DOCSLIB.ORG

SOUTH KOREA BETWEEN EAGLE and DRAGON Perceptual Ambivalence and Strategic Dilemma

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SOUTH KOREA BETWEEN EAGLE and DRAGON Perceptual Ambivalence and Strategic Dilemma SOUTH KOREA BETWEEN EAGLE AND DRAGON Perceptual Ambivalence and Strategic Dilemma Jae Ho Chung The decade of the 1990s began with the demise of the Soviet empire and the subsequent retreat of Russia from the center stage of Northeast Asia, leaving the United States in a search to adjust its policies in the region. The “rise of China,” escalating cross-strait tension since 1995, North Korea’s nuclear brinkmanship and missile challenges, latent irreden- tism, and the pivotal economic importance of Northeast Asia have all led the United States to re-emphasize its role and involvement in the region.1 This redefinition of the American mission has in turn led to the consolidation of the U.S.-Japan alliance, exemplified by the 1997 Defense Guideline revision, as well as to the establishment of trilateral consultative organizations such as the Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group (TCOG) among the U.S., Japan, and South Korea. The increasingly proactive posture by the U.S. has, however, generated grave strategic concerns on the part of China and Russia, which have sought to circumscribe America’s hegemonic parameters in Asia both bilaterally and multilaterally (i.e., the formation of the “Shanghai Six” and the Boao Asia Forum, as well as China’s call for an Association of Southeast Asian Nations Jae Ho Chung is Associate Professor of International Relations, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. The author wishes to thank Bruce J. Dickson and Wu Xinbo for their helpful comments on an earlier version. Asian Survey, 41:5, pp. 777–796. ISSN: 0004–4687 Ó 2001 by The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Send Requests for Permission to Reprint to: Rights and Permissions, University of California Press, Journals Division, 2000 Center St., Ste. 303, Berkeley, CA 94704–1223. 1. A series of documents– East Asia Strategic Report, Quadrennial Defense Review, Joint Vision 2020, and Asia 2025–well demonstrate the expanding commitment and interests of the U.S. in the Asian region. 777 778 ASIAN SURVEY, VOL. XLI, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2001 (ASEAN)-China free-trade area).2 The U.S. bombing of the Chinese em- bassy in Belgrade in 1999, the missile-defense controversies (both Theater Missile Defense [TMD] and National Missile Defense [NMD]), and the re- connaissance plane incident in 2001 have further added to concerns over America’s unilateral actions and their strategic implications. Other political events have also raised concerns in the region: the election of Chen Shui-bian as president in Taiwan, Japan’s increasingly rightist drift, and, most impor- tant, the new administration of George W. Bush, who described China as America’s strategic competitor, in sharp contrast with Bill Clinton’s efforts to build a strategic partnership with China. All of these developments have combined to paint a rather grim picture of this crucial part of the world at the dawn of the new millennium. Most alarmed by all of these confrontational signals and the changed at- mosphere in the area is perhaps the South Korean government. Just as Ger- man unification was made possible by the tacit acceptance of the Soviet Union and active persuasion by the U.S., as well as the sincere efforts of the two German states, so too may Korean reunification require consensus-build- ing among the four major powers in Northeast Asia.3 Consensus is best reached when all parties concerned maintain good relationships among them- selves. Unfortunately, menage´ a` six is a remote possibility in Northeast Asia, thus posing a dilemma for Seoul, which has to elicit support from the four major powers, and the U.S. and China in particular. Given that South Korea is structurally tied to the U.S. through the alliance framework, equating the “rise of China” with a China threat will undoubtedly constrain the strategic options available to Seoul. The main thrust of this article is that China is increasingly important in South Korea’s strategic calculations. At the same time, Seoul has to maintain a friendly and mutually beneficial relationship with the U.S., not only for economic interests but also to serve strategic and reunification goals. Sus- taining amicable relationships with both powers, however, will become in- creasingly difficult if the overall capability gap between the two, in real or perceptual terms, gets smaller and smaller and eventually produces a typical case of power transition, a clash of civilizations, or both. Four factors con- 2. The “Shanghai Six” is a multilateral summit mechanism initiated in 1996. Originally, it consisted of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. Uzbekistan joined in 2001. The Boao Asia Forum was established in Hainan, China, in 2001, with 25 Asian countries and Australia as its member states. 