DOCSLIB.ORG

South Korean Development Model

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South Korean Development Model Milan Lajčiak SOUTH KOREAN DEVELOPMENT MODEL Milan Lajčiak, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Slovak Embassy in Seoul, South Korea 389-1, Hannam-dong 140-210 Yongsan-gu E-mail: [email protected] Summary South Korea is one of economic wonders of the late twentieth century. War-torn desolated and pover- ty-stricken country in the 1950s with a per capita income less then Haiti, Ethiopia, India or Yemen, achieved unprecedented economic development and legendary growth that brought her from one the most backward coun- tries into an economic giant by the 1980s and later on one of the most advanced countries in the world in the 21st century. The process was characterized by rapid industrialization, phenomenal growth rates and incremental social transformation. The paradigm of Korean path was under scrutiny from politicians and academicians and many studies were devoted to this issue. The paper is briefly highlighting major schools of thoughts analyzing Korea´s model from different angles – developmental concept, new institutionalism, cultural school of values, historical trajectory theory and of international relations concept. The study does not have an ambition to go deeply into historical perspectives and developmental cycles of Korean economic success that are very well covered in a number of economic expertizes. Instead, the paper focuses on some selected aspects that, though sometimes forgotten to get a due attention, but substantially subscribed on the Korea´s industrialization successful story. The study includes considerations of the applicability of Korean model on other countries and brings also a brief insight into the modernization period that followed the path of democratization of the country after 1987. Keywords: South Korea, Korean War, Korean Miracle, industrialization, the role of the USA, foreign loans? five-year plans, “chaebols” (money clans), applicability of Korean model of development. 1. MIRACLE ON THE HAN RIVER (1962-1980) South Korea´s dramatic economic growth is sometimes commonly described by catch phrases The miracle on the Han River and Korean phoenix - a nation from ashes or From rags to riches. Despite all controversies, the accomplishment of sustaining an average yearly economic growth of 8,9 % for 19 years (1961–1980) and expanding the nominal size of the economy by more than 100 times in 30 years is unparalleled in the world. In 1990, nearly 30 years after launching the 1st five-year plan in 1961, GNP was 113 times that of 1961 while per capita GNP had grown 68 times. In light of this and to- gether with democratization of the country the economic and political success of South Korea is clearly outstanding. South Korea became the first country after the World War II to transform from aid recipient to a donor country and from the very backward country (155,6 USD GDP/capita in 1960) to one of the most advanced countries in the world with over 27,221 USD GDP/capita in 20151. She is the world 6th biggest exporter, the 4th strongest economy in Asia and the 11th globally. South Korea has become world biggest semicon- ductor and smartphone producer, second biggest in ship building, fifth in car and sixth in steel production. Innovations are becoming the moving driver of the economy with 4,3% GDP investments into R&D that is the biggest among OECD countries. 1 World Bank Databank 2016. URL: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/ home.aspx Milan Lajčiak 75 Despite experiencing economic hardships of poverty after the Korean War (1953) and political au- thoritarianism for nearly 26 years following the May 16, 1961 military coup, South Korea has succeeded in making compressed achievement both in economic growth and political democratization and by some politicians and scholars (UN Secretary General Pan Ki-moon, Professor of Columbia University Jeffrey Sachs, President of the World Bank Jim Yong Kim) has been labeled as an exemplary case for developing countries and sometimes evaluated as a representative case of the Third Wave Democracy [5, p. 245]. 2. SCHOOLS OF THOUGHTS BEHIND KOREA´S ECONOMIC SUCCESS There are concepts stressing some factors over the others trying to extrapolate certain aspects as the most decisive in Korea´s development process. Adherents of the theory of development explain Korea´s economic miracle on the logic that under the leadership of the Park Chung-hee regime (1961–1979), Korea adopted developmental state system and with its effective public policies facilitated rapid economic development. It is judging Korea as a develop- mental state possessing certain standardized characteristics, such as strong state intervention, competent bureaucracy as a pilot agency, effective public policies focused on industrialization, diligence among the people for economic growth, Confucian cultural background, informal networks, export – oriented in- dustrialization strategy, strong leadership and political stability. This concept is contrasting neo-institu- tional and cultural approaches. According to new institutionalism, Korean economic growth was a result of Korea´s unique economic governance structure and of institutional innovation that lowered transaction costs and expanded trade and markets, allowing Korea to gain great economic benefits [6]. In contrast with the experience of Latin America, for example, South Korea had established powerful bureaucratic institutions, such as Economic Planning Board and policy of implementation was effective. There were attempts to attribute the origin of Korea´s development to the cultural and