Jeju Peace Institute

SHIN Jong-Ho (Director of Unification Policy Studies Division, Korea Institute for National Unification)US-China relations have already entered the era of “new normal” wherein the interdependence on global, regional, and bilateral levels increases and strategic cooperation and competition become a daily thing. Nonetheless, progress in the bilateral relations seems hard to achieve since the mutual “strategic distrust” between the two countries remains unchanged.Future US-China relations will be impacted by the US response to the “New Type of Great Power Relations” proposed by China, whereas strategic cooperation and conflicts between the two will recur depending on the nature of each individual case and/or geographical locations involved along with the competition between the two countries over “norms.”Continued competition and conflicts between the USA and China are highly likely to limit the scope of our strategic choices. In that context, we should urgently come up with strategic measures that can minimize the potential of “collusion” between the USA and China and “isolation” of South Korea.To that end, South Korea needs to have its own principles of diplomacy, putting top priority on national interests. It should also enhance strategic communication between South Korea, United States, and Japan while stepping up policy coordination between South Korea, United States, and China and a virtuous cycle between South Korea-China relations and inter-Korean relations.

YI Seong-Woo (Chair of Conflict Resolution Program, Jeju Peace Institute)In today’s world, the international order seems to be shaping up fast with the so-called G2 (Group of Two) with the United States as the traditional superpower on one hand and China as a fast emerging challenger on the other.The kernel of the United States’ East Asia policies is to contain the emergence of China as a force to reckon with in East Asia and seal it off militarily through the US’s policy of “Return to Asia” and “Rebalancing Strategies.”While the US continues to focus on Asia, China’s policy regarding the US is concentrated on responding to changes in US policies.From the long-term perspective, China seeks to achieve national security and economic development at the same time through its new strategy called “One Belt, One Road,” which calls for the construction of a massive economic cooperation zone embracing China, Central Asia, and Europe through its leadership in the completion of the Silk Road Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road on land and at sea, respectively.Overall, cooperation and conflicts coexist in the US-China relations. Note, however, that the competition for regional dominance between the two countries is increasingly becoming obvious in East Asia.While calling continuously for the establishment of a new relationship called the “New Type of Great Power Relations” with the United States based on its economic power, China implements the so-called “Anti- Access/Area-Denial Strategy” that is aimed at preventing the United States from projecting its military power in the South China Sea.On the other hand, the latest US-China relationship demonstrates some significant changes in its dynamics.While China is faced with limitations in its capabilities to run the country most effectively in line with its shrinking economic edge on the world stage, the United States has seen a slow yet continuous recovery in its economy thanks to the increasing shale gas production and the rise of the manufacturing sector.China attempts to change the existing US-centered international financial order through Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. A total of 57 member countries have joined the Chinese-led effort in a large part to secure an edge in construction contract awards. Nonetheless, the possibility of the international financial order being restructured under China’s sway remains low.Military-wise, while the United States is leading a paradigm shift in weapons system, China is attempting to catch up with the advances made by the USA. Still, the emergence of non-nuclear strategic weaponry contributes to widening the gap in terms of relative military power.

HAN Intaek (Senior Research Fellow, Jeju Peace Institute)The Republic of Korea’s public diplomacy has had (significant) positive achievements including the upgrade of national image within a (relatively) a short period of time and the establishment of the system and methodology required to promote public diplomacy. Note, however, that (considerable) challenges and tasks are also on the rise: no one can assure us that the popularity of Hallyu (Korean Wave), which has served as a useful resource in the implementation of public diplomacy, will continue down the road; the anti-Korean sentiment in major countries including Japan is likely to intensify, and; there is a growing need to enhance our reunification-centered public diplomacy targeting the residents in our neighboring countries as well as North Korea, our internal public diplomacy aimed at foreigners living in Korea not to mention South Koreans, and our public diplomacy that is being implemented in cyberspace.We focused our resources on upgrading our national image including (highlighting the) “attractiveness” (of our country) at the outset of our public diplomacy. Still, the ultimate purpose of public diplomacy cannot be the improvement of national image but should be the promotion of national interests. Therefore, it is desirable to shift the focus of our public diplomacy from the relatively simple improvement of our national image to the promotion of practical interests including the protection of Korean expatriates overseas, including seeking ways to increase the synergistic effects of the relationships between public diplomacy & political diplomacy and public diplomacy & economic diplomacy so that our public diplomacy can back up our government’s major policies like the Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative (NAPCI).

