| bibo:abstract |
Korea-U.S. Alliance: Past, Present and Future
Sung-Han Kim
1996.02
Research Professor at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security.
Introduction
The traditional friendship between Korea and the U.S. has been founded on their blood
alliance represented by the U.S. role in liberation of Korea from Japanese colonial rule,
the U.S. military commitment in the Korean War and Korea's participation in the
Vietnam War. This alliance should be regarded as the strongest model of its kind
currently existing in the world. In other words, more than any other bilateral
relationship in the world, the Korea-U.S. relationship must be regarded as a product of
the Cold War. This means that the mainstay of such a relationship has been the Cold
War and, accordingly, with the termination of the Cold War, this mainstay has ceased to
exist. Here, two questions can be raised: Is there any need for Korea and the United
States to continue to rely on each other, particularly in the current situation in which a
politico-military superpower that can challenge the United States no longer exists? Or,
is there not a need for them to replace their existing relations with new ones to meet
the new requirements of the new era? These questions can be answered through an
analysis of the post-Cold War dynamic structure of Northeast Asia and its effects on
the political, economic and security relations between Korea and the United States.
"Alliance" means that the concerned parties are required not only to abide by their
official obligations but also to maintain close cooperation to assist each other even in
unofficial sectors. A security alliance is strong to the extent that each partner perceives
that the benefits obtained via the alliance outweigh the costs incurred due to the
alliance. If the benefits outweigh the costs to both partners, and if the domestic
distribution of costs and benefits resulting therefrom is supportable politically, then
joint interest in maintaining the alliance will converge and the alliance will cohere. Of
course, the converse is equally true: if costs predominate between and within alliance
partners, so joint interests will diverge and the alliance may dissolve.
The value of the Korea-U.S. alliance, therefore, should be evaluated depending upon
whether the United States is still willing, despite the disappearance of its Cold War
enemy to abide by the mutual defense treaty only to cope with the threat from North
Korea. It should be also examined whether the U.S. still attaches the same strategic
importance to the Korean peninsula even after it concluded the nuclear framework
agreement with North Korea in Geneva on October 21, 1994. In addition, the question of
whether the United States wants to continue the alliance in the broader context of its
Asia-Pacific strategy can be included in the analysis.
Seoul's position regarding the alliance also needs to be reexamined because it has
begun to diversify its foreign policies, tilting away from its one-sided diplomacy with
the U.S., since the U.S.-North Korea agreement which, in effect, resulted in admitting
virtually the cross-recognition of South and North Korea by the four surrounding
powers. It is true that Seoul and Washington have emphasized, first of all, the
importance of their close cooperation in dealing with the North Korean nuclear weapons
issue. But they are not in a position to deny the role of China in dealing with this issue.
One significant question, for example, is whether or not the expansion of cooperation
between Seoul and Beijing will serve to weaken or scale down the alliance structure
between Seoul and Washington.
In the post-Cold War era, the concept of national security has come to bear a broader
meaning, the concept of "comprehensive security," which includes not only military and
physical safety but also economic security. For the past 40 years, the Korea-U.S.
alliance has been maintained smoothly because it placed importance on the military
aspect. However, the prospects for its future should not necessarily be cited as
optimistic if the economic aspect is added to the alliance. As represented by trade
conflicts between Japan and the U.S. following the Uruguay Round, bilateralism in
economics, unlike multilateralism, may result in facilitating the exercise of pressure by
the big powers. The post-Cold War international order can be characterized by
competition among economic powers. Korea-U.S. relations also should not be
interpreted apart from such a phenomenon. This means that disagreements, if any,
between the two, may even result in damage to their political alliance.
Evolution of Korea-U.S. Alliance
Environment & Structure of Korea-U.S. Alliance
Northeast Asia after the End of the Cold War
North Korea Issue and Korea-U.S. Alliance
Strategic and Economic Interests of Korea and the U.S.
Consolidation of Korea-U.S. Alliance
Beyond Bilateral Alliance
Multilateral Institutionalization
Trans-Pacific Cooperation
Source Materials
To Build a First-class Nation by Righting the Wrongs of the Past
and Improving the Quality of Life (Re.*)
Joint Communique of the 27th ROK-U.S. Security Consultative Meeting
|
