Jeju Peace Institute

JIN Chang Soo(Head of Japanese Research Center, The Sejong Institute)The deterioration in Korea-Japan relations is having a negative effect on Northeast Asia’s regional order, economic relations and private sector exchanges. Both Korea and Japan remain hesitant about coming forward and taking the initiative to improve their bilateral relations and have wasted no opportunity to criticize each other on various occasions. Many have begun to argue that both Korea and Japan need to make some difficult political decisions to improve their bilateral relations and expand their national interests instead of allowing themselves to be swept away by populism. To that end, they claim, Prime Minister Abe must change his historical perspective while President Park must be more accommodating to the idea of the Korea-Japan summit.It is time for Korea and Japan to send out a message to each other indicating their willingness to improve their bilateral relations. If they fail to the momentum needed to ameliorate their bilateral relations within 2014, the possibility of improving their relations will become far more distant. Therefore, Korea, for its part, needs to demonstrate its commitment to improving its relations with Japan and take specific actions in that regard so that Japan and the international community can anticipate the Korea-Japan summit. Korea needs to hold the Korea-Japan summit on the occasion of multilateral conferences like the APEC in preparation for the 50th anniversary of the normalization of diplomatic relations between Korea and Japan in 2015.

PARK Yeong-gil(Director of International Marine Affairs and Territory Research Center, KMI)In line with the thawing of the Arctic Ocean, the heightened interest in Arctic sea routes and the resources of the ocean are provoking an excessive competition among various countries determined to secure a larger portion of the ocean. Russia, Canada and Denmark, in particular, are seeking to expand their continental shelves to the North Pole and beyond.The competition and military tension among the countries bordering the Arctic Ocean are expected to affect Korea, which is planning to participate in the economic activities (including sea routes, natural resources development, and offshore plant and port development) that have gradually opened up for various countries in the Arctic Ocean, in various ways. It is also anticipated to have huge implications for the controversial issue of continental shelves among Korea, China and Japan.If a military conflict were to arise in the Arctic Ocean and sanctions on Russia were advocated by the United States and Canada, for example, Korea would be faced with difficult choices over whether to join the sanctions at a time when it is building strong bilateral relations with Russia in a number of areas.

LEE Soo Hyung(Research Fellow, Institute for National Security Strategy)Both South and North Korea, along with the peninsula’s surrounding environment and other players in the region, are the most important factors in the eventual peaceful reunification of the Korean Peninsula.To bring about the peaceful re-unification of the Korean Peninsula, the situation around the Korean Peninsula and the interests neighboring countries have in the re-unification of the Korean Peninsula are as important as the relationship between South and North Korea.The reason for this is that the peaceful re-unification of the Korean Peninsula implies a fundamental restructuring of the order governing the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia, and thus that all the neighboring countries will end up becoming stakeholders in the change.To achieve the peaceful re-unification of the Korean Peninsula, a mid- to long-term peaceful re-unification strategy has to be worked out and, more importantly, to promote the unification of the Korean Peninsula enthusiastically, an environment conducive to peaceful re-unification needs to be created.In this context, It is essential to review a few of the major preconditions necessary for the formulation of strategies required for the peaceful re-unification of the Korean Peninsula, above all else.The following will be discussed as essential preconditions that need to be reviewed before one can diagnose the changes in the international political landscape and the circumstances surrounding Northeast Asia, and come up with strategies for creating an environment conducive to peaceful re-unification based on the results of such a review: (1) recognition of the objective reality that Korea is a divided country and a peninsula country (2) recognition of the necessity for the strategic management of security policies and re-unification policies and (3) recognition of the need for a common security policy in Northeast Asia.

