The Republic of Korea and the Middle East
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
AugustApril 2010 • Volume 5 • Number 64 TheCosponsorship Republic of Korea of North and Koreathe Middle Bills East:in the U.S.Economics, House of Diplomacy, Representatives, and Security 1993–2009 by Alonby Jungkun Levkowitz Seo South(Mr. Korean–Middle GILMAN) Mr. Eastern Speaker, relations I rise tohave voice been my ne - Historicalto fi ll this gap, Connections: this article explores 1950s–1960s congressional politics to- glectedstrong in thesupport literature for throughoutH. Con. Res. the years, 213, mainlyregarding owing ward North Korea policy in the post–Cold War period. to theNorth focus Korean on Korea’s refugees relations who withare detained the United in States China and Until the 1960s, Seoul’s policy toward the Middle East Asianand states forcibly and returned the attention to North given Korea to the whereNorth Korea–they couldThe case be ofdefined the Democratic as passive, People’s if not unimportant, Republic of Koreaowing (DPRK) to Middleface Easttorture, military imprisonment, trade. This and paper execution. sheds new I thank light on Korea’sprovides lack an excellent of interests test in of the diverse Middle hypotheses East. During of cosponsor- the thisthe issue gentleman by analyzing from South California Korea’s (Mr. Middle ROYCE) East policy.for firstship activitiesyears after byits Houseestablishment members. in 1948, Preventing South Koreanuclear was prolif- Untilbringing the 1960s, this importantthe Middle resolution East was beforeof low us importance today. preoccupiederation and promoting with nation human building. rights The haveKorean become War, which key foreign to South(Congressional Korea because Record, of Korea’s H3418, lack June of economic 11, 2002) and eruptedpolicy agendas two years for later,the United left South States Korea since with the endone ofmain the Cold political interest in the region. The Cold War division goal,War. Itrebuilding is widely the agreed nation that and Pyongyang developing continues its economy. to be one dictated(Mr. PAUL)with which Mr. Middle Speaker, Eastern I rise countries to introduce Seoul thecould Inof thethe firstmost decadetroubling after and the provocativewar, the lengthy regimes reconstruction with respect to tradeUnited and establishStates-Korea diplomatic Normalization relations, Resolutionbut within theseof ofnuclear the country threats, left missile the Middle threats, East and out human of South rights Korea’s abuses. As a boundaries2003. .it , waswhich South expresses Korea’s the developing sense of economy Congress that scope.rare empirical Even during study the of 1960s,U.S. foreign the Middle policy East toward remained North Ko- definedthat, 60the years policy after toward the theKorean region War, and the the U.S.importance se- relativelyrea from theunimportant perspective to theof congressional South Korean politics, economy, this as article of thecurity Middle guarantee East to to South South Korea. Korea should end, so evidentanalyzes from cosponsorship the following decisions comparison: by members The total of the trade House of should the stationing of American troops in South (importRepresentatives and export) from in the the 103rd 1960s Congress between (1993–95)South Korea through SinceKorea. the Imid-1970s, hope my colleagues the economic will joinimportance me by sup- of the andthe 110thnine MiddleCongress Eastern (2007–09). states (United Arab Emirates Middleporting East and to co-sponsoring South Korea’s this economy legislation. has increased [UAE], Israel, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Qatar, and gradually(Congressional along with Record, Korea’s E239, increased February importance 13, 2003) to SaudiThis paper Arabia) proceeds was $125 as follows. million. First, During I offer the a same brief years,overview of several Middle Eastern nations. thehow total the endtrade of between the Cold South War changedKorea and U.S. the foreign-policy-mak- United States wasing processes,$2,563 million, emphasizing with Japan new $2,696 voting million, contexts and for with members TheIntroduction economy influenced Seoul’s sensitive policy toward Franceof Congress $86 million. concerning1 the issues of human rights and nuclear Israel throughout the years. Although South Korea’s nonproliferation. Then the existing literature on bill cosponsor- economicWhy do some involvement members ofin thethe U.S.region Congress increased seek over greater the Duringship and those its impacts years, South on the Korea’s congressional diplomatic politics and political of U.S. for- years,involvement its diplomatic in U.S. andforeign military policy policy toward toward North the Korea,region relationseign policy with toward the Middle North East Korea were is partreviewed. of the AfterCold Warproposing waswhile very other restrained members and do not?limited This until paper the closely 1990s. examines The new divisionseveral hypotheses between the about pro-U.S. members’ camp, reasonsto which for Seoul cosponsoring be- millenniumthe incentives heralded and motivations a change inof Southmembers Korea’s of the involve House- longed,North