The Implementation of South Korea's Middle Power

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SOUTH KOREA’S MIDDLE POWER DIPLOMACY IN MAINTAINING THE STATUS OF MIDDLE POWER UNDER PARK GEUN-HYE ADMINISTRATION (2013 – 2017)

STEPHANIE KORIN 016201400161

A thesis presented to the Faculty of Humanities, President University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for Bachelor Degree in International Relations Major in Diplomacy Studies

2018

iii

ABSTRACT

Title: The Implementation of South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy in Maintaining The Status of Middle Power Under Park Geun-hye Administration (2013–2017)

The middle power diplomacy brought by President Park Geun-hye as one of her foreign policy pillars has emphasized on South Korea’s desire in being a responsible middle power for the peace and development on global level. Together with the pillar and its objective goal of middle power diplomacy, the South Korean government had created several initiatives in hope to show the country’s contribution as a middle power. One of the initiatives was MIKTA. MIKTA is an informal group consist of middle power countries such as Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey and Australia. As a network of middle power countries that contain middle power characteristics, MIKTA had visions to engage in multilateral cooperation and bridge developed and developing countries to promote global governance, assist the world’s development also facilitate peaceful resolution of international disputes. The creation of MIKTA was becoming the first South Korea’s diplomatic engagement in a form of coalition-building and potential to become an instrument of South Korea’s middle power diplomacy on regional and global level, as well as elevate South Korea’s international presence as a proactive middle power. This qualitative research will analyze the implementation of South Korea’s middle power diplomacy in reaching its foreign policy goals through the South Korea-led coalition group, MIKTA under Park Geun-hye administration within the period of 2013 to 2017. The writer hope to gain the knowledge on South Korea’s implementation of middle power diplomacy through MIKTA and the country’s leadership in between member countries.

Keywords: Middle Power, Middle Power Diplomacy, MIKTA, Foreign Policy.

ABSTRAK

Judul: Implementasi Diplomasi Negara Tengah oleh Korea Selatan demi Mempertahankan Status Negara Tengah di bawah Pemerintahan Park Geun- hye (2013–2017)

Diplomasi negara tengah yang di bawa oleh Presiden Park Geun-hye sebagai salah satu dari pillar kebijakan luar negerinya telah menekankan pada keinginan Korea Selatan untuk menjadi negara tengah yang bertanggung jawab dalam kedamaian dan perkembangan di level global. Bersamaan dengan pillar and tujuan objektif dari diplomasi negara tengah, pemerintah Korea Selatan telah membuat beberapa inisiatif dengan harapan inisiatif tersebut dapat menunjukkan kontribusi dari Korea Selatan sebagai negara tengah. Salah satu dari inisiatif tersebut adalah MIKTA. MIKTA adalah grup informal yang terdiri dari negara-negara tengah yaitu Meksiko, Indonesia, Korea Selatan, Turki, dan Australia. Sebagai jaringan negara-negara tengah yang mengandung karakteristik negara tengah, MIKTA memiliki beberapa visi seperti terlibat dalam kooperasi multilateral dan menjembatani negara maju dan negara berkembang untuk mempromosikan pemerintahan global, membantu perkembangan dunia juga memfasilitasi resolusi yang damai untuk masalah internasional. Pembuatan MIKTA menjadi kemitraan Korea Selatan pertama dalam bentuk koalisi dan memiliki potensi untuk dijadikan sebagi instrumen diplomasi negara tengah dari Korea Selatan di level regional dan global, juga mengangkat keberadaan internasional dari Korea selatan. Penelitian kualitatif ini akan menganalisis implementasi dari diplomasi negara tengah Korea Selatan dalam memenuhi tujuan kebijakan luar negeri-nya melalui grup koalisi, MIKTA di bawah pemerintahan Park Geun-hye dalam periode 2013 sampai 2017. Penulis berharap untuk menemukan implementasi dari diplomasi negara tengah Korea Selatan dalam MIKTA dan kepemimpinan Korea Selatan diantara anggota lainnya.

Kata kunci: Negara Tengah, Diplomasi Negara Tengah, MIKTA, Kebijakan Luar Negeri.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“Blessed is the one who preseveres under the trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love Him.” –– James 1:21.

Praise the Lord God almighty, after three and a half years of bittersweet journey, I have finally come to the last checkpoint of my university life, which represents by this thesis that I did with my best through guidance and support from significant others who always rooting for me since I started.

Jesus Christ, almighty Father, the one who never let me to get through this journey alone, the one that become my refuge, my best friend when I am overwhelmed. The one that always listening, gives encouragement, support and blessed me with all-round amazing people to accompany me in every situation, I am thankful for the lessons You gave me. I am thankful that always reminded that everything has happened for a reason and there is a bigger plan to be fulfilled in every circumstances. For that, I am blessed and strengthened to be able to finished this part of my life. I love You.

My family, my mother, Mariana Wongso, who always provided me my favorite foods, whose heart rooting for her only daughter, thank you for simply being you. I have never dream to reach this level of education without your support and your love. I appreciated your decision for letting me choose my own path and for your trust of letting me be the way I am. To my tough love father, Antonius Korin, who always makes sure that I am secure financially, mentally and emotionally, thank you for the motto ‘believe the impossible’, because of you I have learned to be strong and discipline, to be humble yet never back down even when life try to bring me down. You taught me everything and anything, from reading, writing, multiplication which I hated so much back then, to my love for history, politics and arts. Because of you, I have taken this path to learn about politics and hopefully I will make you proud in the future. To my coming of age brother, Frans Leonardo Korin that always tried to be cool and not to care about his sister, but in the end, become the one who

vi constantly reminded me to finish my thesis. Thank you for being mature, when I am not be able to be mature. I love you, fam.

