The Military Origin of National R&D Programs in South Korea

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-185
Author(s):  
Sangwoon YOO
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
И.А. Зайцев ◽  
В.Д. Секерин

В статье рассмотрено место инноваций в цифровой экономике. Рассмотрены тенденции развития инноваций в оборонно-промышленном комплексе. Приведена аналитика инноваций в ключевых областях: робототехнике, военном машиностроении, в сенсорных системах, военной логистике. Проведено сравнение России с другими странами, в частности по робототехнике описан опыт США и Германии. В области машиностроения рассмотрен опыт России, США и Южной Кореи. Приведена статистика военных расходов 20 стран. The article considers the place of innovation in the digital economy. The trends in the development of innovations in the military-industrial complex are considered. The analytics of innovations in key areas: robotics, military engineering, in sensor systems, military logistics. Russia is compared with other countries, in particular, the experience of the USA and Germany is described in robotics. In the field of engineering, the experience of Russia, the USA and South Korea is considered. Statistics of military spending of 20 countries are given.


2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olli Hellmann

This article argues that high levels of state capacity are not a sufficient condition for consolidating autocratic rule. Rather, whether non-democratic rulers can harness the infrastructural power of the state to implement strategies of regime stabilization depends on three crucial factors: the state’s social embedding; the international context; and the extent of elite cohesion. The paper develops this argument through a case study of the military–bureaucratic regime in South Korea (1961–1987), which – despite a high-capacity ‘developmental’ state at its disposal – failed to maintain high levels of resilience.


2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcos Degaut

Why some democratic revolutions succeed while others fail? The scholarly community has sought to address this issue from various perspectives, from rational choice approaches to collective action theories. Too little attention, however, has been paid to analyzing the role of the military. By discussing the different types of interactions played by the military in five cases of successful democratic revolutions—the 1910 Portuguese Republican Revolution, the 1958 Venezuelan Revolution, the 1960 April Revolution in South Korea, the 1989 Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, and the 2000 Bulldozer Revolution in Yugoslavia—and three cases of failed revolutions, the 1905 bourgeois-liberal revolution in Russia, the 1989 Tiananmen Square Protests in China, and the 2016 Turkey’s coup attempt, this study finds out that the key factor in determining their outcome is the army’s response and that the military backing is a necessary condition for a democratic revolution to succeed.


Author(s):  
Carl J. Saxer

Many have seen the establishment of civilian and democratic control over the military as a necessary, although not sufficient, condition for the consolidation of a nascent democracy. The establishment of civilian and democratic control over the military in South Korea was a long and, some would argue, uncompleted process. A coup in 1961 led by Park Chung-hee, a major-general, led to the establishment of an authoritarian regime that, while going civilian, was based on the control of the military and the intelligence services. Park was assassinated by the head of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency in October 1979; however, the hopes of moving in the direction of democracy were soon squashed when Chun Doo-hwan, and his comrades in arms from the secret Hanahoe (One Mind) club of Korean Military Academy graduates, first took power over the military through an internal coup, and then took control over the government. Under significant internal, and external, pressure Chun Doo-hwan agreed to step down from the presidency in 1987 and allow the writing of a new constitution that led to free elections to the presidency in December 1987. The opposition lost the 1987 election due to its inability to agree upon a united candidate. The winner was Roh Tae-woo, a participant in the 1979–1990 coup, who would during his presidency take important steps when it came to establishing civilian control over the military. However, it was first with the inauguration of the Kim Young-sam in 1993 that the establishment of firm civilian control was achieved. He engaged in a significant reorganization of, and moved against the power of the secret societies within, the army. He also promoted the idea of a politically neutral military. This most likely played a significant role when Kim Dae-jung, the first opposition candidate, won the presidency in December 1997, as the military remained neutral and accepted the outcome of the electoral process. There has since been a strengthening of civilian control over the military in South Korea. However, there are a number of important issues that need to be dealt with in order to ensure full democratic control over the military and the intelligence services. While the military, as an institution, has stayed neutral in politics, military and intelligence resources have been used in attempts at influencing public opinion in the lead-up to elections. In addition, comprehensive oversight by the legislature continues to be weak and the National Security Law remains on the books.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (19) ◽  
pp. 117-137
Author(s):  
Natalia Matveeva

Since its founding in 1948, South Korea existed on the forefront of the Cold War divide between the two rival blocs. The 'communist threat' was never far from the South Korean leaders' minds, yet it was not until the 1960s that anti-communism was turned into a strategy for regime legitimisation. In 1961, as a result of a coup d'état, a military regime came to power. Its first and most important goal was to legitimise itself both domestically and internationally. General Park Chung-hee, the leader of the military junta, chose anticommunism as part of his strategy. It was deployed to convince the US of the new regime's commitment to defending the country against any possible threat; to prevent American military and economic withdrawal from Korea, and to justify the intensive drive for rapid economic development, for which the general later became renowned. This article argues that South Korean anticommunism in the early 1960s was a complex and conscious strategy aimed at establishing the foundations for the new military regime and ensuring its continued survival. Based on Park Chung-hee's speeches and books and the available archival sources, the article illustrates the way in which anticommunism was presented and how it was used as part of the regime's legitimising strategy.


2021 ◽  
pp. 030582982110365
Author(s):  
Rishika Yadav

This essay reviews four disparate studies on war narratives: ‘Right to Mourn’ by Suhi Choi (2019), ‘Fly Until You Die’ by Chia Youyee Vang (2019), ‘Soldiers in Revolt’ by Maggie Dwyer (2018), ‘Breaking the Binaries in Security Studies’ by Ayelet Harel-Shalev and Shir Daphna-Tekoah (2019). The studies take a ‘view-from-below’ approach and build new theoretical frameworks that not only expose ‘the price of war’, but also investigate how ‘subaltern subjects’ subjects view their place and participation in the conflict and resist over-arching homogenous interpretations. The studies respectively focus on post-war remembrance in South Korea, oral histories of Hmong pilots, mutinying in West African states, and the experiences of female combatants in the Israeli Defence Forces. Although dissimilar in terms of geographic spaces, actors and even methodology, the authors all commonly challenge established binaries within conflict studies that assume a separation of the ‘military’ and the ‘civilian’, the prevalence of power-hierarchies within armed forces, and the supposed passiveness of powerless actors in conflict. This essay reviews these books as not individual publications that contribute to the literature of their own disciplines, but as interactive theoretical frameworks that not only dispute prevailing theories of war but also present new understandings on how these narratives interrelate.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document