Loading ...
There are certain major powers that have historically played a key role on the Korean peninsula - and, if you think about it objectively, it has not always been an overwhelmingly positive role. China and Japan have duelled over the peninsula since time immemorial. Russia and the United States joined the fray in the 19th century and in the 20th, ultimately played the role of saviour or occupier, dependent on your point of view.
Major powers (China, Japan, Russia and the United States) have determined the fate of the minor power (Korea) around which their strategic interests(geostrategic position, commerce and resources) lie. This is a historical fact. But these three variables have changed. ‘Major powers’, the ‘minor power’ and their ’strategic interests’ have changed, whilst the structures to solve political issues on the Korean peninsula have not…
Firstly lets address the major powers. Today, these major powers unarguably retain an interest in the peninsula. But current efforts to resolve political issues such as unification neglect to acknowledge the fact that these powers are no longer the only states with an interest in Korean peninsula affairs:
- The European Union, as the largest foreign investor in South Korea since 1962, should be playing a much greater role. It can be expected that it will eventually seek to play a more influential role, commensurate to its global influence.
- Emerging major powers such as India are already playing a much greater role in South Korean trade and investment issues. It is only a matter of time before they seek to exert an equally influential political role.
- Middle powers, could only ever play a minor role, may, given leadership and coordination, seek to play a greater role. Middle powers such as Canada, Australia, the ASEAN states, and the Scandinavian states all count South Korea amongst their top trade partners. It is in their interest that the Korean peninsula retain its status quo and not negatively affect the economic interests of the region.
Secondly, there is the question of the ‘minor power’. Unarguably, South Korea is no longer a minor power. With fifty years of peace and ideal political-economic ties to its sponsor, the United States, it has outgrown its historical legacy of being a minor power surrounded by major powers. South Korea is today, as the 11th largest economy in terms of GDP, and commensurate rank in terms of population and military power, is no longer a minor power. It is very much a ’middle power’.
South Korea does not yet act like a traditional middle power in political terms. It does not yet have a tendency to seek compromise in international disputes, such as New Zealand and Canada; or to seek multilateral solutions to international problems as Canada and Australia do, nor does it play the role of ‘good international citizen’ like the Scandinavian states. But it is changing rapidly. Indeed, despite the strong criticism of the Roh administration and the various forms of the Sunshine Policy, both are signs of South Korea’s emergence as a middle power. The Sunshine Policy, was effectively an attempt to seek compromise in an international problem - in comparison to the previous 50 years of hostility.
Thirdly, there is the question of strategic interests. The Korean peninsula is still important in geo-strategic terms. Its position in North Asia sets it as both a threat and opportunity for Japan, Russia and China. For the United States it places it in a strategic pivot from which it can balance East Asian powers. Similarly, commerce remains an important aspect of the peninsula’s role. However, its importance in commerce has widened with the growth of South Korea. This has taken it away from the domain of the major powers and placed it in the sphere of interest of every power that shares a trade and investment relationship with South Korea. Finally, in terms of resources, the Korean peninsula is today only of minor interest to the demand driven Chinese entrepreneurs who seek to exploit the geographic proximity and low wage labor of North Korea’s dwindling coal, iron ore and rare metal reserves.
So, if the Korean peninsula is no longer the sole political prerogative of the major powers, why are structures designed to address ‘Korean questions’, such as the nuclear issue, the Korean War and unification attract only China, Japan, Russia and the United States??? Perhaps it is time for other powers such as the European Union and India to play a role - and maybe it is even time for South Korea to seek the assistance of other interested middle powers such Australia, Canada, the Scandinavian states and New Zealand???
Share This Sphere: Related Content
6 responses so far ↓
1 Baltimoron // Sep 16, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Geo-strategically, I wince when you say the Korean peninsula is “important” because it’s a pivot. It’s like saying a chronic patient is “important” to a doctor because he keeps returning with new ailments everyday. “Nuisance” is a word closer to the meaning of pivot I would choose.
In the absence of an incredibly strong regime (that would probably not last more than a few centuries and would attract more competitors than what the effort would be worth), the default mode of a pivot is a political and economic mess that creates crises for the more robust, viable regimes around it. Solutions to a pivot revolve around the agendas the external powers have, not the needs of the pivot. If Japan and China find a way not to scorch Korean earth every century, it won’t be because of what North and South Korea can do. Really, it’s irrelevant which side each Korean state backs.
2 dilworth // Sep 16, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Thanks for commenting Baltimoron!… ‘Important’ or ‘nuisance’ is really the same thing, dependent on your point of view…
Having emerged as a middle power, South Korea is increasingly less of the ‘pivot’ you describe. As a middle power, it has a much greater ability to determine its own path, and will likely deal with major powers in much the same way as other middle powers do - seeking compromise in international disputes, seeking multilateral solutions to global problems and displaying a greater degree of ‘good international citizenship’.
And as noted by Martin Wright in the book ‘Power Politics’, ultimately in circumstances of wartime, middle powers are capable of inflicting costs upon a major power out of proportion to what a major power can achieve through attacking it. As a middle power, South Korea is today much less of a pivot, than it has historically been.
3 Baltimoron // Sep 17, 2007 at 6:44 pm
I tend to view geography as destiny, and IR as subordinate to geography. I don’t think states in pivots can change their predicament for very long.
In historical time, South Korea has existed for a very brief time. Especially, when one considers that “Korea” as an independent political and cultural entity nearly disappeared from the peninsula between 1910-45, I wouldn’t put too much stock in this latest version. Kingdoms come and go on the peninsula. Korea, divided as it is because of China, is only as viable as it is because China needed decades to survive a series of revolutions, and Japan was defeated in WW2. But the patterns of interference from the mainland up north and Japan in the south endure. That’s what makes the peninsula special and different from Europe or the Americas or Australia.
To maintain political authority over the peninsula in the way you would argue, Korea would have to be more than middling, but hegemonic in the region. The real difference now in the region is that there is a bilateral contest between equally powerful Chinese and Japanese states, and Korea cannot match either. That two hobbled states could catch up and still outpace Korea again only underscores the limitations the peninsula places on its inhabitants. If it were the Philippines islands, I would give Korea a chance, but not on a peninsula right in the middle of two vipers.
4 dilworth // Sep 17, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Hmmmm…. interesting…. In my opinion, geography is the same as IR - they both change over time - or at least our perceptions of them do. What is a pivot between major powers at one point in time, can be at the center of a cohesive political/economic region at another point in time…
As for the Philippines - that explains why so many Koreans are moving down there!
5 Baltimoron // Sep 17, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Geography is a relatively stable quantum of information, short of some massive tectonic movement or climactic crisis (like the Northwest Passage thawing out).
But, theories do change according to technology and implementation. That’s the interesting part of geostrategic studies, the interplay between practice and research. For example, the way that airpower theory was debated by military planners and politicians between Kosovo and the Israeli-Hizbullah War showed how professors learn from the air force, and the generals take academic or professional material (like Douhet’s theories) seriously.
There is some progress and deconstruction of the IR part, but it happens on a stable template. It’s not a gaming situation where the premises are adjusted to tweak the conclusions.
6 BC // Sep 18, 2007 at 9:01 pm
For crissakes - just nuke’em and be done with it!
I mean you two and not the Norks!
You must log in to post a comment.