3. For such a process in the German case, see Philip Zelikow and Condoleezza Rice, Ger- many Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995). Despite the willingness of Russia and Japan to play active roles in the Korean process, the U.S. and China assumed much more important functions as the signatories of the 1953 Armistice Agreement as well as participants in the four-party talks. JAE HO CHUNG 779 tribute to Seoul’s dilemma. First, Korea is more tightly tied to the U.S. than it wishes to be. Second, Korea’s perceptions of China are highly favorable even though the genuine intentions of the latter remain unclear. Third, much of the Washington-Beijing relationship evolves independently of Seoul. Fi- nally, regardless of the above issues, Seoul somehow has to find a suitable middle ground between Washington and Beijing. This study relies largely on three different sources of data and information for its empirical analysis. First, both primary materials and secondary analy- ses in English, Chinese, and Korean have been used to offer a balanced view of Korea’s perceptual ambivalence and strategic dilemmas in dealing with the U.S. and China. Second, a dozen nationwide opinion surveys conducted in South Korea during 1988-2000 have been utilized in depicting the public’s perceptions of the U.S. and China. Third, the article uses both structured and unstructured interviews that the author conducted with 20 foreign-policy ex- perts in Seoul in the late 1990s. These interviews help delineate the policy elite’s perceptions and prescriptions. The “Rise of China”: Beyond a Simple Dichotomy A few years ago, many foreign observers were alarmed by the prospect of China’s disintegration. Now, China is being portrayed as a rapidly emerging great power with the potential to challenge regional and, to a certain extent, global stability.4 However, all discussions concerning what China will be- come in the future are inconclusive at best, irrespective of their lists of statis- tical data and trend projections. Statistics of the past, while useful, can never suffice to offer accurate predictions of the future. Given that “telescoped growth” may accelerate, or, alternatively, economic crises may interpose themselves at any time, any future projection is invariably a conjecture. Undoubtedly, China’s track record has been impressive, showing average real gross domestic product growth per annum since 1979 of nearly 10%, three times the world average. Furthermore, various Western and Chinese forecasts have suggested that the size of China’s economy will either super- sede or, at a minimum, approach that of the U.S. by 2020 at the earliest and by 2050 at the latest.5 What, then, will China do with its abundant economic 4. While China denies any intention of becoming a hegemon, it is nevertheless willing to assign itself great-power (daguo) status. See Tao Wenzhao (ed.), Jujue baquan–yu 2049nian zhongguo duihua [Rejecting hegemony –communicating with China in 2049] (Beijing: Zhong- guo jingji chubanshe, 1998); and Ye Zicheng, “Zhongguo shixing daguo waijiao zhanlue shi zai bixing” [It is inevitable that China conduct great-power diplomacy], Shijie jingji yu zhengzhi [World economy and politics], no. 1 (2000), p. 10. 5. See the World Bank, Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries (Washing- ton, D.C.: The World Bank, 1994); Development Research Center of the State Council, Diaocha 780 ASIAN SURVEY, VOL. XLI, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2001 resources? Obviously, its strategic intentions are likely to matter more than its economic or military capabilities alone. More important, how China will be viewed by its regional neighbors will also be a very crucial policy determi- nant.6 In this sense, much of the debate on what China will become through its ongoing reform, and how its success should be treated by others, has been overly dichotomized. The “us” (West) versus “them” (China) discourses predominate, and “they” have always been the object for engagement, con- tainment, “congagement,” “constrainment,” and so on from the “we” per- spective, without considering China’s perceptions and preferences. 7 It seems that, perhaps, the issue is not how to predict China’s future but whose point of view to take. Certainly, there is more to the world than a simple juxtaposition of the West and China (or the “rest”). In the context of East Asia, while China is generally regarded as the subject for engagement, significant variations have also been found in specific responses by Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia.8 It is in this vein that exploring how the “rise of China” is viewed and assessed by an impor- tant regional actor–South Korea–is deemed a timely and worthwhile en- deavor. While Seoul has been highly successful in engaging China, its success has not yet been closely scrutinized as the core source of the strategic dilemma that it has begun to face.9 The dilemma centers around the blend- ing–if not the choice–between the self-complacent status quo within the U.S.-aligned system and the hopeful but risky journey to a Sinocentric stance, yanjiu baogao [Research and study report: Internal material], no.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 May 2016 U.S.-Japan-China Trilateral Report by Sheila Smith