social values of Confucianism. In contrast to the West with its experience of democracy and civil rights, in countries with Confucian tradition and hierarchical political order, the state takes on more meaning than the individual and also authoritarianism (centralized political authority) is more dominant than democracy. The former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew even once tried to argue the Confucian culture of East Asia as being a main source of the region´s economic success. The cultural approach is emphasizing the Confucian tradition and the value of micro-human behavior over political and economic institution. Concept of historical trajectory contend that economic growth can´t be seen as a historically isolated incident but should be placed in a broader historical context. They explain that main features of Korean developmental state were a historical extension of the Japanese colonial administrative structure and Ko- rea´s economic transformation can be best described as “Japanese ethos with an American outfit”. They argue that Korea´s measures for macroeconomic stabilization, liberalization and the transition to an ex- port promotion strategy of industrialization were a result of US pressure that provided even US techno- crats with technical details for designing this strategy [1]. Others locate the development success of South Korea not in domestic institutions or culture but in the Cold War structure after the World War II and international politics. These scholars argue that though eco- nomic institutions and cultural characteristics were important factors, more crucial for the emergence of developmental states in East Asia were US centered international politics. In other words, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea were able to develop mostly due to political military cooperation with USA within the struc- ture of the Cold War. South Korea enjoyed the benefits of this bipolar world as an anti-communist bulwark. 3. WHAT, WHEN, HOW AND WHY HAPPENED: FRAMEWORK OF STRATEGIES, METHODS AND POLITICAL INSTRUMENTS Historical perspectives of policy evolution and developmental cycles are in a very detailed well covered in a number of economic studies. This paper is going to refresh some interesting aspects of industriali- zation that subscribed to the Korea´s economic success story though being sometimes left without a due attention. From the historical perspective of policy evolution, the post-Korean War era can be distinguished into three phases: import substitution (1954–1960); outward orientation (1961–1979); and balance and stabili- zation (post–1980). Distinct sets of policy goals and instruments can be identified for each phase. [3, p. 2] First, import substitution policies in the wake of the Korean War (1950–1953) resulted in a lackluster growth performance. The economy was driven by foreign aid. This period, however, was devoted to the 76 МЕЖДУНАРОДНАЯ АНАЛИТИКА ВЫПУСК 3 (17) 2016 building of physical and human capital infrastructures that served as the basis for subsequent industrial development. The second phase of export-based industrialization started with Park’s military regime in 1961. For the ensuing twenty years, the state-guided strategy of industrialization through the development of a powerful export machine worked well. Capital intensive heavy and chemical industries built in the 1970s provided basis for further industrialization during the 1980s. Favorable developments in the overseas trade climate in 1980s together with price stabilization and surge of investment accompanied the rapid rise of industri- alization. By the early 1980s South Korea had emerged as one of the leading newly industrialized country in Asia together with Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan. The third phase started with structural imbalances. Toward the end of the 1970s Korean economy had overextended itself and bottlenecks brought by the rapid growth policy of the past two decades were beginning to manifest themselves - rapid buildup of foreign debt, inflation, widening
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Primary Sources
    Primary Sources: "07편 잘살아보세, 박정희와 새마을 운동 1." YouTube. YouTube, 27 Apr. 2015. Web. 09 Dec. ​ ​ 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARQxzRTjHhI> ​ ​ We used footage of Korean citizens working during the New Village Movement to reconstruct their local villages in the introduction of our video when we explained that the development of South Korea arose from the efforts of its citizens. We also used footage of Park Chung­hee telling the Korean civilians that they must work diligently to make life in Korea better for all. We used this footage when explaining that Park Chung­hee was the one who sent Koreans to Germany to work as miners and nurses. "1960년대 우리 나라." YouTube. YouTube, 27 Oct. 2012. Web. 01 June 2016. ​ ​ <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9xhm34TZik> ​ ​ We used footage of Koreans working when the economy was underdeveloped to show how man power and determination, not resouces, were the main causes of South Korea’s economic development. We also used footage of Korea in the 1960s. The 1960s was when the Korean War happened, and the economy was at its worst. 1970. 중앙포토. KoreaDaily. Web. 9 Dec. 2015. ​ ​ <http://m.koreadaily.com/news/read.asp?art_id=706259&referer=> ​ ​ We used a photo of the finished Seoul Busan highway from this source. We used this photo when giving examples of the multiple ways Park Chung­hee strived to develop Korea’s economy. Ahn On­gil (77). Personal interview. 2 November 2015 This was a student­conducted interview with a Korean man who traveled to Germany as a miner.