All of the lecturers in President University study program, I would like to send my gratitude for this 3 and a half years. Ms. Isyana Adriani, B.A, M.Si, as the thesis advisor, thank you. Prof. Anak Agung Banyu Perwita, Ph.D, I would like to send my outmost gratitude for his guidance throughout this journey. I owed him a vast intellectual debt and will forever be thankful for his great involvement. To Mr. Riski M. Baskoro S.Sos., M.A, I am thankful for his moral support and I give my outmost respect for his dedication as a lecturer. Also to my other lecturers that have taught me and give me new knowledges about International Relations, Mr. Hendra Manurung, S.IP, M.A, Mr. Teuku Rezasyah, M.A., Ph.D., Ms. Natasya Kusumawardani, S.IP, MProfStuds (Hons), and Mr. Endi Haryono, S.IP., M.SI. To my favorite lecturers that already left campus but still stay in my heart, Ms. Nabila Sabban, Mr. Eric Hendra and Mr. Makmur Widodo, thank you for making my first year very interesting and opened my eyes about International Relations.

This paragraph is dedicated to all of my friends and extended family that have been supporting me since day one, comforted me with kind words when I was on my prolonged mental breakdown and never left me even when I am a hopeless block whose on her lowest point. My honorary sister, Anggita Putri Kosasi; my brainstorming friend, Cindy Nathania. My good friend since matriculation, Amelinda Hikmatahati. WSG interns club, Elsari Primadini, Pelita Yunanda Purnama, Monica Utama, Nabila Nur Amalia, Yosephine Andjani, Oki Andeni Malta, and Moudy Elfiana; my personal chearleaders, Wilma Sukarna Putri, Anthoni Nicolas Tarigan, Nur Afni Damanik, IrchaTri Meilisa, Dhianaswa Zhafira Mahanani, Nayasa Flavia, Rizqie Amaliah, Raisya Indrani, Nadya Permatasari, Karema Najoan, Qori Khairunnisa, Ayumi Zahwa and Hanna Uli Maria; My thesis sisters, Imanuella Ruth Rayani, Natali Cynthia, Michellia, Riri Burhanuddin, and Aulia Maulina; My other honorary sisters, Angesti Putri Kosasi, Frederika Constantia; My second family; Mama Janty, Papa Erwin, Angga Putra Kosasi and Dewi Permata; My partner-in- crime and advisor, Aryani Kusumawaty and my little cibuy, Stefanie Amora; My

vii lovely dorm-mates, Jesslyn Setiawan, Gweneal Benita and Joselind Agusta Pratama; special thanks to Sutini for great foods that she always provide before and after Sunday services, thank you for giving me nutrition and strength to finished my thesis; and last, to all of my university friends who always send me kind words and encouragement, I am highly grateful know them and I hope our friendship will last until the end of time.

The reading and writing process of this thesis might have become one of the hardest battles that I have ever experienced. I have realized that I have become mature and understand about myself more, after a long time of self-reflecting and endless encouragemet from my loved ones. This thesis research is only the beginning of my future, and I believed in my faith and God that I will do great things, for myself, my family and hopefully my nation as well.

Cikarang, March 2018

Stephanie Korin

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PANEL OF EXAMINER APPROVAL SHEET .... Error! Bookmark not defined. RECOMMENDATION LETTER BY THESIS ADVISOR ...... i DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY ...... ii ABSTRACT ...... iv ABSTRAK ...... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...... xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... xiii CHAPTER I ...... 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 I.1 Background of the Study ...... 1 I.2 Problem identification ...... 4 I.3 Statement of the problem ...... 6 I.4 Research objective ...... 6 I.5 Significance of the study ...... 6 I.6 Theoretical framework ...... 7 I.6.1 Foreign Policy ...... 7 I.6.2 Middle Power Diplomacy ...... 8 I.6.3 Middle Power ...... 9 I.6.4 Informal Inter-governmental Organizations (IIGOs)...... 12 I.6.5 Conceptual Framework ...... 16 I.7 Scope and limitation of the study ...... 17 I.8 Literature Review ...... 18 I.9 Research Methodology ...... 18 I.10 Thesis Structure ...... 19 CHAPTER II ...... 21 SOUTH KOREA’S FOREIGN POLICY PILLARS UNDER PARK GEUN- HYE ADMINISTRATION ...... 21 II.1 The Orientation of South Korea’s Foreign Policy Pillars ...... 21 II.1.1 The Trust Building Process of Korean Peninsula ...... 22

