific area of expertise to examine the likely effects of the changing global power distribution on Asia. There is also said to be an ongoing diffusion of power away from states to non-state actors in the region; hence, in addition to examining changing relations between the Great Powers, the book will also assess the implications that other actors, from terrorist groups, insurgents and organised crime syndicates, could have on stability and order. This book will be of much interest to students of Asian politics, security studies, diplomacy and international relations.