LEE Moo-Seong (Professor, Myongji University)Since the end of the Cold War, the international community has striven to build partnership relations that can facilitate cooperation among nations in diverse agenda items related to an increasing number of fields as opposed to the traditional approach based on alliance designed to promote security in military terms.South Korea responds to the demand of the times by actively seeking strategic partnership relations with other nations.Against such backdrop, this paper would like to present the reinterpretation of partnership relations including its understanding, analysis, and response from a constructivist’s perspective.In this paper, the author would like to argue that differences in national interests should not always be construed as the cause of conflicts across borders as claimed by traditional positivists and that, in contrast, inter-subjective, epistemological approaches to the issue can offer new possibilities.Taking such hypothesis into account, the author would like to add that the partnership relations that South Korea must continue to pursue need to be shifted to a direction wherein those types of international relations will contribute not only to the expansion of its own national interests but also to the enhancement of overall global peace and prosperity, and that, as a result, significant policy implications can be sought in those types of diplomatic efforts.

LEE Seung Joo(Professor, Chung-Ang University) The Korea-US alliance remains robust. As members of an alliance, the two countries pursue common strategic goals. Korea and the U.S. are promoting further cooperation in diverse forms in key specific areas such as Korea-US joint defense postures, the reunification of the Korean Peninsula, sudden changes in North Korea, and US-China relations. Since the launch of the Kim Jong-un regime in North Korea, South Korea and the U.S. have strengthened their joint defense postures while stepping up their cooperation in light of the possibility of sudden changes in North Korea and the realization of the reunification of the Korean Peninsula. Furthermore, the two countries have wisely taken steps to reinforce their bilateral alliance in the context of US-China relations. For the continuously constructive development of the Korea-US alliance, I would like to propose the elevation of the bilateral alliance to the regional level, with the focus of the alliance centered on the reunification of the Korean Peninsula, and the preparations for the consequences of the upcoming presidential elections in the U.S.​

KIM Heungchong(Senior Research Fellow, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy)Asian regionalism gained momentum in the wake of the 1997 East Asian financial crisis. It began from the recognition that East Asian countries vulnerable to external shocks should build their capabilities to cope with regional crises jointly. At present, it looks as though Asian regionalism has made great strides, at least in economic terms, largely due to the Chiang Mai Initiative (CMI) and the Asian Bond Markets Initiative (ABMI) in the area of the currency and financial cooperation, and to numerous bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) in the field of trade and services. However, the truth of the matter is that economic regionalism is making slow gains in the region because of the characteristics of the structure of the regional division of labor, as well as certain non-economic factors that continue to hover over the region. The future prospects are uncertain, too.Therefore, considerable progress should be made toward regional economic integration as the first step toward economic regionalism in East Asia. This development will then serve as the crucial foundation for not only the economic prosperity of the region but also for the stability and development of the global economy.​

DHO Jong Yoon(Chair of the Regional Integration Program, JPI)Since the inauguration of the Park Geun-hye Adminstration, Korea’s key external policies include the ‘Korean Penisula Trust-Building Process’, the ‘Northeat Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative’, and the ‘Eurasia Initiatve’. Of those policies, the Eurasia Initiative not only aims to build a regional cooperative network covering the two Koreas and the other Northeast Asian countries but also pursues the creation of a new single economic block that will directly link the Korean Peninsula with Russia and Europe. It is the country’s major international strategy to reach beyond Northeast Asia. Therefore, the Eurasia Initiative encompasses a vast geographical expanse. Moreover, it is characterized by its attempts to transcend the confines of the country’s traditional security concerns. To that end, a comprehensive understanding of all the regions involved in the initiative is crucial.This paper focuses on the observation of the different approaches of Korea, Russia and the EU included in the geographical category of the Eurasia Initiative to various concepts from their unique traditional, ideological and strategic perspectives. It is an effort to contribute to deepening the understanding of the present and future of ‘Eurasia.’In its conclusion, this research stresses the fact that successful strategies for the Eurasia Initiative require a balanced understanding of Eurasia from the abovementioned three perspectives.​