II.1.2 Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation ...... 24 II.1.3 Middle Power Diplomacy ...... 26 II.2 The Strategy of South Korea’s Foreign Policy: Pursuing the United States’ Support . 28 II.2.1 The United States – South Korea Alliance ...... 28 II.2.1.1 The Deterrence on North Korean Nuclear and Missile Threats ...... 29 II.2.1.2 The United States and South Korea’s Global Partnership...... 32 II.2.2 The Economic Cooperation and Creative Economy ...... 33 II.3 The Implementation of South Korea’s Foreign Policy: the Application of Diplomatic Engagement...... 35 II.3.1 Inter-Korean Dialogue ...... 36 II.3.2 Trilateral Cooperation ...... 39 II.3.3 Multilateral Cooperation ...... 41 CHAPTER III ...... 45 THE OVERVIEW OF SOUTH KOREA AS A MIDDLE POWER ...... 45 III.1 Middle Powers in International Community ...... 45 III.1.1 Criteria of Middle Powers ...... 45 III.1.2 South Korea as a Middle Power ...... 47 III.1.2.1 Hierarchical Approach ...... 47 III.1.2.2 Geographical Approach ...... 49 III.1.2.3 Normative Approach ...... 51 III.1.2.4 Behavioral Approach ...... 51 III.2 The Diplomatic Instruments of Park Geun-hye Administration in Maintaining Middle Power Status...... 52 III.2.1 MIKTA (2013 – 2016) ...... 53 III.2.2 Official Development Assistance Project (2013 – 2016) ...... 60 III.2.3 Green Growth (2014 – 2015) ...... 63 CHAPTER IV ...... 66 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SOUTH KOREA’S MIDDLE POWER DIPLOMACY IN MAINTAINING ITS STATUS OF MIDDLE POWER THROUGH MIKTA INITIATIVE ...... 66 IV.1 MIKTA as an Instrument of South Korea in Asserting its Leadership on Middle Power Diplomacy...... 66 IV.1.1 MIKTA and Official Development Assistance Project ...... 70 IV.1.2 MIKTA and Green Growth ...... 71

IV.1.3 MIKTA and North Korean Issues ...... 73 IV.2 The Implementation of Middle Power Diplomacy in Maintaining South Korea’s Middle Power Status through MIKTA ...... 74 CHAPTER V ...... 84 CONCLUSION ...... 84 Bibliography ...... 86

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 The Connection between Concepts ...... 15 Figure 2.1 South Korea’s Foreign Policy Framework ...... 44 Figure 3.1 GDP World’s Ranking 2016 ...... 48 Figure 3.2 The Chart of World’s Most Powerful Countries in 2017 ...... 49 Figure 3.3 Map of Northeast Asia ...... 50 Figure 3.4 Gross and Net ODA Disbursements of South Korea...... 61 Figure 4.1 The Implementation of Middle Power Diplomacy ...... 75 Figure 4.2 MIKTA as an Informal Inter-governmental Organization ...... 77

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Inter-Korean Dialogue from 2013 to 2017 ...... 38 Table 3.1 The 24 Priority Countries of South Korea’s ODA ...... 63

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

UNDP United Nations Development Program OECD Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development SIPRI The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute MIKTA Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey, Australia ODA Official Development Assistance FIGOs Formal Inter-governmental Organizations IIGOs Informal Inter-governmental Organizations THAAD Terminal High Altitude Area Defense CRPF The Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland KOICA Korea International Cooperation Agency GDP Gross Domestic Product FTA Free Trade Agreement G20 Group of Twenty INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contributions GCF Green Climate Fund MINT Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey CARBS Canada, Australia, Russia, Brazil, and South Africa N-11 Next Eleven EAGLE Emerging and Growth Leading Economies APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation EU European Union GNI Gross National Income

xiii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

I.1 Background of the Study

Republic of Korea (henceforth referred as to South Korea) has shown a rapid development for the past decades after become a backward economy in the 1960s whose income per capita lower than countries such as Haiti, Yemen and Ethiopia. It is significantly changing from a country that lived from a foreign aid to a fully established country, with Gross National Income (GNI) per capita increased from US$67 in 1962 to US$ 22.670 in 20121. South Korea has achieved a great success in integrating its rapid economic growth and poverty reduction, cited as a phenomenon of ‘Miracle on the Han river’.2

Prior to the success of the Korean miracle, South Korea continue to grow its attractive power in purpose to be involved in the international community. South Korea particularly interested in building a stronger political and economic cooperation both regionally and globally. Emphasized on multilateralism, South Korea taking the initiatives such as become a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation (OECD) in 1996, until it became the first Asian country which is not a member of G8 to host G20 summit in 2010.3 From that, the urge to become an active participant and to bear a larger role in solving global governance issues, especially regarding in poverty reduction, and become a provider with significant development assistance exist. South Korea also hosted the fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in 2011, as an initiative to gather leaders from both developed and developing countries to maximize global

1 A.n. “The World Bank In Republic of Korea - Overview.” Text. World Bank. Accessed February 21, 2018. http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/korea/overview. 2 Kim, Kwan S. “THE KOREAN MIRACLE (1962-1980) REVISITED: MYTHS AND REALITIES IN STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT.” Kellogg Institute, no. 166 (November 1991): 3–5. 3 Noland, Marcus. “South Korea: The Backwater That Boomed.” Foreign Affairs 93, no. 1 (January 2014): 17.

efforts in giving aids for the purpose of reducing poverty and enhance economic growth.4

