Preview

MGIMO Review of International Relations

Advanced search

Social and Humanitarian Factor in South Korea's External Relations and The Korean Question

https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2020-1-70-147-168

Abstract

The development of the socio-humanitarian dimension of world politics provides new opportunities for enhancing the role and influence of the middle powers in the global affairs. That is why for understanding and assessment of their political opportunities on the international arena, it is necessary to analyze the approaches and policies of such countries on using socio-humanitarian factor to balance in the existing world balance power and ensure their foreign policy interests. The aim of the article is to analyze South Korea’s activities in the social and humanitarian sphere of world politics in the context of its foreign policy interests. The research question is: what is the role of the socio-humanitarian factor, in particular public diplomacy, in the external activities of South Korea with regard to the settlement of the Korean question? The author argues that South Korea sees social and humanitarian sphere as a possibility to strengthen its role and influence on the international arena. While developing the discourse of South Korea as a middle power, the South Korean leadership seeks to take part in creating norms and rules in different fields of global governance. Despite controversies concerning its status and policy as that of a middle power, South Korea advances through public diplomacy the discourse that constructs and enhance its middle power status and can contribute in forming the corresponding national identity. South Korea uses national branding as well to strengthen its political image. Further, the article points out that promoting South Korea’s stance and defending its interests on the Korean Peninsula represent a key task of South Korea’s public diplomacy. In particular, the article examines South Korea’s public diplomacy mechanisms on the Korean track towards the United States and emphasizes that although South Korea has actively engaged in public diplomacy in the USA, it still has a lot to do to explain South Korea's concerns to American political elites and U.S. publics and ensure that the relationship with the United States fully serves South Korean interests. Moreover, it is noted that enhancing South Korea’s role in global governance as well as forming constructive unification discourse (unification as a process now and as a result someday in the future) within the country and abroad are supposed to expand its opportunities to maneuver in the regional politics of East Asia and provide support for the South Korean initiatives on the Korean settlement. In the end, the author turns to the inter-Korean relations. The author states that different South Korean administrations have prioritized different functions of the socio-humanitarian factor. Conservative administrations put an emphasis on information pressure on the DPRK while the development of inter-Korean relations was conditioned by the denuclearization of North Korea. Progressive administrations prefer engaging the DPRK in social, humanitarian and economic interactions. In the first case the result was a rollback in inter-Korean relations with the North Korean leader-ship receiving additional grounds for the development of its military nuclear program. In the second case the social and humanitarian area was and remains a dimension providing promising opportunities for cooperation that is beneficial to the both parties as it is aimed at solving specific and practical problems of common interest. In that sense, the author argues that social and humanitarian factor in inter-Korean relations could serve as a safety cushion during intensification of the inter-Korean conflict and provide a launch pad for finding a way out of the impasses.

About the Author

O. S. Pugacheva
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation

Oksana S. Pugacheva – manager of the Department of International Relations

17/1, Malaya Ordynka, Moscow, Russia, 119017



References

1. Anholt S. 2013. Beyond the Nation Brand: The Role of Image and Identity in International Relations. Exchange: The Journal of Public Diplomacy. 2(1). P. 6-12.

2. Aronczyk M. 2013. Branding the Nation: The Global Business of National Identity. London: Oxford University Press. 256 p.

3. Bajenova T. 2018. Rescaling Expertise in EU Policy-Making: European Think Tanks and their Reliance on Symbolic, Political and Network Capital. Globalisation, Societies and Education. 17(1). P. 61-77. DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2018.1540926

4. Bátora J. 2005. Public Diplomacy in Small and Medium-Sized States: Norway and Canada. Cligendael Discussion Papers in Diplomacy. Vol. 97. 24 p.

5. Bennett Bruce W. 2013. Preparing for the Possibility of a North Korean Collapse. RAND Corporation.

6. Cull N. 2012. ‘Bulging Ideas’: Making Korea’s Public Diplomacy Work. Issue Brief of Asan Institute for Policy Studies. No. 37.

7. Henrikson A.K. 2005. Niche Diplomacy in the World Public Arena: the Global ‘Corners’ of Canada and Norway. In The New Public Diplomacy. Soft Power in International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. P. 67-87.

8. Howe B. 2015. Development Effectiveness: Charting South Korea’s Role and Contributions. In Middle-Power Korea. Contributions to the Global Agenda. Washington: Council on Foreign Relations Press. P. 21-43.

9. Melissen J., Kim Hwa-Jung. 2018. South Korean Diplomacy between Domestic Challenges and Soft Power. World Economy Brief. 8(23). DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3299389

10. Melissen J., Sohn Yul. 2015. Understanding Public Diplomacy in East Asia: Middle Powers in a Troubled Region. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 283 p.

11. Mo Jongryn. 2017. South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: A Case of Growing Compatibility between Regional and Global Roles. International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis. 1(4). P. 587-607. DOI: 10.1177/0020702016686380

12. Oh Chong Jin. 2012. Security Conditions and Regional Competition in East Asia after the New Millennium: A South Korean Perspective. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs. 17(4). P. 105-128.

13. Schwak J. 2016. Branding South Korea in a Competitive World Order: Discourses and Dispositives in Neoliberal Governmentality. Asian Studies Review. 40(3). P. 427-444. DOI: 10.1080/10357823.2016.1193474

14. Snyder S.A. 2015. Introduction. In Middle-Power Korea. Contributions to the Global Agenda. Washington: Council on Foreign Relations Press. P. 1-7.

15. Denisov V.I. 2015. Yadernaya problema Korejskogo poluostrova: est' li vyhod iz tupika? [The Nuclear Problem of the Korean Peninsula: Is There a Way of Ending the Deadlock?]. International Analytics. No. 1. P. 182-193. (In Russian)

16. Lebedeva M.M. 2018. Razvitiye sotsialnoy i gumanitarnoy problematiki v mezhdunarodnykh issledovaniyakh: rossiyskiy rakurs [Social and Humanitarian Issues in International Studies: the Russian Perspective]. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 58(1). P. 7-25. (In Russian). DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2018-1-58-7-25

17. Toloraya G.D., Torkunov A.V. 2016. Raketno-yadernaya ugroza na Korejskom poluostrove: prichiny i mery reagirovaniya [Nuclear and Missile Threat on the Korean Peninsula: Origins and Response Measures]. Polis. Political Studies. No. 4. P. 131-146. (In Russian). DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2016.04.11


Review

For citations:


Pugacheva O.S. Social and Humanitarian Factor in South Korea's External Relations and The Korean Question. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2020;13(1):147-168. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2020-1-70-147-168

Views: 1234


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2071-8160 (Print)
ISSN 2541-9099 (Online)