    May 2016 U.S.-Japan-China Trilateral Report By Sheila Smith June 2016 Introduction The Forum on Asia-Pacific Security (FAPS) of the National Committee on American Foreign Policy (NCAFP) hosted a one-and-a-half day Track 1.5 meeting in New York City on May 24-25, 2016, with participants from the United States, Japan and China. The participant list for the trilateral meeting appears in the appendix. This report is not so much an effort to summarize the rich discussion at the trilateral meetings, as it is an effort to analyze the complex and fragile nature of trilateral relations today and to offer suggestions to all three sides for improvement in their ties with each other. In contrast to our November 2015 report, which focused on the interactions between and among the bilateral relationships that comprise this trilateral, this meeting focused on the changing regional security balance and the tension between national strategies and regional institutions which might impede cooperation in resolving the growing tensions in the Asia-Pacific. I. Context Japan, China, and the United States once again found common purpose in the wake of North Korean nuclear and missile tests in early 2016. Pyongyang’s continued insistence on developing a nuclear arsenal resulted in a new United Nations Security Council resolution and stronger sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). China took some time to agree, prompting concerns yet again in Tokyo and Washington that Beijing was reluctant to punish Kim Jong Un for his belligerence. After Special Representative for Korean Peninsula Affairs Wu Dawei visited Pyongyang in early February,1 Beijing’s position solidified, however, and China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited Washington, DC three weeks later to meet U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Connections a Quarterly E-Journal on East Asian Bilateral Relations
    Comparative Connections A Quarterly E-Journal on East Asian Bilateral Relations China-Korea Relations: Year of China-DPRK Friendship; North’s Rocket Fizzles Scott Snyder Asia Foundation/Pacific Forum CSIS See-won Byun, Asia Foundation Top-level diplomacy between Beijing and Pyongyang intensified this quarter in honor of China- DPRK Friendship Year and the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations. Prior to the Lunar New Year holiday in mid-January, Kim Jong-il held his first public meeting since his reported illness with Chinese Communist Party International Liaison Department Head Wang Jiarui. In March, DPRK Prime Minister Kim Yong-il paid a return visit to Beijing. The Chinese have accompanied these commemorative meetings with active diplomatic interaction with the U.S., South Korea, and Japan focused on how to respond to North Korea’s launch of a multi-stage rocket. Thus, China finds itself under pressure to dissuade Pyongyang from destabilizing activity and ease regional tensions while retaining its 60-year friendship with the North. Meanwhile, South Korean concerns about China’s rise are no longer confined to issues of economic competitiveness; the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis has produced its first public assessment of the implications of China’s rising economic capabilities for South Korea’s long- term security policies. The response to North Korea’s rocket launch also highlights differences in the respective near-term positions of Seoul and Beijing. Following years of expanding bilateral trade and investment ties, the global financial crisis provides new challenges for Sino- ROK economic relations: how to manage the fallout from a potential decline in bilateral trade and the possibility that domestic burdens will spill over and create new strains in the relationship.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sunshine Policy and Its Aftermath