According to Lee Sook-jong, the shift toward a more global role which being embarked by South Korea was come from the idea of the country to become a bridge between developed and developing countries, since South Korea has become the 11th largest economy in the world with a Gross Domestic Products (GDP) of US$ 1.4 trillion, according to 2016 data from World Bank5. Its territorial size has been relatively small, however it has a fairly large population by 51.2 million which ranked 27th in the world according to its population6. The country’s human development, according to United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has ranked 18th in the world based on its human development index report7. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has assessed South Korea as a moderate 10th in terms of military expanditure from 2007 to 20168. These statistics had projected that South Korea has fulfill the criteria to be one of emerging middle powers in the world.9

In a broader sense, middle power is a concept in the power hierarchy where a state stands in between great powers and minor powers.10 The states which categorize as middle powers do not necessary based on concrete criteria. Thus, the range of middle power countries is extensive. However, Gareth Evans as a former Australian foreign minister has taken objective criteria such as Gross

4 Park, Kang-ho. “Korea’s Role in Global Development.” Brookings (blog), November 30, 2001. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/koreas-role-in-global-development/. 5 A.n. “Gross Domestic Products 2016.” World Bank, 2017. https://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf. 6 A.n. “The World Factbook - Central Intelligence Agency.” CIA World Factbook, July 2017. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html. 7 A.n. “Human Development Reports.” United Nations Development Programme, 2017. http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI. 8 A.n. “SIPRI Fact Sheet.” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2016. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/Trends-world-military-expenditure-2016.pdf. 9 Lee, Sook-jong. “South Korea as New Middle Power Seeking Complex Diplomacy.” East Asia Institute, no. 25 (September 2012): 1. 10 Schweller, Randall E. “The Concept of Middle Power.” In The Korean Pivot: The Study of South Korea as a Global Power, First., 4. Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2017.

Domestic Product (GDP), the population rate and military expanditure as a starting point in determine middle powers.11

South Korea has been internationally recognized as a middle power when the country joined OECD in 1996.12 And as South Korea fulfilled the starting criteria of becoming middle power which has a capability in economic sector, South Korea kept promoting its ambitions to have a bigger role in multilateral cooperation with other capable countries to help less capable countries as a middle power suppposed to be in the international community.

The existence of middle power status for South Korea has shaped South Korea in maintaining its relations with other countries and the position that it took in the international community.13 Thus, the term of middle power diplomacy has emerged and considerably used in a policy circle to represent the role that played by South Korea in the world. Middle power diplomacy of South Korea aims to bring South Korea as a country that bear middle power status to set norms and values in international institutions by connecting like-minded countries and becoming a bridge between developed and developing countries.14

By that, the country had played a bridging role to facilitate meetings between developed and developing countries in solving issues such as poverty reduction, development assistance, climate change, health issue, and high level summits such as G20 summit, High-Level Forum for Effectiveness Aid, and Nuclear summit.15

11 Ibid., 5. 12 Lee, Sook-jong. “South Korea as New Middle Power Seeking Complex Diplomacy.” East Asia Institute, no. 25 (September 2012): 1. 13 Mo, Jongryn. “South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: A Case of Growing Compatibility between Regional and Global Roles.” Sage Publications 71, no. 4 (2016): 589–91. 14 Yul, Sohn. “Searching for a New Identity: South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy.” Policy Brief. FRIDE, December 2015. 15 Green, Michael J. “Korean Middle Power Diplomacy and Asia’s Emerging Multilateral Architecture.” In The Korean Pivot: The Study of South Korea as a Global Power, First., 27–28. Cente r for Strategic and International Studies, 2017.

In Park Geun-hye administration, the middle power diplomacy remained one of important goals for South Korea’s diplomacy.16 As she carried on middle power diplomacy in her policy implementation, the establishment of MIKTA has become one of her successful initiatives which according to Scott Snyder, has shown South Korea’s tremendeous role in leading its diplomatic expansion as a significant actor in the international community. 17

MIKTA or Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey, Australia middle power network is a program which consist of countries that are also G20 members, primarily existed as gatherings held for foreign ministers with the purpose to resolve global governance issues such as poverty reduction, climate change, health issues, nuclear disarmament, and inclusive growth as well as enhanced economic cooperation. MIKTA, as a network of like-minded countries with a vision to strenghten global governance and protect public goods, aimed to conduct an effective middle power roles, which to become a bridge builders between developed and developing countries and to become a catalyst in applying global governance reform.18

I.2 Problem Identification

Experiencing rapid development both economically and politically, South Korean government has continuously put effort in maintaining the middle power status of the country. The effort can be projected from the middle power diplomacy conducted by the last two presidential administration of South Korea, Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye.

Lee Myung-bak administration (2008-2012) has become the peak of South Korea middle power status. Under the motto ‘Global Korea’, the government has hosted many international events such as G20 summit in 2010,

16 MOFA. “2015 Diplomatic White Paper.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2015. 17 Lee, Sook-jong. “South Korea Aiming to Be an Innovative Middle Power.” In Transforming Global Governance with Middle Power Diplomacy: South Korea’s Role in the 21st Century, First., 4–6. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. 18 Ibid.

the fourth High-Level Forum for Effectiveness Aid in 2011, and the Nuclear Security summit with over 50 leaders around the world in 2012. Lee Myung-bak has shown its concern on green growth by set up a goal to mitigate gas by 30% in 2020 and to accomplish the goal, he had actively promoted green growth idea in international forums such as Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, as well as created the Global Green Growth Institute as a new green growth promotion and hosted the United Nation’ Green Climate Fund.19