HONG Yang-ho(Co-chair of Kaesong Complex Forum / Former Vice Minister of Unification)For South Korea, the Kaesong Industrial Complex Project raises a variety of policy implications, including (1) economic opportunities for small South Korean businesses and inter-Korean economic cooperation based on the principle of shared growth in economic terms, (2) the reduction of North Korean hostility towards South Korea, a relaxation of inter-Korean military tensions, and the creation of a peaceful environment on the Korean peninsula in political and military terms, (3) the promotion of understanding between Koreans on both sides, the recovery of national identity, and motivation for changes in North Korea in social and cultural terms, and (4) the creation of an inter-Korean economic community and preparations for national unification in terms of preparedness for reunification.Briefly, the Kaesong Industrial Complex is “a model for peace on the Korean peninsula, for the shared growth of the two Koreas, and for a unified Korean economy.”The two Koreas are therefore required to engage in more active and genuine discussions aimed at developing and expanding the Kaesong complex, which has such diverse policy implications for South Korea, and to attempt to settle a number of pending issues sooner rather than later.​

WOO Pyung Kyun(HK Research Professor, Hanyang University)Economic cooperation between North Korea and Russia began to accelerate in 2013 following the completion of Rejin Railway Modemization Project. Their bilateral relations have become closer in the aftermath of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014.Aside from their bilateral economic cooperation, progress is particularly notable in the exchange of top-tier military personnel, although the details of their cooperation in military matters remain largely shrouded in secrecy.Despite increased media attention, economic cooperation between North Korea and Russia is faced with fundamental restrictions that hamper the potential for sustainable progress in their joint economic development projects.Therefore, even though their bilateral relations have made significant progress since 2013, Russia’s leverage on North Korea is limited.In this context, the bilateral relationship between North Korea and Russia remains fluid despite Russia’s efforts to promote far closer cooperation with North Korea as part of its strategy to survive the current hardships imposed upon it in the wake of its military intervention in Ukraine. However, the fact remains that Russia has traditionally adopted similar approaches to North Korea in line with its Far East development policies in general, and its so-called ‘Korean peninsula project’ in particular.We must therefore bear in mind that whatever the circumstances, closer relations between North Korea and Russia should be observed not only from an economic but from a military perspective as well.North Korea is most likely to maintain its value for Russia as long as nationalism remains a core element in the latter’s domestic politics.​

LEE Young-hoon(Chief Research Fellow, SK Research Institute for SUPEX Management)This research has looked into the Rason Special Economic Zone Project in terms of its significance, progress, determinants and prospects.First of all, the project is very important. Not only can we observe the potential of North Korea in the areas of its economic opening and national development, but we can also look into the possibility of the reunification of the Korean peninsula in the near term through the project.Second, Chinese involvement in the project has stalled since 2014 following the deterioration of bilateral relations between North Korea and China in the wake of North Korea’s third nuclear test and its execution of Jang Song-thaek. Thus far, only 120 or so Chinese manufacturers and about 6,000 laborers have been engaged in economic activities in the area since the project began to accelerate in 2010 following the signing of a treaty between the two countries.Third, the determinants of the project include increased efforts on the part of North Korea to open its economy and the increasing necessity of both China and Russia to secure a seaport in the area, as both countries are significantly affected by the international sanctions imposed on North Korea for its development of nuclear weapons.Consequently, the future of the Rason Special Economic Zone will be greatly affected by North Korea’s decision regarding its nuclear program and its neighboring countries’ reaction to it.