    [Show full text]
  • Korea's Economy
    2014 Overview and Macroeconomic Issues Lessons from the Economic Development Experience of South Korea Danny Leipziger The Role of Aid in Korea's Development Lee Kye Woo Future Prospects for the Korean Economy Jung Kyu-Chul Building a Creative Economy The Creative Economy of the Park Geun-hye Administration Cha Doo-won The Real Korean Innovation Challenge: Services and Small Businesses KOREA Robert D. Atkinson Spurring the Development of Venture Capital in Korea Randall Jones ’S ECONOMY VOLUME 30 Economic Relations with Europe KOREA’S ECONOMY Korea’s Economic Relations with the EU and the Korea-EU FTA apublicationoftheKoreaEconomicInstituteof America Kang Yoo-duk VOLUME 30 and theKoreaInstituteforInternationalEconomicPolicy 130 years between Korea and Italy: Evaluation and Prospect Oh Tae Hyun 2014: 130 Years of Diplomatic Relations between Korea and Italy Angelo Gioe 130th Anniversary of Korea’s Economic Relations with Russia Jeong Yeo-cheon North Korea The Costs of Korean Unification: Realistic Lessons from the German Case Rudiger Frank President Park Geun-hye’s Unification Vision and Policy Jo Dongho Kor ea Economic Institute of America Korea Economic Institute of America 1800 K Street, NW Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 KEI EDITORIAL BOARD KEI Editor: Troy Stangarone Contract Editor: Gimga Group The Korea Economic Institute of America is registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act as an agent of the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, a public corporation established by the Government of the Republic of Korea. This material is filed with the Department of Justice, where the required registration statement is available for public inspection. Registration does not indicate U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Chinese Views of Korean History in the Cold War Era Jin Linbo 150 | Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies
    Chinese Views of Korean History in the Cold War Era Jin Linbo 150 | Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies This chapter draws a rough sketch of the evolution of Chinese views on Korean history in the Cold War era in three parts. The first focuses on the formulation of Chinese views of the Korean War in 1950 and the mainstream assessment of the war after Sino-South Korean diplomatic normalization in 1992. The second focuses on China’s attitudes and policies toward the two Koreas in the Cold War years. The third deals with the changes and limits of perceptions on Korean history after diplomatic normalization and their impact on bilateral relations between Beijing and Seoul. For centuries many Chinese have firmly believed that the relationship between China and the Korean Peninsula is like that between lips and teeth, they are not only close to but also dependent upon each other. If the lips are gone, the teeth will be cold. From the middle of nineteenth century, the geopolitical proximity and interdependence between the two have become the determining factors in formulating Chinese perceptions towards Korea. Since then the national security concerns symbolized by the sense of lips and teeth had been frequently stressed by some Chinese intellectuals and officials when both China and Korea were exposed to the growing imperialist expansion and geopolitical competition in East Asia. In order to maintain the traditional tributary relationship between China and Korea, China fought the first Sino-Japanese War in 1894-95. Although it was miserably defeated, and Korea was consequently annexed to the Japanese empire in 1910, the Chinese sense of lips and teeth remained undiminished.