Officially taking the presidential office in 2013, Park Geun-hye continued to include the implementation of middle power diplomacy in her foreign policy. In her administration, Park Geun-hye reaffirmed South Korea’s middle power diplomacy to maintain the status of middle power that South Korea has gained. The government aimed to become a responsible middle power in the international community to contribute to peace and development on global level.20

By that, Park Geun-hye has emphasized several initiatives to enhance the implementation of South Korea’s middle power diplomacy. The government had actively involved in addressing international issues, extending its diplomacy on development cooperation by enhancing the effectiveness of development aid to the recipient countries and playing a key role in international dialogue at Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and G20.21 However, despite on her initiative to enhance its middle power activism, the creation of MIKTA has become the highlight of Park Geun-hye administration in the matter of middle power diplomacy initiative. South Korean policymakers has supported the creation as MIKTA to ensure the inclusiveness and centrality

19 Mo, Jongryn. “South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: A Case of Growing Compatibility between Regional and Global Roles.” Sage Publications 71, no. 4 (2016): 589–91. 20 MOFA. “2015 Diplomatic White Paper.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2015. 21 MOFA. “2014 Diplomatic White Paper.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2014.

of South Korea in the middle power category, as well as differentiate the grouping from other states in the international community.22

Therefore, seeing the notion of South Korea effort in maintaining its middle power status and purposes on the previous era, this thesis research will identify Park Geun-hye middle power diplomacy implementation precisely by analyzing MIKTA network as one of her middle power diplomacy initiatives, as well as whether MIKTA had enhanced South Korea’s leadership as a middle power.

I.3 Statement of Problem

How did South Korea implement its middle power diplomacy to maintain the status of middle power through MIKTA initiative under Park Geun-hye administration (2013-2017)?

I.4 Research Objective

• To analyze the implementation of middle power diplomacy by South Korea in maintaining its status of middle power based on the initiative of MIKTA under Park Geun-hye administration.

I.5 Significance of the Study

This thesis research expectantly will be significant and contribute in some ways as follows:

• Provide information of South Korea as an emerging middle power in 21st century and the way its maintained the middle power status especially in Park Geun-hye administration. • Provide elaboration on South Korea’s middle power diplomacy and its implementation in a form of MIKTA.

22 Jeffrey Robertson, “Middle Power Definitions: Confusion Reigns Supreme,” Routledge 71, no. 4 (March 2, 2017): 12.

I.6 Theoretical Framework

I.6.1 Foreign Policy

Foreign policy was defined as an official action implemented by the government of a sovereign country as guidance, plans, responsibilities and activities which are directed to foreign entities and environment outside of the countries. As a sub-field of International Relations, foreign policy is constructed to be implemented on the outside territory of the country and due to this matter, foreign policy stood on a higher level of politics then domestic politics.23

James N. Rosenau offered three forms of foreign policy; orientation, strategy, and implementation. Orientation referred to general principles which become the foundation of the action of countries in international affairs. This form has pointed out national identity such as values, traditions and ideas. Meanwhile, strategy referred to the plans and decisions taken by countries to reach certain goals. This form is the intepretation of orientations to the existing situations. Last, implementation refers to actual behavior of countries in comparison with the situation based on the orientation and strategy.24

In this thesis research, South Korea which already built its existence as a middle power since the country joined OECD in 1996,25 has used the opportunity to develop as strategy for the purpose of enhancing its multilateral cooperation with other countries. The strategy in a form of middle power diplomacy which has been a part of Park Geun-hye foreign policy pillars was meant to take even greater responsibility as a middle power for the sake of global peace and development.26 As becoming a responsible middle power was Park Geun-hye’s priority goal,27 the implementation of middle power diplomacy

23 Tayfur, M. Fathir. “Main Approaches to the Study of Foreign Policy: A Review.” METU Studies in Development 21, no. 1 (1994): 114–17. 24 Ibid., 116 – 17. 25 Lee, Sook-jong. “South Korea as New Middle Power Seeking Complex Diplomacy.” East Asia Institute, no. 25 (September 2012): 1. 26 MOFA. “2015 Diplomatic White Paper.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2015. 27 Ibid.

projected South Korea’s actual action in comparison to the orientation and strategy to the external environment of the countries.

I.6.2 Middle Power Diplomacy

According to C. Efstathopoulos, middle power diplomacy has been followed by industrialized countries which historically were able to thrive through the distribution of an advanced diplomatic tools in terms of resources, knowledge and expertise. The idea of middle power diplomacy acted as a foreign policy platform that could condone a special role for the countries in international affairs.28

Middle powers are fairly different from other powers since they have the ability and willingness to perform in a global stage. As the classic definition of middle powers behavior stated, middle powers had a tendency to undertake multilateral resolutions to international issues, tendency to embrace adjustment position in international conflicts, and tendency to embrace the idea of good global citizenship in giving guidance to their diplomacy. In its diplomatic notion, middle powers tend to play their role in specific areas of international issues. Thus, middle powers has a distinct form of niche diplomacy which would led middle powers to determine a more concentrated foreign policy form, although it cannot be limited to one issue only.29

Middle power diplomacy, as its activism concentrated on multilateral level has often linked its diplomatic actions to building coalitions with like- minded countries. With the existence of the middle power coalitions, the participating countries would bear a bigger impact if the countries had mutual understandings, ideas, norms and values, as well as having a similar interest in identifying problems and finding solutions for the problems.30

28 Efstathopoulos, Charalampos. “Middle Power Diplomacy in International Relations.” In Middle Powers in World Trade Diplomacy, First., 15–21. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid.

