South Korean Strategic Thought toward Asia in the 1980s
Abstract
The most common explanation for the foreign policy of a small or middle-ranked state during the cold war rests on the concept of power: powerful states secure the compliance of small states through the use of coercion as well as rewards.1 David Vital explains that since there is a disparity of military strength between the great and small powers, it is inevitable for the latter to sacrifice their autonomy in making foreign policy. Most realist scholars share Vital’s view that “conflict with a great power is ultimately a conflict over autonomy,”2 but there is a tendency to underestimate the possibility of a small state being able to shape its own policy independent of external pressure. The basic assumption on the capabilities of small states was not changed by neorealists during the 1980s, who also treated systemic conditions as the fundamental determinant of their behavior and tended to neglect the impact of domestic sociopolitical structure upon the foreign policymaking process and the role of top leaders in making strategic choices.
Keywords
Foreign Policy Small State Olympic Game International Olympic Committee Communist CountryPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
- 2.David Vital, The Inequality of States: A Study of the Small Power in International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), p. 5;Google Scholar
- David Vital, The Survival of Small States: Studies in Small Power and Great Power Conflict (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
- 3.Byung Chul Koh, The Foreign Policy Systems of North and South Korea (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), p. 8.Google Scholar
- 4.Margaret G. Hermann and Charles F. Hermann, “Who Makes Foreign Policy Decisions and How: An Empirical Inquiry,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 33 (December 1989), p. 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Gregory F.T. Winn, Korean Foreign Policy Decision Making: Progress and Structure (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1975), p. 21.Google Scholar
- 6.Wilfrid L. Kohl, “The Nixon-Kissinger Foreign Policy System and U.S.-European Relation: Patterns of Policy making,” World Politics, Vol. 28 (October 1975), pp. 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Gerald L. Curtis and Sungjoo Han, The U.S.-South Korean Alliance (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1983), p. 222.Google Scholar
- 8.Henry A. Kissinger, “Domestic Structure and Foreign Policy,” in J.N. Rosenau, ed., International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research and Theory (New York: The Free Press, 1969), pp. 261–76.Google Scholar
- 9.Ahn Byung-Joon, “A Comparison of the Foreign Policy Making Process in the Republic of Korea and the U.S. after the Vietnam War,” Social Science Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1 (1980), pp. 7–23.Google Scholar
- 10.Charles Morrison and Astri Suhrke, Strategies of Survival: The Foreign Policy Dilemmas of Smaller Asian States (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1979), p. 30.Google Scholar
- 11.In 1989, the Soviets were hoping that South Korean construction firms might participate in the building of a giant trade center in Nakhodka and that the South would generate 50 percent of the financing for this project and fund other infrastructure projects. See Dan C. Sanford, South Korea and the Socialist Countries: The Politics of Trade (London: Macmillan, 1990), pp. 18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Sungjoo Han, “South Korea’s Participation in the Vietnam Conflict: An Analysis of the U.S.-Korean Alliance,” Orbis, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Winter 1978), pp. 893–912;Google Scholar
- Kyudok Hong, Unequal Partners: ROK-U.S. Relations during the Vietnam War (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1991).Google Scholar
- 15.Harold C. Hinton, Korea under New Leadership: The Fifth Republic (New York: Praeger, 1983), p. 53.Google Scholar
- 19.Charles Whelan, “Let the Games Begin,” in Donald Kirk and Choe Sang Hun, eds., Korea Witness: 135 Years of War, Crisis and News in the Land of the Morning Calm (Seoul: Eun Hang Namu, 2006), p. 309.Google Scholar
- 22.Hong Yung Lee, “South Korea in 1991: Unprecedented Opportunity, Increasing Challenge,” Asian Survey, Vol. 32, No. 1 (January 1992), p. 64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Okonogi Masao, “South Korea’s Experiment in Democracy,” James Cotton ed., Korea under Roh Tae-Woo: Democratization, Northern Policy, and Inter-Korean Relations. (Canberra: Allen & Unwin, 1993), p. 20.Google Scholar
- 26.George T. Yu, “China’s Response to Changing Developments on the Korean Peninsula,” in Tong Whan Park, ed., The U.S. and the Two Koreas: A New Triangle (Boulder, CO: Lynn Rienner, 1998), pp. 260–61.Google Scholar
- 28.Park Chung Hee, Toward Peaceful Unification (Seoul: Kwangmyong Publishing Co., 1976), pp. 78–79.Google Scholar