    [Show full text]
  • Miracle of Han River”
    I nternational Journal of Contemporary Research and Review IJCRR 11 (05), 21807–21810 (2020) ISSN (O) 0976-4852 Learning from the “Miracle of Han River” ?,y TAO Shiyi National University of Public Service, Budapest, Hungary DOI: https://doi.org/10.15520/ijcrr.v11i05.809 Accepted 21-05-2020; Received 05-05-2020; Publish Online 22-05-2020 ABSTRACT The overall competitiveness performance has four basic dimensions: Economic perfor- mance, government efficiency, business efficiency and Infrastructure. improving na- tional competitiveness is like an investment, investing from the physical infrastructure to soft infrastructure. Korea’s transition from one of the poorest countries in the early 1960s to the world’s 11th -largest economy is unprecedented. Government plays a dominant role in the Korean economic growth since 1960s, first step taken by the government was building infrastructure. Korean government has always been committed to investment in education, improve people’s education level to meet the new requirement of labor markets. Nowadays, the high development of Korea is becoming innovation hub in the creative economy. By launching “creative economy” initiative, “creative Korea” strategy is to mainstream the use of ICTs across the entire economy and in particular to increase ICT adoption within SMEs. In addi- tion, an area that will increase in importance is the Internet of Things (IoT). Korea is implementing Knowledge Sharing Program with worldwide partners and learning advanced experience. Sharing Korean experience and jointly developing sustainable growth. However, solving the youth unemployment issue is priority to President Moon Jae- in, the unemployment rate of March triggered the alarm again, his administration planned to implement a series of promotion policies help youth out of catastrophe.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of the 1973 Oil Crisis on the Korean Peninsula A
    OIL AS A STRATEGIC RESOURCE: IMPACT OF THE 1973 OIL CRISIS ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Asian Studies By Ruoyao Wang, B.A. Washington, D.C. Nov 15, 2019 Copyright 2019 by Ruoyao Wang All Rights Reserved ii The research and writing of this thesis is dedicated to all. Many thanks, Ruoyao Wang iii OIL AS A STRATEGIC RESOURCE: IMPACT OF THE 1973 OIL CRISIS ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA Ruoyao Wang, B.A. Thesis Advisor: Kristen Looney, Ph.D. ABSTRACT The 1973 oil crisis caused more significant economic fluctuations in the economic performance of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) compared to that of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). Many scholars believe that it was a result of different levels of economic integration into the international trade system. South Korea developed an export-oriented economy that imported rare material and exported finished goods to the rest of the world. While North Korea’s major trading partners are the communist countries, which were far less integrated into world trade. Nevertheless, it was much more affected by the differences in physical geography and the industrial layout of these two economies in the fact that North Korea had more abundant coal reserves and hydropower potential and focused more on heavy industries. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction………………………………….…………………………………...….……...1 Literature Review…………………………….…………………………………………......2
    [Show full text]
  • BRIEF HISTORY of KOREA —A Bird's-Eyeview—
    BRIEF HISTORY OF KOREA —A Bird's-EyeView— Young Ick Lew with an afterword by Donald P. Gregg The Korea Society New York The Korea Society is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) organization with individual and corporate members that is dedicated solely to the promotion of greater awareness, understanding and cooperation between the people of the United States and Korea. In pursuit of its mission, the Society arranges programs that facilitate dis- cussion, exchanges and research on topics of vital interest to both countries in the areas of public policy, business, education, intercultural relations and the arts. Funding for these programs is derived from contributions, endowments, grants, membership dues and program fees. From its base in New York City, the Society serves audiences across the country through its own outreach efforts and by forging strategic alliances with counterpart organizations in other cities throughout the United States as well as in Korea. The Korea Society takes no institutional position on policy issues and has no affiliation with the U.S. government. All statements of fact and expressions of opinion contained in all its publications are the sole responsibility of the author or authors. For further information about The Korea Society, please write The Korea Society, 950 Third Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022, or e-mail: [email protected]. Visit our website at www.koreasociety.org. Copyright © 2000 by Young Ick Lew and The Korea Society All rights reserved. Published 2000 ISBN 1-892887-00-7 Printed in the United States of America Every effort has been made to locate the copyright holders of all copyrighted materials and secure the necessary permission to reproduce them.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Development in South Korea
