Abstract
North Korea poses a security threat by developing nuclear weapons. To address this source of regional insecurity, institutionalized frameworks of regional cooperation have been employed. Despite its usefulness as an alternative route to deal with the North Korean case, controversies still remain in terms of its relevance and effectiveness. Even so, the regional integration, consistently promoted by the EU as an integral part of its Asian policy, still requires systematic evaluation. This paper thus examines how and under which conditions regional integration can make a contribution to the transformation of the current crisis. In answering this question, it concludes that a long-term model-setting effect is hard to disregard, in spite of the mixed view of substantial compulsory and social learning effects. The underlying reasons are the ontological-seeking activities of North Korea, along with regional and global actors’ reservations about the contributions of the EU as a key security provider in Asian affairs and in its promotion of the regional integration scheme.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Previous negotiations to shutdown the Yongbyon nuclear reactor in return for energy aid is an example in case (Maass 2012, p. 310).
This is well demonstrated by the North Korean spokesman comments following the Bush administration’s strategy of naming North Korea a member of the Axis of Evil. As the spokesman commented that “the DPRK-US relations are still characterized by distrust and misunderstandings and they have grown stronger since the emergence of the new administration in the US.” (Korean Central News Agency, May 22, 2001)
See Council of the European Union (ed.), Presidency conclusions of the Brussels European Council (December 12–13, 2003), Brussels, February 5, 2004, 5381/04, p. 22.
This attempt gained further momentum when South Korea’s “sunshine diplomacy” under the Kim Dae-Jung administration aimed for peace and co-prosperity on the Korean peninsula, to which the EU has also lent its direct and indirect support (Interview an EEAS analyst, 2013, personal communication).
A retired Lieutenant General in Korea argues that China tends to show more interest in the North Korean issues not so much because of the regional security issue but rather because of nuclear waste disposal issues (Interview a KIDA director, 2014, personal communication).
This includes the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus the EU and regional states (both Koreas, Japan and Australia) (Bluth 2011: 157).
References
ARF (1995) Chairman’s Statement of the 2nd Meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum. Brunei Darussalam, 1 August 1995
ARF (2004) ARF Statement on Non-Proliferation. Jakarta, 2 July 2004
ARF (2012) Chairman’s Statement of the 19th ASEAN Regional Forum Phnom Penh. Cambodia, 12 July 2012
ASEAN+3 (APT) (2004) Chairman’s Statement of the 8th ASEAN +3 Summit Vientiane. 29 November 2004
ASEM (2000) Chairman’s Statement. Asia-Europe Meeting, 20–21 October 2000
ASEM (2006) Chairman’s Statement of the Sixth Asia Europe Meeting, Helsinki, 10–11 September 2006
Berkofsky A (2003) EU’s policy towards the DPRK: engagement of standstill?. EIAS publications BP 03/01
Bersick S (2014) Europe’s role in Asia: distant but involved. In: Shambaugh D, Yahuda M (eds) International relations of Asia, 2nd edn. Rowman & Littlefield, New York, pp. 115–145
Bluth C (2011) Crisis on the Korean peninsula. Potomac Books, Washington D. C
Bridges B (2008) The European Union and the Korean conundrum. In: Balme R, Bridges B (eds) Europe-Asia relations: building Multilateralisms. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, pp. 213–232
Buzan B, Waever O, Wilde JD (1998) Security: a new framework for analysis. Lynn Rienner, Boulder
Cha VD (2009) Powerplay origins of the US alliance system in Asia. Int Secur 343:158–196
Commission E (1994) Towards a New Asia Strategy. Com (94) 314 final, 13 July 1994
Commission E (2001) Europe and Asia: a strategic framework for enhanced partnership. COM 2001, 469 final, 4 September 2001
Council of the European Union (2003) Presidency conclusions of the Brussels European Council (December 12–13, 2003), Brussels, February 5, 2004, 5381/04
Council of the European Union (ed) (2004) Presidency conclusions of the Brussels European Council (December 12–13, 2003), Brussels, February 5, 2004, 5381/04
Council of the European Union (2013) “Joint Declaration in commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of Diplomatic Relations between the European Union and the Republic of Korea”. Brussels, 8 November 2013 15875/13 (OR. en) PRESSE 462
Cumings B (2007) Creating Korean insecurity: the US role. In: Hazel S (ed) Reconstituting Korean security. United Nations University Press, New York, pp. 21–42
Diez T, Tocci N (eds) (2009) Cyprus: a conflict at the crossroads. Manchester University Press, Manchester
Diez T, Albert M, Stetter S (2006) The European Union and border conflicts: the power of integration. Int Organ 603:563–593
