By Lee Jong-eun
For South Korea, the two neighboring countries often described as "close, yet distant" are North Korea and Japan. Despite sharing a common ethnicity and heritage, the ideological differences and the legacy of the Korean War have stood as barriers between the two Koreas, with many in South Korea viewing the North even today as a "jujeok," a primary enemy.
As for Japan, though similar political democracies and sharing close economic ties, the historical legacy of Japan's colonial rule over Korea still stands as a barrier to a closer partnership between the two countries. Though both countries are an ally of the United States, rarely would a South Korean policymaker also describe Japan as Korea's "ally."
Yet, as North Korea and Japan are geographical neighbors, South Korean policymakers have over the years attempted "pragmatic" foreign policy approaches toward the two countries. Different policy proposals have advocated separating the issues of bilateral disputes from areas of common interests. The terms such as "future-oriented partnerships," "coexistence and co-prosperity," and "two-track diplomacy" frequently appear in proposals for improved relations between the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and between ROK and Japan.
However, South Korea's political paradox is that overtures for a pragmatic policy are often one-sided toward only one of the neighbors. To the other neighbor, greater emphasis is placed on advancing South Korea's "values and principles." As a result, South Korean politics has often been divided, with policymakers accusing their political opponents of double standards in their foreign policy.
Many South Korean progressives have advocated what they portray as a pragmatic engagement policy toward North Korea. Viewing North Korea as a kindred country to reunify in the future, the progressives have warned of the danger of inciting the memories of past provocations and conflicts to prolong mutual antagonism between the two Koreas.
Instead, the progressives have favored expanding inter-Korean cooperation as a strategy for mutual peace and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula. While acknowledging the security threats from North Korea's nuclear development and the regime's human rights abuses, progressives have generally advocated long-term approaches to resolving these issues rather than confrontational measures that could escalate regional tensions.
The progressives, however, have been more confrontational in their approach toward Japan. Critical of what they perceive as Japan's insufficient apology for past colonial rule, progressives have supported lawsuits to force the Japanese government and companies to pay reparations to former victims.
During the bilateral trade dispute in 2019, progressives urged public boycotts against Japan, with several prominent politicians invoking the memories of Korea's independence movement against Japan. In contrast to their openness to accommodate North Korea's security interests, the progressives have been less sympathetic toward Japan's security interests, suspicious of Japan's remilitarization as a return to an "imperialist past."
South Korean conservatives have taken a different, though also one-sided approach in advocacy for a "pragmatic" foreign policy toward neighboring states. Though acknowledging the sensitive historical disputes, conservatives have been wary that these disputes could undermine ROK-Japan cooperation and the ROK-U.S. alliance.
While progressives were leading a public boycott against Japan, conservatives urged the South Korean government not to suspend GSOMIA, an intelligence-sharing agreement with Japan. Viewing Japan as an economic, strategic partner linked together under a trilateral U.S.-ROK-Japan security framework, conservatives have sought pragmatic "bargains" to mitigate the bilateral disputes and have pursued the further expansion of security partnerships through regional frameworks like the Quad.
The conservatives, however, have been far more likely to advocate "maximum pressure" toward North Korea. The conservatives have often criticized projects for inter-Korean cooperation as "appeasements" and "subsidies" that benefit the North Korean regime. In contrast to their more nuanced approaches toward disputes with Japan, conservatives have generally advocated asserting "principle" and "strength" in confronting North Korea's human rights record and nuclear programs.
This year, the two main candidates in Korea's presidential election were accused of being dogmatic yet also placatory in their foreign policy platforms. Yoon Suk-yeol, the conservative candidate and the eventual winner, received criticism from progressives that he was too confrontational toward North Korea and too accommodating toward Japan. In contrast, Lee Jae-myung, the progressive candidate, received criticism that he wasn't sufficiently assertive toward North Korea; and not flexible enough toward disputes with Japan.
Some might argue that it is misleading to compare South Korea's foreign policy toward North Korea and Japan on the same scale. To some, there is far greater credibility in cooperating with a fellow member of the liberal international order than with a rogue regime. To others, sharing a common heritage might justify greater sacrifice on the part of South Korea for the long-term goal of reintegration with the North.
Even so, the paradox of South Korean politics in praising an attempt to find a pragmatic approach in one foreign policy area while simultaneously vilifying a similar attempt in a different policy area has often contributed to policy gridlocks, stalling advancements in policies toward both Japan and North Korea. For South Korea's long-term security, partnership with Japan and coexistence with North Korea are mutual objectives that require exploring creative solutions.
During his presidential campaign, Yoon Suk-yeol cited the 1998 ROK-Japan Joint Declaration as a model for his foreign policy toward Japan. President Kim Dae-Jung, who signed the declaration, was also known for his "sunshine" engagement policy toward North Korea, pursuing a mutual rapprochement with South Korea's two neighbors.
As Yoon has pledged his presidency will be guided by "pragmatism, common sense, and fairness," the hope is that Yoon's pragmatism will be "two-sided" toward both North Korea and Japan. A challenge, however, is whether South Korea's divided politics would permit a policy space for the integration of competing, pragmatic proposals from different political spectrums.