Gareth Evans has also pointed out similar characteristic of middle power diplomacy which he referred as a characteristic method which regarding the building coalition with like-minded countries. However, other than the characteristic method, Evans has also referred to characteristic motivation of middle power diplomacy. He described that the motivation for a country in managing middle power diplomacy as ‘good global citizenship’, a reliance in the utilization and essentiality of cooperation with other countries in resolving international issues, especially several issues which cannot be solve by a single country, even though its a powerful one. The crucial part of being a good global citizen cannot be separated from national interests since having a good cooperation means the participating countries are supposed to give their support and assistance in other countries domestic issues.31

Middle power diplomacy could certainly achieve issues which found difficult by great or major powers. Although the notion of middle power diplomacy itself will not generate a miraculous result, the approach of this diplomacy is the best way to solve the global governance issues.32 South Korea had realized the importance of middle power activism in generating multilateral cooperation. By the creation of MIKTA, South Korea has taken the characteristic method of middle power diplomacy which builds coalitions with like-minded countries to an actual objective in solving global governance issues. As an initiative of South Korea’s middle power diplomacy, MIKTA supposedly could act as a leading middle powers network since its served a greater purpose of countries that understand their diversity and embrace their similarity. Most importantly, MIKTA has also possessed the willingness and ability to protect public goods and developing global governance.33

31 Evans, Gareth. “Middle Power Diplomacy.” Gareth Evans, June 29, 2011. http://www.gevans.org/speeches/speech441.html. 32 Ibid. 33 Schiavon, Jorge A., and Diego Dominguez. “Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and Australia (MIKTA): Middle, Regional, and Constructive Powers Providing Global Governance.” Wiley Online Library 3, no. 3 (2016): 6.

I.6.3 Middle Power

The concept of middle power was introduced in early 1589 by Giovanni Botero who divided states into three classes based on its territorial size: 1) small city-states, 2) middle states, and 3) great states. On his elaboration, Botero has also mentioned the advantages of being middle-sized states;

“Middle states are the most lasting, since they are not exposing themselves in either violence caused by their weakness, as well as envy caused by their strength. Being moderate in terms of power and wealth….less support of ambition and have less provocation than larger states.”34 Along the way, the definition and criteria of middle powers were extended into more complex version. Andrew F. Cooper (1993) has categorized four approaches in assessing middle powers which are positional (the range of population, economic power and complexity), geographic (location between the great powers), normative (the level of responsibility and impulse in managing diplomatic influence for the sake of international order), and behavior (persuasion of multilateral solution of global affairs) approaches.35

However, there are no conclusive criteria regarding the definition of middle power as R. G. Riddell, former Canadian department of External Affairs stated that there are no concrete definition that have been provided to characterize a middle power, however by its favorable attributes which were economic capability, political influence, stability and willingness to take responsibility could more or less differentiate a middle power from other powers in the hierarchy.36 The former Australian foreign minister, Gareth Evans, also has given a picture on the way seeing a middle power through an objective criteria such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the population rate and military

34 Holbraad, Carsten. “History of the Idea.” In Middle Powers in International Politics, First., 11–12. The Macmillan Press, 1984. 35 Cooper, Andrew F. “Leadership, Followership, and Middle Powers in International Politics: A Reappraisal.” In Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order, First., 17–19. University of British Columbia Press, 1993. 36 Holbraad, Carsten. “The Hierarchy of Powers.” In Middle Powers in International Politics, First., 68–69. The Macmillan Press, 1984.

expanditure.37 These criteria will be the starting point on an extensive range of countries with the title of middle powers.

Regarding the role of middle powers, it generally had been related to becoming a mediator to their allies or rivals, as well as a peacekeeper under the supervision of United Nations.38 The role is due to the situation after the war and to prevent another conflict emerged. In the 21st century, the role of middle powers had been quite similar in a way of mediating and peacekeeping, however instead of mediating allies or rivals, middle powers are more a bridge in a multilateral cooperation to connect developed and developing countries to solve issues which become a concern for international community.

Middle power has come as a problematic concept due to its inconclusive criteria and unsatisfactory definition which was used to define the middle power.39 The numerous versions of middle power definitions had created confusions and debates between scholars regarding the precise definitions of middle powers. Such as Andrew Cooper that have brough four approaches to define middle power, meanwhile Adam Chapnick (1999), had presented three approaches to define middle power which were functional, hierarchical and behavioral, simpler than Cooper’s approaches. More recently, Andrew Carr (2014) had also a similar categories regarding on the definition of middle power, for instance, position, behavior and identity.40 The definitions provided by the scholars above were either redefined or combined the existing definitions which created a pattern on the mutually agreed model of defining middle power. However, despite the similarity of each definition, all of them are lack of the