LEE Seon-jin(Professor, SIEAS/ Former ROK Ambassador to Indonesia)Under the leadership of Xi Jinping, China is changing its diplomatic strategies, which traditionally have placed emphasis on rivalry with the United States and Japan in East Asia. President Xi has said that China will turn its attention toward Central Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia to enhance the country’s regional economic cooperation and extend its influence in these regions (the Silk Road Plan) while voicing its opinions about various regional security issues. The General Secretary’s “Diplomatic Strategies for Neighboring Countries,” which he has said will be promoted over the next five to ten years along with his Silk Road Plan, a specific means of implementing his diplomatic strategies, imply structural changes for the Korean peninsula, East Asia, and Sino-American relations.Specifically, the Silk Road Plan is characterized by the following:First, Xi Jinping was heavily involved in the plan himself from the stage of proposition to discussion and laid it out as the direction of the country’s diplomacy for the next five to ten years. Second, apart from its traditional diplomatic framework centered on competition with the United States in East Asia, China is committed to expanding its diplomatic horizons while seeking balanced national development and the development of new engines for growth. Third, the plan is action-oriented, which is a most prominent feature of the country’s new approach to ASEAN.The Silk Road Plan is equivalent to the country’s action plan in the economic field among Xi Jinping’s three diplomatic axes Economy, National Security and Public Diplomacy and is expected to play the role of a trailblazer for Xi’s diplomatic initiatives for a country gearing up to emerge as a global superpower.

LEE Jaehyon(Research Fellow, Asan Institute for Policy Studies)The 2nd ASEAN-ROK Commemorative Summit to be held in Busan in December 2014 will present an important opportunity to look back on the progress made in the relations between Korea and ASEAN and set future directions for ASEAN-ROK relations. The weight of ASEAN is rising steadily in all respects from politics and security to economy, society and culture, affecting Korea’s national interests directly. Therefore, not only the current ASEAN-ROK relations but also setting their future direction properly is critical to Korea. Most notably, we need to come up with a major theme that sums up Korea’s ASEAN policies if we want to hear that the ASEAN-ROK Summit have been a success. Such a theme is also important in order to maximize the interest and participation of ASEAN, in particular. Furthermore, it will also be very important to enhance the foundation for strategic and security cooperation between Korea and ASEAN in order to secure room to maneuver for the region’s small and medium countries’ initiatives and strategies amid the growing competition among East Asia’s regional powers.

SHIN Jae Hyeok (Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Korea University)This article aims to compare similarities and differences in electoral politics among Southeast Asian new democracies the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand. In these countries, pork and patronage play a large role in garnering votes in elections, and legislatures are highly fragmented. Nonetheless, Indonesian politicians tend to deliver less pork, compared to their Philippine and Thai counterparts, and that the Thai parliament has become less fragmented since the emergence of Thaksin, while the legislatures in the Philippines and Indonesia remain highly fragmented. In the article, I argue that in order to promote policy-centered electoral competitions in those countries, their economies should be developed to reduce the number of poor voters who desire pork, and electoral institutions should be reformed toward more party-centered ones. Additionally, in order to reduce the legislative fragmentation, electoral institutions should be reformed toward more restrictive ones such as plurality rules where small parties can hardly survive.

KO Sung Youn (Hon. Senior Research Fellow, Korea Institute for Defense Analyses)Many South Koreans hoped that the relationship between the two Koreas would take a turn for the better following the death of Kim Jong-il, the leader of North Korea. However, the North has continually resorted to bellicose provocations and harsh threatening rhetoric as part of its psychological warfare against the South in 2014. On July 14, 2014, for example, the North’s coastal guns and multiple rocket launchers (MRLs) fired over 200 shells on open seas and even a few short-range missiles were launched. One thing that naturally did not escape our attention is that these acts of belligerence continued for a few days, gradually moving closer to the DMZ.The purpose of these provocations by the North seems clear: it intends to occupy an advantageous position in its psychological warfare with the South by showing off its capability to destroy targets in the South at any time. The current spate of provocative acts by the North also seems to be linked to its internal situation. Kim Jong-un’s leadership may have secured some stability with the removal of Jang Sung-taek, but the overall atmosphere remains volatile. Moreover, Kim Jong-un must feel irritated about Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit to South Korea, which points to ever-closer relations between the two countries. In a bid to avoid total isolation, the North has attempted to make friendly overtures toward Japan and Russia, although what it can obtain from them remains questionable. The current situation appears to have compelled the North to make provocations and show off its nuclear capability.Under such circumstances, the South needs to continue pushing for non-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula while striving to foster conditions for peaceful unification of the two Koreas. This paper deals with the major strategies that the South should adopt in its psychological warfare with the North based on the said needs, including dealing with the North’s regime stably and avoiding any collisions in the short- and mid-term perspectives, assisting it in making a gentle transition within the framework of a peaceful and strategic unification process , and trying to establish conditions that are conducive to gradual and peaceful integration of the two Koreas through an intensification of its psychological warfare with the North.To conclude, this paper analyzed military measures aimed at enhancing the efficacy of psychological warfare and policy alternatives available in non-military areas. It also stresses the need to deliver the message that the South may, under the umbrella of international collaboration, push for regime change in the North to ensure stability in the region if the North’s regime is unwilling to renounce nuclear weapons and end its provocations.