Lee Jong-eun (jl4375a@student.american.edu) is a Ph.D. candidate and is also an adjunct faculty at the American University School of International Service. Prior to this, he has served as a South Korean Airforce intelligence officer. His research specialty includes U.S. foreign policy, South Korean politics and foreign policy, alliance management, East Asian regional security.
 |
As for Japan, though similar political democracies and sharing close economic ties, the historical legacy of Japan's colonial rule over Korea still stands as a barrier to a closer partnership between the two countries. Though both countries are an ally of the United States, rarely would a South Korean policymaker also describe Japan as Korea's "ally."
Yet, as North Korea and Japan are geographical neighbors, South Korean policymakers have over the years attempted "pragmatic" foreign policy approaches toward the two countries. Different policy proposals have advocated separating the issues of bilateral disputes from areas of common interests. The terms such as "future-oriented partnerships," "coexistence and co-prosperity," and "two-track diplomacy" frequently appear in proposals for improved relations between the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and between ROK and Japan.
However, South Korea's political paradox is that overtures for a pragmatic policy are often one-sided toward only one of the neighbors. To the other neighbor, greater emphasis is placed on advancing South Korea's "values and principles." As a result, South Korean politics has often been divided, with policymakers accusing their political opponents of double standards in their foreign policy.
Many South Korean progressives have advocated what they portray as a pragmatic engagement policy toward North Korea. Viewing North Korea as a kindred country to reunify in the future, the progressives have warned of the danger of inciting the memories of past provocations and conflicts to prolong mutual antagonism between the two Koreas.
Instead, the progressives have favored expanding inter-Korean cooperation as a strategy for mutual peace and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula. While acknowledging the security threats from North Korea's nuclear development and the regime's human rights abuses, progressives have generally advocated long-term approaches to resolving these issues rather than confrontational measures that could escalate regional tensions.
The progressives, however, have been more confrontational in their approach toward Japan. Critical of what they perceive as Japan's insufficient apology for past colonial rule, progressives have supported lawsuits to force the Japanese government and companies to pay reparations to former victims.
During the bilateral trade dispute in 2019, progressives urged public boycotts against Japan, with several prominent politicians invoking the memories of Korea's independence movement against Japan. In contrast to their openness to accommodate North Korea's security interests, the progressives have been less sympathetic toward Japan's security interests, suspicious of Japan's remilitarization as a return to an "imperialist past."
South Korean conservatives have taken a different, though also one-sided approach in advocacy for a "pragmatic" foreign policy toward neighboring states. Though acknowledging the sensitive historical disputes, conservatives have been wary that these disputes could undermine ROK-Japan cooperation and the ROK-U.S. alliance.
While progressives were leading a public boycott against Japan, conservatives urged the South Korean government not to suspend GSOMIA, an intelligence-sharing agreement with Japan. Viewing Japan as an economic, strategic partner linked together under a trilateral U.S.-ROK-Japan security framework, conservatives have sought pragmatic "bargains" to mitigate the bilateral disputes and have pursued the further expansion of security partnerships through regional frameworks like the Quad.
The conservatives, however, have been far more likely to advocate "maximum pressure" toward North Korea. The conservatives have often criticized projects for inter-Korean cooperation as "appeasements" and "subsidies" that benefit the North Korean regime. In contrast to their more nuanced approaches toward disputes with Japan, conservatives have generally advocated asserting "principle" and "strength" in confronting North Korea's human rights record and nuclear programs.
This year, the two main candidates in Korea's presidential election were accused of being dogmatic yet also placatory in their foreign policy platforms. Yoon Suk-yeol, the conservative candidate and the eventual winner, received criticism from progressives that he was too confrontational toward North Korea and too accommodating toward Japan. In contrast, Lee Jae-myung, the progressive candidate, received criticism that he wasn't sufficiently assertive toward North Korea; and not flexible enough toward disputes with Japan.
Some might argue that it is misleading to compare South Korea's foreign policy toward North Korea and Japan on the same scale. To some, there is far greater credibility in cooperating with a fellow member of the liberal international order than with a rogue regime. To others, sharing a common heritage might justify greater sacrifice on the part of South Korea for the long-term goal of reintegration with the North.
Even so, the paradox of South Korean politics in praising an attempt to find a pragmatic approach in one foreign policy area while simultaneously vilifying a similar attempt in a different policy area has often contributed to policy gridlocks, stalling advancements in policies toward both Japan and North Korea. For South Korea's long-term security, partnership with Japan and coexistence with North Korea are mutual objectives that require exploring creative solutions.
During his presidential campaign, Yoon Suk-yeol cited the 1998 ROK-Japan Joint Declaration as a model for his foreign policy toward Japan. President Kim Dae-Jung, who signed the declaration, was also known for his "sunshine" engagement policy toward North Korea, pursuing a mutual rapprochement with South Korea's two neighbors.
As Yoon has pledged his presidency will be guided by "pragmatism, common sense, and fairness," the hope is that Yoon's pragmatism will be "two-sided" toward both North Korea and Japan. A challenge, however, is whether South Korea's divided politics would permit a policy space for the integration of competing, pragmatic proposals from different political spectrums.
Lee Jong-eun (jl4375a@student.american.edu) is a Ph.D. candidate and is also an adjunct faculty at the American University School of International Service. Prior to this, he has served as a South Korean Airforce intelligence officer. His research specialty includes U.S. foreign policy, South Korean politics and foreign policy, alliance management, East Asian regional security.