    Economic Development in South Korea Young-Jun Cho Assistant Professor The Academy of Korean Studies Maddison Project • Angus Maddison (1926-2010) – a British economist • Compilation of the long-term economic statistics in the world – per capita GDP – 1990 international Geary–Khamis dollar – http://www.ggdc.net/maddison per capita GDP • South Korea: 1911-1940, 1950-2010 – Korea under Japanese rule from 1911 to 1940 – not available during WWⅡ and just after liberation • U.S.: 1800-2010 – good estimates available since 1800 Comparison 1990 Int. GK$ U.S. South Korea Ghana year Typical explanation • Geographical and ethnic characteristics – geopolitical location (far east, peninsula, between China and Japan) – blood or temper – traditional culture • Hard to explain failures in North Korea – shares the peninsula – shares genes – shares history and culture South Korea & North Korea, 1950-2010 1990 Int. GK$ South Korea Great Divergence North Korea year Contrast • Korean peninsula at night (NASA satellite picture, 2012) Precondition for Economic Growth • South Korea chose “market economy” – economic system determines the potential growth • The issue of institution – South Korea: market economy, open economy – North Korea: command economy, closed economy Is it a miracle? • ‘The Miracle’ on the Han River? – “Koreans in the South have worked their fingers to the bone to create the industrial country that we now see.” (Bruce Cumings) • A part of the East Asian Miracle – NICs (newly industrializing countries) – Four Asian Tigers, or Asian Dragons –
    [Show full text]
  • MENDING WALL? the War Over History in South Korea
    Review of International American Studies FEATURES RIAS Vol. 11, Spring–Summer № 1/2018 ISSN 1991–2773 MENDING WALL? The War over History in South Korea his article comes at a particularly difficult time for the Republic Sangjun Jeong of Korea (South Korea), and its relations with the United States Seoul National University T South Korea of America, the People’s Republic of China (China), and Japan. Time and again, North Korea has threatened to make South Korea “a sea of fire” and to launch its nuclear warheads not only toward Japan and Guam but also to cities all over the US. US President Donald Trump has made it clear to the government of North Korea that it will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea, whether aimed at the US itself or at its allies, including South Korea, and will obliterate the country, if necessary, to defend itself and its allies. China, whose relationship with North Korea is oftentimes described by the Chinese as “lips and teeth,” mea- ning the teeth get cold without lips, declares that it opposes the use of force and nuclear weapons in the Korean peninsula. South Korea, an ally of the US for two-thirds of a century, is siding with China and does not want to participate in the combined military exercise with the US and Japan or join the US plan to surround China together with Japan and India. Readers might wonder about the presence of the US on the Korean peninsula and even why the US has been so involved in both defending South Korea and demonizing the North Korean regime.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Miracle on the Han River Over?
    Situations 11.1 (2018): 81–109 ISSN: 2288–7822 Crisis of Self-Confidence: Is the Miracle on the Han River Over? Steven Kim (Jeju Peace Institute) Abstract South Korea’s rapid economic development since the 1960s has transformed it from an impoverished agrarian economy to a prosperous industrial economy in less than half a century. But with the era of rapid growth having come to an end, its economy is suffering from stagnant GDP and wage growth. The loss of economic momentum has induced a deep crisis of confidence among the Korean people about whether Korea can achieve its long-held goal of joining the first tier of advanced industrial countries. This essay first examines how the economic slowdown and the daunting nature of the reforms that are needed to restore growth in the face of a maturing Korean economy have caused Koreans to question themselves and their identity. It then looks at the prospects for successful economic revitalization by showing how Koreans have acted in the face of similar challenges in their recent history. Keywords: Korean identity, Korean nationalism, Korean economic miracle, low-growth trap, structural reform, IMF crisis, presidential scandal, candlelight protests 82 Steven Kim Introduction Ever since achieving the spectacular economic growth that catapulted South Korea into the rank of industrialized countries in less than half the time that it took other advanced countries to achieve a similar level of development—less than 50 years—Koreans have increasingly felt confident and optimistic that Korea would close the gap with the first tier of developed countries including U.S., Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, and France.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Korea an Overview
    KOREA : Historical Overview Gojoseon People began living on the Korean Peninsula and the surrounding area some 700,000 years ago. The Neolithic Age began some 8,000 years ago. Relics from that period can be found in areas throughout the Korean Peninsula, mostly in coastal areas and in areas near big rivers. The Bronze Age began around 1,500 to 2,000 BC in present-day Mongolia and on the peninsula. As this civilization began to form, numerous tribes appeared in the Liaoning region of Manchuria and in northwestern Korea. These tribes were ruled by leaders, whom Dangun, the founder of the Korean people, later united to establish Gojoseon (2333 BC). The founding date is a testament to the longevity of Korea's history. This heritage is also a source of pride for Koreans and their strength to persevere in times of adversity. Three Kingdoms and Gaya (5th century) Town-states gradually united into tribal leagues with complex political structures which eventually grew into kingdoms. Among the various tribal leagues, Goguryeo (37 BC - AD 668), situated along the middle course of the Amnokgang (Yalu River), was the first to mature into a kingdom. As a result of the wars of conquest initiated by Gwanggaeto the Great (r. 391-413) and King Jangsu (r. 413-491), Goguryeo was able to occupy a large swath of land that encompassed Manchuria and vast segments of the Korean Peninsula. The subsequent establishment of a political structure gave it the full trappings of an empire. Baekje (18 BC - AD 660), which grew out of a town-state located south of the Hangang River in the vicinity of present-day Seoul, was another confederated kingdom similar to Goguryeo.
