The U.S. Perceptions of the Unification of the Korean Peninsula and South Korea’s New Unification Strategy
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper examines the U.S.’s perceptions of Korean unification and the new unification strategy for South Korea. Theoretically the offensive realism, it is argued that all countries except hegemonic powers pursue changes in the status quo. With the decline of American influence that led to the Liberal International Order since the end of the Cold War, the possibility of a paradigm shift regarding the unification of the Korean Peninsula is increasing. The Ukraine War and the Israel-Hamas conflict serve as clear evidence of the end of the unipolar era. With the increasing likelihood of Trump's re-election in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, there is a growing possibility of a shift in the U.S. foreign policy towards “America First”, potentially leading the U.S. to revert to isolationism as an offshore balancer. While previous U.S. administrations officially supported the principle of Korean Peninsula unification, as the sole hegemonic power in the unipolar era, the U.S. pursued policies of status quo maintenance when crises arose on the Korean Peninsula. If the geopolitical distribution of power shifts due to the decline of the U.S. and the pursuit of status quo changes by authoritarian states like China and Russia, there is a possibility, as suggested by Schweller, of a reconfiguration into a tri-polar system. In a tri-polar system, if two countries pursue status quo changes, instability on the Korean Peninsula could rapidly escalate. This is a critical momentum for South Korea to establish a new strategy for unification. The U.S. has historically endorsed the unification of the Korean Peninsula; however, in reality, it appears that the U.S. does not wish to change the Korean Peninsula's status quo. Assuming the U.S. adjusts its strategy as an offshore balancer, South Korea needs to establish a new unification strategy. It outlines four types of unification methods, noting great power intervention is inevitable. Given that Korean unification can advance U.S. strategic and economic interests, South Korea must communicate that unification aligns with these interests, will occur incrementally, and will promote regional stability.
Abstract
This paper examines the U.S.’s perceptions of Korean unification and the new unification strategy for South Korea. Theoretically the offensive realism, it is argued that all countries except hegemonic powers pursue changes in the status quo. With the decline of American influence that led to the Liberal International Order since the end of the Cold War, the possibility of a paradigm shift regarding the unification of the Korean Peninsula is increasing. The Ukraine War and the Israel-Hamas conflict serve as clear evidence of the end of the unipolar era. With the increasing likelihood of Trump's re-election in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, there is a growing possibility of a shift in the U.S. foreign policy towards “America First”, potentially leading the U.S. to revert to isolationism as an offshore balancer. While previous U.S. administrations officially supported the principle of Korean Peninsula unification, as the sole hegemonic power in the unipolar era, the U.S. pursued policies of status quo maintenance when crises arose on the Korean Peninsula. If the geopolitical distribution of power shifts due to the decline of the U.S. and the pursuit of status quo changes by authoritarian states like China and Russia, there is a possibility, as suggested by Schweller, of a reconfiguration into a tri-polar system. In a tri-polar system, if two countries pursue status quo changes, instability on the Korean Peninsula could rapidly escalate. This is a critical momentum for South Korea to establish a new strategy for unification. The U.S. has historically endorsed the unification of the Korean Peninsula; however, in reality, it appears that the U.S. does not wish to change the Korean Peninsula's status quo. Assuming the U.S. adjusts its strategy as an offshore balancer, South Korea needs to establish a new unification strategy. It outlines four types of unification methods, noting great power intervention is inevitable. Given that Korean unification can advance U.S. strategic and economic interests, South Korea must communicate that unification aligns with these interests, will occur incrementally, and will promote regional stability.
참고문헌 (24)
- Domestic Politics and Foreign Policies of Northeast Asian Countries in Obama-Xi Era and ROK's Strategy for Inter-Korean Relations and Unification Diplomacy, "Bae, Jung-ho", Korea Institute for National Unification, ~ (2013)
- Northeast Asian Four Countries’ Perception of Korean Unification, "Bae, Jung-ho", KINU Center for International Relations Studies, ~ (2013)
- "The Economics of Korean Reunification" (2018)[URL]
- Choi, Kyung-sun, "What Benefits Can Korean Unification Bring to Neighboring Countries?", National Defense University’s Institute for Security Affairs Holds International Conference on ‘Korean Unification and Neighboring Countries’ Interests’ (2014), NK Chosun
- Cho, Eun-jung, "Ex-U.S. Officials Support Korean Peninsula Peaceful Unification... Impossible with N. Korea’s Nuclear Weapons:Experts", Voice of America, ~ (2022)
- Green, Michael J., "Do Major Powers Not Want Korean Unification?", JoongAng Ilbo Opinion Global Focus, ~ (2017)
- Ham, Ji-ha, "U.S. State Dept. ‘Strongly Supports’ S. Korea’s ‘Audacious Initiative’...close cooperation between Seoul, Washington, Tokyo important for complete denuclearization", Voice of America, ~ (2022)
- Kim, Jae-chun, "Biden Administration's Indo-Pacific Strategy:Nature of the Strategy and Key to Its Success or Failure", The Sogang Journal of East Asian Studies, 29(2) (2022)
- Kim, Kab-sik, "South Koreans' Perception of Unification: Focusing on Time-Series Trends" (2022), Korea Institute for National Unification
- Kim, Young-hyun, "Trump’s First Mention of ‘Unification’... ‘One Korea’ Good If North and South Want It", Yonhap News, ~ (2018)
- "Modeling the Economic Impacts of Korean Unification" (2017)[URL]
- "“The WAR in Ukraine is a vestige of Unip olarity”, John Anderson Interview at John J. Mearsheimer Official 2023, 7th January" (2024)[URL]
- Biden's Perception of Peace and the Korean Peninsula Peace Policy, "Min, Tae-eun", Jeju Peace Institute, ~, pp.JPI Peacenet 2021-26 (2021)
- "A Nuclear-Free and Prosperous Korean Peninsula: Yoon Suk-yeol Government’s Unification and North Korea Policy" (2022)[URL]
- Korean Peninsula Unification and Great Power Diplomacy, Current Issues and Points of Contention, "Moon, Chung-in", Korea Institute for National Unification, ~ (2015)
- Noland, Marcus, "Rigorous Speculation: The Collapse and Revival on the North Korean Economy", World Development, 29(10), pp.1767~1787 (2000)
- A Study to Analyze Cost Benefits of the Unification of Korean Peninsula to the United States, "Noland, Marcus", KIEP, ~, pp.KIEP Mid-to Long-term Trade Policy Study 14-01 (2014)
- Conditions for Transitioning to a New Korean Peninsula Peace Regime, "Park, Ki-chul", Sejong Institute, ~ (2023)
- "Korean Reunification and U.S. Interests:Preparing for One Korea" (2015)[URL]
- Sciutto, Jim, "The Return of Great Powers: Russia, China, and the Next World War" (2024), Dutton
- Schweller, Randall L., "Deadly Imbalances : Tripolarity and Hitler’s Strategy of World Conquest" (1998), Columbia University Press
- Strategic Competition between U.S.-China and Korean Peninsula Unification Issues, Current Issues and Points of Contention, "Shin, Jung-seung", Korea Institute for National Unification, ~ (2015)
- Song, Young-hoon, "Assessment and Reflection on Park Geun-hye Administration's Domestic Unification Policy", Unification Policy Studies, 26(1) (2017)
- Walt, Stephen M., "Why Alliance Endure or Collapse", Survival, 39(1) (1997)