37 Schweller, Randall E. “The Concept of Middle Power.” In The Korean Pivot: The Study of South Korea as a Global Power, First., 5. Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2017. 38 MOFA. “2014 Diplomatic White Paper.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2014. 39 Carsten Holbraad, “The Rol e of Middle Powers,” Sage Publications 6, no. 1 (March 1, 1971): 81. 40 Jeffrey Robertson, “Middle Power Definitions: Confusion Reigns Supreme,” Routledge 71, no. 4 (March 2, 2017): 6–7.

identifiable weaknesses, thus middle power concept has never been fully developed in the conceptual scheme of international relations.41

Moreover, despite the numerous versions of criteria and definition of middle power, a country which categorized as a middle power not necessarily fulfilled all the existed criteria to be middle power since the most significant way to classified a middle power is through national economic power, for instance, South Korea, although has been categorized as a middle power due to its economic strength and influence, the country is still lacking in military and security aspects. Thus for military and security aspects, it needs the support from great power – the United States – as its partner.42

In this research, South Korea as a country which already fit the criteria of middle powers from the economic aspect, has played a leading role in the creation of like-minded group, MIKTA. Through MIKTA, South Korea could exercise its influence to show the capacity in resolving a wide range of governance issues from financial stability, to development partnership, green growth and climate change, to international security and nuclear disarmament. As the country is fully aware of its leadership in multilateral cooperation, together with countries that are similar in characteristics on approching international issues peacefully, similar in political ideology as well as well- developed economies, South Korea could contribute more as a middle power for the sake of global governance.43

I.6.4 Informal Inter-governmental Organizations (IIGOs)

In the 21st century, the study of International Relations has been focused on the role of inter-governmental organizations in multilateral cooperation. However, the attention had mainly on formal inter-governmental organizations

41 Ibid. 42 Carsten Holbraad, “The Hierarchy of Powers,” in Middle Powers in International Politics, First (The Macmillan Press, 1984), 89 – 91. 43 Snyder, Scott A. “Korean Middle Power Diplomacy: The Establishment of MIKTA.” Council on Foreign Relations, October 1, 2013. https://www.cfr.org/blog/korean-middle-power-diplomacy- establishment-mikta.

(FIGOs) while Informal Inter-governmental organizations (IIGOs) has seldom become the main conceptualization. In the reality, IIGOs has become an important concept in global politics.44

Taking the example of G-groups, G20 is widely used by international policymakers a an instrument in addressing international financial challenges. G8 summit – now referred as G7 – has become an instrument for country leaders as a pre-discussion regarding various viewpoints and reach agreement on international financial policies and present the results to IMF and could achieve something that would have been difficult for FIGOs, yet in implementation still relied on the FIGOs for a long-term solutions.45

The IIGOs defined as a group in which the members united based on a common norms and values about what will they accomplished by participating in regular meetings and associating with formal institutions.46 MIKTA has become the newest addition of IIGOs and has become a benchmark of new informal groups in international order with the capacity to go beyond its current forum design.47

The IIGOs have 3 main characteristics that can elaborate the definition further; 1) specifically have mutual expectations about purposes of them getting together. The mutual understandings usually expressed in a joint communique; 2) specifically have countries as members on ministerial or executive level; and 3) specifically have regular meetings to discuss mutual concerns, distribute

44 Felicity Valubas and Duncan Snidal, “Organization without Delegation: Informal Intergovernmental Organizations (IIGOs) and the Spectrum of Intergovernmental Arrangements,” Springer Science + Business Media 8, no. 2 (January 2013): 194–96. 45 Felicity Valubas and Duncan Snidal, “Organization without Delegation: Informal Intergovernmental Organizations (IIGOs) and the Spectrum of Intergovernmental Arrangements,” Springer Science + Business Media 8, no. 2 (January 2013): 194–96. 46 Ibid., 197. 47 Andrew F. Cooper, “MIKTA and the Global Projection of Middle Powers: Toward a Summit of Their Own?,” Oxford University Press 1, no. 1 (2015): 96–7.

information, develop agreement, and possibly joint movement, but do not possess independent secretariat.48

In comparison to formal groups, informal groups has a less binding quality which means they are flexible and have limited formal rules. However, the existence of informal groups are not an effective way for great powers to stabilize power distribution also did not provide a secure protection for small powers as formal groups did.49 However, IIGOs are significant in a way that it provide flexibility for countries to address niche issues without limited by formal regulations that took a long-term capacity for resolution.50

“As new issues emerged, IIGOs provide a place for countries review formal institution results without losing the benefits of that particular institution until the cost of large institutional change are worthwhile.”51 The creation of MIKTA has provide a platform in addressing global challenges by facilitating multilateral cooperation and solutions for the sake of international order. The rise of informal groups pointed out a change in international politics which resulting in a larger set of actors at the power structure, especially to provide space for countries from another layer within international order.52 By that, MIKTA as the new global platform that are active on global issues and strive to find new opportunities for MIKTA to contribute for the sake of global governance, in particular for an important sector such as economic and development, or the combination of both.53

48 Felicity Valubas and Duncan Snidal, “Organization without Delegation: Informal Intergovernmental Organizations (IIGOs) and the Spectrum of Intergovernmental Arrangements,” Springer Science + Business Media 8, no. 2 (January 2013): 197–98. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid., 213–14. 51 Ibid. 52 Andrew F. Cooper, “MIKTA and the Global Projection of Middle Powers: Toward a Summit of Their Own?,” Oxford University Press 1, no. 1 (2015): 95–6. 53 Mo, Jongryn. “Introduction: G20, Middle Powers and Global Governance.” In MIKTA, Middle Powers, and New Dynamics of Global Governance: The G20’s Evolving Agenda, First., 1–3. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