    [Show full text]
  • The Modernization of Seoul
    LESSON 12 The Modernization of Seoul Seoul, the capital of modern South Korea, was founded in 1392 at the beginning of the Choson Kingdom. Seoul’s evolution reflects the history of Korea and shares similar stages of growth with cities world wide. During the Korean War, over 200,000 buildings in Seoul were destroyed. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, President Park Chung-hee led the modernization of South Korea, transforming the country into a formidable economic force and Seoul into the “Miracle on the Han River.” Purpose of Lesson and Overview LINKAGE WITH Students will examine the political, social and economic evolution of in Seoul over the last 600 CURRICULUM years and will identify patterns of change. *World History *Urban Geography Students will assess the contemporary importance of Seoul. Content Focus MATERIALS Unlike most cities in the U.S., Seoul, the capital of South Korea, has endured dramatic changes *Handouts in its 600 year history, including invasions, wars, isolation, colonization and rapid modernization. Accompanying This Lesson These events have all helped shape Seoul, site of the XXIVth Olympics in 1988 and one of the world’s ten most populated cities today. Seoul was founded in 1392 at the beginning of the Choson Kingdom. Like other capital cities, it was a center of government and commerce; it provided protection and leadership for the rest of the country. Although, Korea — and thus Seoul — was known for a time as the Hermit Kingdom, both were thrust into the international arena in the 1800’s and became the focus of wars and power struggles in this century.
    [Show full text]
  • STRATEGIC FORUM National Defense University
    February 2016 STRATEGIC FORUM National Defense University About the Author David F. Helvey is a Visiting Distinguished Research Fellow in Korean Unification and the Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Institute for National the Future of the U.S.-ROK Strategic Studies, at the National Defense University. He previously Alliance served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia from December 2012 to April 2015. by David F. Helvey Key Points ecurity alliances can take many forms. They can be bilateral or multilat- ◆◆ Unification of the Korean Peninsula eral, symmetric or asymmetric, highly institutionalized or largely unstruc- would remove the primary threat that has animated the U.S.–Repub- tured. Regardless of form, security alliances as instruments of statecraft, lic of Korea (ROK) alliance for over at their most fundamental level, reflect a deliberate commitment among states 60 years, but it need not require S termination of the alliance. to aggregate resources in the pursuit of common interests. For over 60 years, the U.S.–Republic of Korea (ROK) alliance has defended South Korea from exter- ◆◆ An alliance between the United States and a unified Korea would, nal attack and, through the combined efforts of both countries, contributed to at a macro level, reinforce the inter- peace and stability not only on the Korean Peninsula, but also in Northeast Asia, national liberal democratic order. At a micro level, it could help ensure across the Asia-Pacific, and beyond. security on the Korean Peninsula For an alliance to endure, it must adapt to changing circumstances. Such during the process of integrating the North, assist in the defense of changes may occur in the external security environment or in the domestic dy- Korea, and serve as a platform for namics of the states themselves.
    [Show full text]