Korea: What the Generals Want

Worldview ◽  
1980 ◽  
Vol 23 (8) ◽  
pp. 13-15
Author(s):  
Edward A. Olsen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
Republic Of Korea ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Military

Observers of Korea have recently received a surfeit of facts about the military takeover, riots, civil insurgency in Cholla province, widespread arrests, and abuse of prisoners. What we lack is a firm sense of what all these events mean for South Korea and the United States. Though it is still early, sufficient evidence exists to warrant a preliminary judgment about the new leadership of post-Park Korea and what may be ahead for the Republic of Korea.

scholarly journals Realities and Strategies in Managing North Korea’s Nuclear Challenge

2016 ◽  
Vol 02 (04) ◽  
pp. 465-484
Author(s):  
Chung Kyung-Young
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The Status ◽  
High Altitude Area ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Nuclear Warfare ◽  
The Military ◽  
The U.S

The nuclear program is arguably Kim Jong-un’s strategic fantasy and core asset for breaking the status quo in order to achieve a unified Korea. To cope with North Korea’s grave nuclear and missile threats, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system needs to be deployed in South Korea for deterrence by denial. In the meantime, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) should not exclude the military option in the event of any further nuclear test and Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) launch experiment by North Korea. The U.S. government should consider redeploying tactical nuclear warheads to South Korea in order to make the extended deterrence more effective. The South Korean government should make it clear that the Republic of Korea (ROK) does not seek to join, nor will it be incorporated into, the U.S.-led missile defense system. The United States and China should cooperate with South Korea to take the lead in achieving a norm-oriented, nuclear-free, and unified Korea. In particular, ROK-U.S.-China strategic cooperation is essential to preventing any potential nuclear warfare and maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. South Korea, the United States and China should propose restructured negotiations on important issues that provide genuine incentives for Pyongyang, culminating in complete and verifiable denuclearization and a treaty that will end the tensions on the Peninsula. In addition, the trilateral cooperation needs to adopt a more proactive engagement policy to facilitate North Korea’s lasting transformation.

Negotiating in Good Faith: Overcoming Legitimacy Problems in the Japan-South Korea Reconciliation Process

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (03) ◽  
pp. 621-644 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Phuong Le
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Republic Of Korea ◽  
Comfort Women ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Reconciliation Process

This article examines why the “history issue” continues to hinder Japanese-Korean relations after nominally successful negotiations such as the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea and the 2015 comfort women agreement. It contends that leaders put off and quite possibly sacrificed reconciliation in order to achieve treaties and agreements that addressed more immediate security, economic, and political needs. However, because agreements were not transparently negotiated, partly due to the lack of a neutral third-party mediator, Koreans believe the treaties were not fair nor final settlements. Additionally, the reconciliation process has been flawed because it haphazardly tackles disagreements and does not consider time. A third-party such as the United States should mediate a settlement between Japan and South Korea to ensure adequate confidence building measures. Such measures will lower the costs of giving and accepting an apology, increasing the chances of an enduring and legitimate treaty.

scholarly journals South Korea and the U.S. Strategy of Free and Open Indo-Pacific

2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (8) ◽  
pp. 31-40
Author(s):  
O. Davydov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Republic Of Korea ◽  
Asian Countries ◽  
Regional Strategies ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

The advancement and promoting by the United States of its concept of Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) has shaped many of political discussions in Asian countries in recent years. The Republic of Korea is no exception. From this perspective, the article reviews the basic aspects of the evolution of South Korea’s foreign policy course as well as new priorities in that area which have been forged with the advent of President Moon Jae-in administration. The paper shows that the complex fluctuations of the South Korea’s external policy have been defined by the need to maintain the focus on the United States, on one side, and desire to nurture strategic partnership with China, on the other side. However, finding the right balance in that political equation has been significantly complicated due to the growing confrontation between the two global powers. Special attention is given to the role and place of South Korea in the U. S. Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy. The article examines the main directions, some of the outcomes and the prospects of cooperation between Washington and Seoul aimed at harmonizing their regional strategies in view of the factors facilitating those interactions as well as those hampering them. President Trump highlighted that the United States – the Republic of Korea alliance remains a linchpin for security, stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific. However, the dialogue between the two partners has not revealed the willingness of South Korea to collaborate with the United States on that theme beyond a narrow framework of purely economic coordination. Particularly, South Korea has consistently rejected the attempts of its ally to involve the country into the activities of Quad for fear of a possible adverse effect for the Korea–China relationships. All of those questions are examined in the article in linkage with a number of bilateral problems prevailing in the ROK–USA alliance which have complicated the collaboration between the two countries on regional issues in recent times.

Negotiating the Cold War: The United States and the Two Koreas

2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 85-105
Author(s):  
Steven Hugh Lee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
Republic Of Korea ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
South Korean ◽  
Agreed Framework ◽  
Peace Settlement ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Cold War

AbstractSince December 1997, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of Korea (ROK), and the United States have met in a series of talks aimed at promoting peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in the region. According to a November 1998 U.S. Department of Defense report, the discussions have created a “diplomatic venue for reducing tensions and ultimately replacing the Armistice Agreement with a permanent peace settlement.”1 Amidst the tragic human suffering which has occurred in North Korea, there have been some encouraging developments on the peninsula. The 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and North Korea placed international controls on North Korea’s atomic energy program and cautiously anticipated the normalization of U.S.-DPRK relations. Since assuming power in early 1998, South Korean President Kim Dae Jung has vigorously pursued a policy of engagement with P’yo¨ngyang, known as the “sunshine policy.” Over the past decade, North Korea has also reoriented its foreign policy. In the early 1990s, the regime’s social and economic crisis led to a rethinking of its autarkic economic system. By early 1994, the state had created new free trade zones and relatively open foreign investment laws.2 By complying with the Agreed Framework, the DPRK has also shown a willingness to work with the international community on sensitive issues affecting its internal sovereignty and ability to project power beyond its borders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document