YOON Tae-Ryoung (Assistant Professor, Konkuk University), JANG JunYoung (Senior Research Fellow, Center for Southeast Asian Studies in HUFS), YI Seong-Woo (Senior Research Fellow, Jeju Peace Institute)● A Case of the Settlement of a Territorial Dispute between China and Russia: Its Significance for Maritime Disputes in East AsiaRecently, concerns have been expressed about the possibility of a new Cold War breaking out betweenthe Western and Eastern Blocs due to the conflict between the USA’s current strategy of rebalancing towardAsia and the strategic alliance between China and Russia. That, along with the currently deepening maritimedisputes in East Asia, casts a dark shadow over the prospects for stability in the region. Nonetheless, thesuccessful settlement of a territorial dispute between China and Russia, which had lasted for more than 300years, is worth looking back on as the basis for a ray of hope for East Asian countries entangled in similardisputes.There is no such thing as inevitability in history or international politics. After all, it is people who makehistory, although they are restricted by the environment (structure) formed by earlier history. National leadersare not people who respond to the international political environment as a robot would, but are rather personswith the power to influence events and transform a dismal reality for the better by pushing ahead with thenecessary policies with resolve and commitment.That said, the future of East Asia very much depends on the types of leaders elected by the people ofthe countries in the region. The reality of international politics is always formed through interaction betweenthe parties involved rather than by extremes of people and structure (or determination and determinism). Theabovementioned case involving China and Russia suggests that it is possible to achieve regional peace in EastAsia, provided that the politicians who are intent on inciting nationalistic fervor are removed from the equationand replaced by those who can apply the lessons of history to reality with adequate vision and capability.● 60 Years of Maintaining the Five Principles for Peaceful Coexistence: Are China and Myanmar Capable of Brotherly Relations?Prior to President Xi Jinping’s state visit to South Korea this year, China held a meeting in commemorationof the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence (in 1954), invitingIndian Vice President Mohammad Hamid Ansari and Myanmar President Thein Sein to attend. The tripartitemeeting was the first top-tier summit to be held over a joint agenda since Mr. Xi Jinping’s inauguration asChina’s president.The leaders of the three countries reached an agreement to the effect that they would jointly cope withsupranational crime and terrorism, including narcotic/human trafficking, according to the five principles.However, what was really on the minds of the three leaders appeared to differ markedly.The leaders of the three countries reached an agreement to the effect that they would jointly cope withsupranational crime and terrorism, including narcotic/human trafficking, according to the five principles.However, what was really on the minds of the three leaders appeared to differ markedly.Following the launch of the new government in Myanmar in 2011, Chinese leaders expected that they wouldbe able to maintain or improve diplomatic relations with Myanmar. However, Myanmar’s new governmentattempted to shed its image as a vassal state of China by prioritizing political freedom over the economy andreflecting anti-Chinese sentiment in its realpolitik. Moreover, it succeeded in mitigating the sanctions thatWestern countries had imposed upon the country due to the previous military dictatorship, by striving toimprove diplomatic relations with them. It also obtained the international community’s recognition of its statusas a legitimate government.Having failed to cope with changes in Myanmar’s political situation, China saw the need to improve itsrelationship with the country in the post-2011 period. In 2014, China is trying to adopt a moderate policytoward Myanmar by presenting itself as a country that will offer opportunities to Myanmar and by dispellingfears that China poses a threat to Southeast Asia regarding the status of Myanmar as the chair of ASEAN in2014.As for India, which has succeeded in bringing about an internal power transfer in 2014, it sees the needto expand its influence eastward, using Myanmar as a bridge. In the event of its establishment of friendlyrelations with Myanmar, India will be able to complete the economic corridor linking Southwest Asia withSoutheast Asia, and eventually join the ranks of powers with the potential to persuade China to exerciserestraint.● A Scientific Approach on Territorial Disputes in East Asia: behavioral pattern of China, Japan, Russia, and South KoreaConcerning the territorial dispute is East Asia, South Korean has endorsed the silent diplomacy in orderto avoid Japanese strategic movement to make Dok-do as an international dispute area. However, Japanesegovernment has adopted an aggressive strategy to extend its maritime territory including 4.47 million km2territorial water and exclusive economic zone as the 9th largest country in the world. Facing an aggressiveneighbor country, I would like to review the international academic trend of studies on territorial disputesincluding issues, methodology, and perspectives.This employs one of the most popular conflict data sets, Territorial Claims Data 1919-1995 by Huth andAllee and analyzes the conflictual behaviors of the relevant parties in East Asia including South Korea, China,Russia, and Japan. Unlike the factual reality that South Korea has never claimed any territorial disputes asa challenger country, it is coded as a challenger country who tries to revise the territorial status quo. Thatis a result of misunderstanding that Japan effectively controls Dokdo.As a conclusion of data analyses, this will provide policy suggestions to strengthen the territorial sovereigntyof South Korea via the effective control on Dokdo. As a part of strategic approach, South Korea needs tocooperate with Russia who has no conflict of interest concerning the territorial issue in East Asia. Based onthe initial cooperation, South Korea will be able to include China as another cooperation partner. Finally,South Korea can request the norm of “one nation-one rule” against Japanese political maneuvers concerningterritorial dispute in East Asia.