    The Sunshine Policy and its Aftermath Youngho Kim (Department of Political Science, Sungshin Women's University) I. Introduction The Kim Dae-jung administration's sunshine policy represents a paradigm shift in South Korea's policy toward North Korea. The traditional paradigm was the containment of North Korea based on the defense alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea. During his presidency the containment policy was replaced by the proactive engagement policy to induce gradual changes of the North Korean regime through reconciliation and economic cooperation. His presidency experienced the North Korea's naval provocations in 1999 and 2002. The emergence of the Bush administration with reservations on the sunshine policy and suspicion of the Agreed Framework created strains on US-ROK alliance. Yet the sunshine policy was pursued without interruption until the end of his presidency. The dispatch of the special envoy to find a peaceful solution for the North Korea's nuclear standoff in January 2003 represents last-minute efforts to rescue the engagement policy. The next administration cannot be free from the legacies of the sunshine policy. Indeed, President-elect Roh Moo-hyun is expected to carry on the former administration's engagement policy toward North Korea.1 Critical assessments of the theoretical backgrounds and the achievements of the sunshine policy will help the Roh Moo-hyun administration to devise and implement its new policies toward North Korea. The Kim Dae-jung administration also raises theoretical questions in pursuit of the sunshine policy. One of the most important issues is the announcement of the policy to dissolve the Cold War structure on the Korean peninsula the administration considers one of the barriers to improving inter-Korean relations.
    [Show full text]
  • Surviving Through the Post-Cold War Era: the Evolution of Foreign Policy in North Korea
    UC Berkeley Berkeley Undergraduate Journal Title Surviving Through The Post-Cold War Era: The Evolution of Foreign Policy In North Korea Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4nj1x91n Journal Berkeley Undergraduate Journal, 21(2) ISSN 1099-5331 Author Yee, Samuel Publication Date 2008 DOI 10.5070/B3212007665 Peer reviewed|Undergraduate eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Introduction “When the establishment of ‘diplomatic relations’ with south Korea by the Soviet Union is viewed from another angle, no matter what their subjective intentions may be, it, in the final analysis, cannot be construed otherwise than openly joining the United States in its basic strategy aimed at freezing the division of Korea into ‘two Koreas,’ isolating us internationally and guiding us to ‘opening’ and thus overthrowing the socialist system in our country [….] However, our people will march forward, full of confidence in victory, without vacillation in any wind, under the unfurled banner of the Juche1 idea and defend their socialist position as an impregnable fortress.” 2 The Rodong Sinmun article quoted above was published in October 5, 1990, and was written as a response to the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union, a critical ally for the North Korean regime, and South Korea, its archrival. The North Korean government’s main reactions to the changes taking place in the international environment during this time are illustrated clearly in this passage: fear of increased isolation, apprehension of external threats, and resistance to reform. The transformation of the international situation between the years of 1989 and 1992 presented a daunting challenge for the already struggling North Korean government.
    [Show full text]
  • South Korea's Economic Engagement Toward North Korea
    South Korea’s Economic Engagement toward North Korea Lee Sangkeun & Moon Chung-in 226 | Joint U.S.-Korea Academic Studies On February 10, 2016, the South Korean government announced the closure of the Gaeseong Industrial Complex, a symbol of its engagement policy and inter-Korean rapprochement. The move was part of its proactive, unilateral sanctions against North Korea’s fourth nuclear test in January and rocket launch in February.1 Pyongyang reciprocated by expelling South Korean personnel working in the industrial complex and declaring it a military control zone.2 Although the May 24, 2010 measure following the sinking of the Cheonan naval vessel significantly restricted inter-Korea exchanges and cooperation, the Seoul government spared the Gaeseong complex. With its closure, however, inter-Korean economic relations came to a complete halt, and no immediate signs of revival of Seoul’s economic engagement with the North can be detected. This chapter aims at understanding the rise and decline of this engagement with North Korea by comparing the progressive decade of Kim Dae-jung (KDJ) and Roh Moo-hyun (RMH) with the conservative era of Lee Myung-bak (LMB) and Park Geun-hye (PGH). It also looks to the future of inter-Korean relations by examining three plausible scenarios of economic engagement. Section one presents a brief overview of the genesis of Seoul’s economic engagement strategy in the early 1990s, section two examines this engagement during the progressive decade (1998-2007), and section three analyzes that of the conservative era (2008-2015). They are followed by a discussion of three possible outlooks on the future of Seoul’s economic engagement with Pyongyang.