Dorussen H (2001) Mixing carrots with sticks: evaluating the effectiveness of positive incentives. J Peace Res 382:251–262
Frank R (2006) The political economy of sanctions against North Korea. Asian Perspect 303:5–36
Forster A (2000) Evaluating the EU-ASEM relationship: a negotiated order approach. J Eur Public Policy 75:787–805
Garrett G, Weingast BR (1993) Ideas, interests, and institutions: constructing the European Community’s internal market. In: Goldstein J, Keohane RO (eds) Ideas & foreign policy: an analytical framework. Cornell University Press, New York, pp. 173–206
Giddens A (1991) Modernity and self-identity. Polity Press, Cambridge
Haas EB (1958) The uniting of Europe. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame
Hill C (2001) The EU’s capacity for conflict prevention. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 63:315–333
Hughes C (2009) “super-sizing” the DPRK threat: Japan’s evolving military posture and North Korea. Asian Surv 492:291–311
Hund M (2012) Manifestation of collective identities in southeast and East Asia? AV Akademikerverlag, Saarbrücken
Kim SS (2001) North Korea in 2000 surviving through high hopes of summit diplomacy. Asian Surv 411:12–29
Kim YS (2006) A study on Kaesung industrial complex effects on south-north military tension reduction. N Korean Stud Rev 102:113–148 (in Korean)
Kim SH (2008) Regionalism and multilateral alliance: an analysis on their possible coexistence in East Asia. Korean J Int Stud 484:7–34 (in Korean)
Kim YJ, Park IW (2004) Moderates alliance: trilateral policy coordination for North Korea’s nuclear crisis. Korean J Int Stud 444:197–216 (in Korean)
Kinnval C (2004) Globalization and religious nationalism: self, identity, and the search for ontological security. Pol Psychol 255:741–767
Korean Central News Agency, May 22, 2001 (in Korean)
Lee KS (2000) Improvement measure for Humanitarin aid to North Korea. Research Series 00–32 Korea Institute for National Unification, Seoul (in Korean)
Lee MS (2007) Helsinki process, model for northeast Asian region. Munwha Daily News Paper, 22 June 2007 (in Korean)
Lee DR (2010) China’s policy and influence on the North Korea nuclear issue: denuclearization and/or stabilization of the Korean peninsula? Korean J Def Anal 222:163–181
Lee M (2012) A step as normative power: the EU’s human rights policy towards North Korea. Asia Europe Journal 101:41–56
Lee M, Kim Y (2011) The relationship between local governments in South Korea and China: a step toward regional integration. Issues Stud 473:177–209
Levy JS (1994) Learning and foreign policy: sweeping a conceptual minefield. Int Organ 482:279–312
Maass M (2012) North Korea’s Instrumentalization of diplomacy: passing through the “danger zone” of its nuclear weapons program. Korean J Def Anal 243:303–320
Manners I (2002) Normative power Europe: a contradiction in terms? J Common Mark Stud 40(2):235–258
Mitzen J (2006a) Anchoring Europe’s civilizing identity: hibits, capabilities and ontological security. J Eur Public Pol 132:270–285
Mitzen J (2006b) Ontological security in world politics: state identity and the security dilemma. Eur J Int Relat 126:341–370
Moravscik A (1993) Preferences and power in the European Community: a liberal Intergovernmentalist approach. J Common Mark Stud 314:473–524
Quinones CK (2007) Korean peninsula energy Developmnet organization (KEDO): a bridge too far? In: Joo SH, Kwak TH (eds) Norht Korea’s second nuclear crisis and northeast Asian security. Ashgate, Aldershot, p. 173
Snyder S (2014) The Korean peninsula and northeast Asian stability. In: Shambaugh D, Yahuda M (eds) International relations of Asia, 2nd edn. Rowman & Littlefield, New York, pp. 293–315
Stumbaum MBU (2009) The European Union and China: decision-making in EU foreign and security policy towards the People’s republic of China. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Rozman G (2011) Strategic thinking about the Korean nuclear crisis. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Weber K (2013) The ASEAN regional forum and the EU’s role in promoting security in the Asia-Pacific. In: Christiansen T, Kirchner E, Murray P (eds) The Palgrave handbook of EU-Asia relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, pp. 344–358
Wiessala G (2002) The European Union and Asian countries. Sheffield University Press, London
Weissmann M (2012) The east Asian peace: conflict prevention and informal peacebuilding. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Yeo LH (2007) The inter-regional dimension of EU-Asia relations. In: Anderson PJ, Wiessala G (eds) The European Union and Asia: reflections and Re-orientations. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 173–191
Yeo LH (2013) Can the EU be a serious security actor in Asia? Asia Europe Journal 11:465–467
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lee, M. The EU, regional cooperation, and the North Korean nuclear crisis. Asia Eur J 14, 401–415 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-016-0457-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-016-0457-y