Korea and the bills pro–Soviet and resolutions, Union camp,I use logistic to which regression Pyong- anal- mentof Representatives in the Middle East.in sponsoring Its economic or cosponsoring involvement billsnow yangysis to belonged. test what The determines Cold War House defined members’ for Seoul cosponsorship its trading of includesand resolutions major nuclearaddressing energy issues projects. surrounding For the North first time,Ko- partnersbills addressing in the regionU.S. foreign and in policy which toward countries the DPRK. it could Seoulrea. When also becameit comes militarily to U.S. foreign-policy involved in the making Middle in East, the establish diplomatic relations.2 In this context, in the 1950s includingpost–Cold sending War era, troops pluralistic to Iraq andand Lebanon, cross-cutting and it voting began andBill cosponsorship1960s, the Middle proves East’s to be political a valuable relevance tool for playedHouse mem- tocontexts play a have more emerged active political for members role inof theCongress. region, Conse- which abers role who in the have competition high stakes between in the issuesSeoul andof human Pyongyang rights, reli- mightquently, increase lawmakers further have if Seoul increasingly decides becometo become interested a more ongious the freedom, legitimacy and of nuclear Korea, nonproliferation. as presented in Table This is1. particularlyBoth dominantin taking andplayer publicizing in the region. their Theseforeign changes policy willpositions have Seoultrue when and thosePyongyang types of competed legislation for do Korea’s not come legitimacy to the fl oor for 1 implicationsthrough cosponsoring on Seoul’s bills policies and resolutions.beyond this region.Research is byup-or-down establishing votes diplomatic for fi nal relations passage. with Indeed, countries bills around in Congress still scant, however, on the incentives and impacts of co- that address North Korea have rarely reached the stage of fl oor sponsorship activities on foreign-policy making. Trying voting. Empirical fi ndings reveal that the cosponsorship deci- Dr. Levkowitz’sSeo’s paper paper is the is thirty-thirdthe thirty-fifth in KEI’s in KEI’s Academic Academic Paper Paper Series. Series. As Aspart part of ofthis this program, program, KEI KEI commissions commissions and and dis- dis- tributes 10 papers per year on original subjects of current interest to over 3,000 Korea watchers, government ofofficials,fi cials, think tank experts, and scholars around the United States and the world. A public discussion at KEI with the author gen-gen- erally follows in conjunction with distribution. AtAt thethe endend ofof thethe yearyear thesethese paperspapers areare complied and published in On KoKo-- rea.rea. VolumeVolume 33 of On KoreaKorea waswas publishedpublished in in March April 2010.2010. For For more more information,information, pleaseplease visitvisit www.keia.org/paper_series.php. Table 1: South Korea’s and North Korea’s Diplomatic Relations with the Middle East, 1950s–80s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s Country E C T E C T E C T E C T Bahrain S Egypt S S,N Iran S N Iraq N S Israel S Jordan S N Kuwait S,N S,N Lebanon N S S Libya N S S Oman S Qatar S Saudi Arabia S Sudan N S S Syria N Tunisia S S N Turkey1 S United Arab S Emirates Yemen (North) Arab N Republic Yemen (South) N People’s Democratic Republic Source: R. D. McLaurin and Chung-in Moon, “A Precarious Balance: Korea and the Middle East,” Korean and World Affairs 8, no. 2 (1984): 238. 1 Turkey was the only Middle Eastern nation to send forces to the Korean War. Note: E-embassy; C-consulate; T-trade mission; N-North Korea; S-South Korea; this table shows the dates that each individual office was established. the world. Seoul was able to establish diplomatic relations The 1970s with pro-U.S. nations such as Jordan, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia and a decade later with several more The 1970s symbolized the change in South Korea’s foreign Middle Eastern states. Pyongyang established diplomatic economic policy toward the Middle East. Korea’s develop- relations with the more radical pro-Soviet nations such as ing economy required foreign markets in order for Korea Yemen, Syria, Sudan, and others. to sell its products and services, and Korea changed its economic policy toward the region. President Park Chung- Years later, Seoul established diplomatic relations with the hee (1963–79) invested his main efforts in developing the Middle Eastern and North African nations that were not South Korean economy to strengthen the country against part of the pro-U.S. camp, such as Yemen (North Yemen North Korea and also reduce its dependency on the United in 1985, South Yemen in 1990) and Sudan in 1977. South States for its security and economic development in the Korea did not establish diplomatic relations with Syria on short term. Park sought to pursue a more independent account of Syria’s objection to South Korea’s diplomatic Republic of Korea that in the long term would not be relations with Israel, but this did not prevent the two dependent on the United States for its economic develop- states from trading with each other.