    [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]
  • Comparative Connections a Quarterly E-Journal on East Asian Bilateral Relations
    Comparative Connections A Quarterly E-Journal on East Asian Bilateral Relations US-China Relations: Friction and Cooperation in Run-up to Hu’s US Visit Bonnie Glaser, CSIS/Pacific Forum CSIS Brittany Billingsley, CSIS In the final quarter of 2010, China-US relations were marked by the now familiar pattern of friction and cooperation. Tensions spiked over North Korea, but common ground was eventually reached and a crisis was averted. President Obama‟s 10-day Asia tour, Secretary of State Clinton‟s two-week Asia trip, and US-ROK military exercises in the Yellow Sea further intensified Chinese concerns that the administration‟s “return to Asia” strategy is aimed at least at counterbalancing China, if not containing China‟s rise. In preparation for President Hu Jintao‟s state visit to the US in January 2011, Secretary Clinton stopped on Hainan Island for consultations with Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo and Deputy Secretary of State Steinberg visited Beijing. Progress toward resumption of the military-to-military relationship was made with the convening of a plenary session under the US-China Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA) and the 11th meeting of the Defense Consultative Talks. Differences over human rights were accentuated by the awarding of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. Gaping differences over North Korea North Korea‟s provocative moves this quarter posed a challenge to the US-China bilateral relationship and Northeast Asian stability. The news that North Korea had built a sophisticated uranium enrichment plant took Washington and Beijing by surprise. As the two countries prepared to consider how to respond to the apparent North Korea violation of UN Security Council resolutions, Pyongyang shelled South Korea‟s Yeonpyeong Island, killing two civilians and two marines deployed on the island.
    [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]
  • The Koreas and the Policy/Culture Nexus
    Two States, One Nation: The Koreas and the Policy/Culture Nexus Jacqueline Willis Institute for Culture and Society University of Western Sydney A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. © 2013 Acknowledgements I would like to especially thank my principal supervisor Professor James Arvanitakis for the unfailing guidance, encouragement and support he has given me throughout my candidature. His academic expertise, enthusiasm and assuring presence have provided the motivation, confidence and direction needed to complete this intellectually stimulating, though sometimes daunting task. I gratefully acknowledge and extend immeasurable thanks for his mentorship, editorship and invaluable feedback, without which this thesis could not have been written. I would also like to acknowledge the input of my co-supervisor Professor Brett Neilson, whose expert knowledge and recommendations have proven invaluable to the development and completion of this thesis. Special thanks and acknowledgement must also be given to Shin Yoon Ju for providing Korean-English translations, as well as to Brian J. McMorrow, Grete Howard, Eric Testroete, Chris Wood, Raymond Cunningham and fellow Korea researcher, Christopher Richardson, for generously allowing me to use and reproduce their personal photographs. Thanks too to those affiliated with the Institute for Culture and Society at the University of Western Sydney, for their committed nurturing of my academic development and ambitions over the course of my doctoral enrolment. Finally, I would like to extend gratitude to my family, friends and colleagues for always encouraging me in my academic endeavours. Their patience, unwavering support and steadfast faith in my ability have been powerful incentives, driving and sustaining me in my scholarly pursuits.