CHIN Haeng-Nam(Senior Research Fellow, Jeju Peace Institute), JUNG Jaewook (Professor, Sookmyung Women's University), YI Seong-Woo (Senior Research Fellow, Jeju Peace Institute)● The ‘Dresden Plan’: Integration of Local Governments’ & Civilian Orgainzations’ Assistances toward North Korea● The Transfer of Wartime Operational Control & the Korea-US Alliance● Human Rights Situation in North Korea & the Assessment of Policy-Efficiency on South Korea’s Humanitarian Assistance toward North Korea

YI Seong-Woo (Senior Research Fellow, Jeju Peace Institute)Concerning the territorial dispute is East Asia, South Korean has endorsed the silent diplomacy in order to avoid Japanese strategic movement to make Dok-do as an international dispute area. However, Japanese government has adopted an aggressive strategy to extend its maritime territory including 4.47 million ㎢ territorial water and exclusive economic zone as the 9th largest country in the world. Facing an aggressive neighbor country, I would like to review the international academic trend of studies on territorial disputes including issues, methodology, and perspectives.This employs one of the most popular conflict data sets, Territorial Claims Data 1919-1995 by Huth and Allee and analyzes the conflictual behaviors of the relevant parties in East Asia including South Korea, China, Russia, and Japan. Unlike the factual reality that South Korea has never claimed any territorial disputes as a challenger country, it is coded as a challenger country who tries to revise the territorial status quo. That is a result of misunderstanding that Japan effectively controls Dokdo.As a conclusion of data analyses, this will provide policy suggestions to strengthen the territorial sovereignty of South Korea via the effective control on Dokdo. As a part of strategic approach, South Korea needs to cooperate with Russia who has no conflict of interest concerning the territorial issue in East Asia. Based on the initial cooperation, South Korea will be able to include China as another cooperation partner. Finally, South Korea can request the norm of “one nation-one rule” against Japanese political maneuvers concerning territorial dispute in East Asia.