    [Show full text]
  • Inter-Korean Relations in Historical Perspective
    International Journal of Korean Unification Studies Inter-Korean Relations in Historical Perspective Charles K. Armstrong Abstract From the early 1970s onward, inter-Korean relations have moved fitfully and gradually toward greater contact and mutual recognition, a process which has accelerated since the end of the 1990s. As Korean division and inter-Korean conflict were products of Great Power politics and the Cold War, movement in inter-Korean relations was largely the result of changes in Great Power relations during the Cold War period. However, since the end of the Cold War, the major impetus in inter-Korean relations has shifted toward an internally driven dynamic on the Korean Peninsula itself, especially under the initiative of South Korea. At the present time, inter-Korean relations are dominated by this internal dynamic. At the same time, however, they remain constrained and limited by external forces, in particular the nuclear confrontation between North Korea and the United States. While the two Koreas have moved toward a position of de facto peaceful coexistence, further integration between the two is necessarily linked to resolution of these external conflicts as well as greater integration among the countries of Northeast Asia. Key Words: inter-Korean relations, conflict, confrontation, coexistence, integration Vol. 14, No. 2, 2005, pp. 1-20. Copyrightⓒ2005 by KINU provided by Almae Matris Studiorum Campus View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk CORE brought to you by 2 Inter-Korean Relations in Historical Perspective From the time the two contemporary Korean states were founded in 1948, they have vied with each other for domestic legitimacy and international recognition.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of China and Its Effect on Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea: U.S
    Order Code RL32882 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web The Rise of China and Its Effect on Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea: U.S. Policy Choices Updated January 13, 2006 Dick K. Nanto Specialist in Industry and Trade Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Emma Chanlett-Avery Analyst in Asian Political Economy Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress The Rise of China and Its Effects on Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea: U.S. Policy Choices Summary The economic rise of China and the growing network of trade and investment relations in northeast Asia are causing major changes in human, economic, political, and military interaction among countries in the region. This is affecting U.S. relations with China, China’s relations with its neighbors, the calculus for war across the Taiwan Straits, and the basic interests and policies of China, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. These, in turn, affect U.S. strategy in Asia. China, for example, has embarked on a “smile strategy” in which it is attempting to coopt the interests of neighboring countries through trade and investment while putting forth a less threatening military face (to everyone but Taiwan). Under the rubric of the Six-Party Talks, the United States, China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea are cooperating to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis. Taiwanese businesses have invested an estimated $70 to $100 billion in factories in coastal China. China relies on foreign invested enterprises for about half its imports and exports. For Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, China has displaced the United States as their major trading partner.
    [Show full text]
  • Qiaowu and the Overseas Chinese
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UC Research Repository Hand-in-Hand, Heart-to-Heart: Qiaowu and the Overseas Chinese _____________________________________________________________________ A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the University of Canterbury by James Jiann Hua TO ___________________________________________________________ University of Canterbury 2009 Table of Contents Acknowledgements iv Abstract v Notes on Romanization of Chinese vi List of Acronyms and Abbreviations vii Figure 1: Relationships Between the Qiaowu Apparatus and the viii Extended State Bureaucracy 1.00 Introduction 1 1.01 A Comparison: Incorporating the Turkish Diaspora in Europe 3 1.02 Introduction to the Extant Literature 7 1.03 Aims of this Research 10 1.04 Importance of Qiaowu Research to International Relations 11 1.05 Political/Social Control 13 1.06 Qiaowu for the 21st Century 15 1.07 Problems with Assessing Qiaowu 16 1.08 Methodology 17 1.09 Thesis Outline 21 st 2.00 Mobilizing the OC in the 21 Century 23 2.01 Capitalizing on the Olympic Spirit 23 2.02 The 1989 Tiananmen Incident 26 2.03 The CCP’s Ideological Work and Influence on PRC Students 28 2.04 The 2008 Olympic Torch Rallies 30 2.05 Another Evolution in Qiaowu 34 2.05 Conclusion 35 3.00 Unveiling Qiaowu 36 3.01 The Role of the OC for the CCP-led Party-State 36 3.02 Political Mobilization 38 3.03 Espionage 41 3.04 Unveiling Qiaowu 44 3.05 Service for the OC:
    [Show full text]