MIDDLE FOREIGN MIDDLE POWER IIGOs POLICY POWER DIPLOMACY

Figure 1.1 The Connection between Concepts

The figure above showed the connection between concepts which used in this thesis research. South Korea’s middle power status has been emphasized in its foreign policy pillar of middle power diplomacy. And as the main focus of this thesis research, middle power diplomacy was used by South Korea in building trust between the country and major partners, most importantly to realized the goal of becoming responsible middle power in global peace and development, with main purpose to bridge developed and developing countries. South Korea in this case could possibly acted as a power broker between major players in Northeast Asia, for instance, the United States, China and Japan. With the existence of middle power diplomacy, South Korea could show its leadership as a middle power country considering its influence in economic and strategic location. Through its leadership also, South Korea has initiated the creation of informal group, MIKTA which consist of middle power countries such as Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey and Australia. This group has a common objective which to realize global governance reform and enhance economic cooperation between the countries and in international community. This figure will become the starting point of this thesis’ conceptual framework that contained the overall explanation of this research.

I.6.5 Conceptual Framework

South Korea as a middle power

Foreign Policy

Orientation Strategy Implementation

Middle Power Diplomacy

The creation of MIKTA IIGOs

Maintaining Leadership Middle as a middle Power Status power

This framework was created by the writer to elaborate the flow of this thesis research. Starting from South Korea as a middle power had the ability and willingness to get involved in global governance. Especially in the administration of Park Geun-hye, South Korea has applied the essence of middle power through its foreign policy pillars, which was middle power diplomacy. As one of her foreign policy pillars, middle power diplomacy generates a priority goal of becoming responsible middle power to contribute in peace and development in global level.54 To achieve the goal and maintaining its status as a middle power in international community, Park Geun-hye had created initiatives as a form of middle power diplomacy implementation.55

MIKTA was one of the initiatives which also the achievement gained by Park Geun-hye administration. The existence of MIKTA as an informal groups were meant to be a flexible platform for its member countries in building multilateral cooperation and plays a bridging role between developed and developing countries as well as promoting and implementing global governance reform by building standards, distributing best training, and establishing guidance to acknowledge issues of international agenda. MIKTA has served as a platform that projecting South Korea’s leadership as a middle power in between middle power countries.56

I.7 Scope and Limitations of the Study

This thesis research will focus on South Korea, especially on Park Geun- hye administration as the main subject with the scope of middle power diplomacy. This thesis research will analyze the conduct of middle power diplomacy under Park Geun-hye administration as the mean for South Korea to maintain its middle power status. By that, this thesis research will be looking

54 MOFA. “2015 Diplomatic White Paper.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2015. 55 Schiavon, Jorge A., and Diego Dominguez. “Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and Australia (MIKTA): Middle, Regional, and Constructive Powers Providing Global Governance.” Wiley Online Library 3, no. 3 (2016): 6. 56 Jeffrey Robertson, “Middle Power Definitions: Confusion Reigns Supreme,” Routledge 71, no. 4 (March 2, 2017): 12.

further on MIKTA as the main initiative. The time period on this thesis research will be 2013 – 2017.

I.8 Literature Review

In order to have a deeper understanding on middle power concept, the writer used the book with title ‘Middle Powers in International Politics (1984)’ by Carsten Holbraad as a basic knowledge in historical idea of middle power, its position in hierarchy of power and its characteristics differentiate with other powers and its role in international community. This book also provide a case study which gave a real example for the writer in projected middle powers while performing its role in the system.

The case of South Korea as a middle power and its middle power diplomacy implementation has been supported by a report book published on Center for Strategic and International Studies titled ‘The Korean Pivot: The Study of South Korea as a Global Power (2017)’ accumulated by several writers for instance, Prof. Randall L. Schweller, Michael J. Green and Oh Mi-yeon. This report book supplies a thorough elaboration on middle power, South Korea’s emergence as a middle power, South Korea’ middle power diplomacy and its initiatives in building multilateralism towards global governance.

The book titled ‘Transforming Global Governance with Middle Power Diplomacy: South Korea’s Role in The 21st Century (2016)’ written by Lee Sook-jong et al., will give a greater insight on South Korea as a middle power and its initiative to organize middle power diplomacy in several sectors such as security, economic, environmental, as well as the way South Korea positions itself in international community as an emerging middle power.

I.9 Research Methodology

Denzin and Lincoln (1994), define qualitative research as a method focused on interpretation of situation in the natural circumstances to build up the fact and relevant statement in those circumstances. It involves collecting

information on personal experience, real-life stories, interviews, observation, interaction and visual expression which explains the meaning of the subject’s life.57

The writer will be focusing on descriptive research which is designed to provide the result of fact-findings examination.This particular method will also give benefits to the writer in analyzing dependent and independent variables of the problem to get deeper understanding about middle power diplomacy from the analysis of its implementation throughout Park Geun-hye’s administration on the its main initiative, MIKTA.

The method will be supported by library research, utilizing the facility of Adam Kurniawan Library located in President University, Cikarang, Indonesia and internet research which will provide journals, articles and official documents from official websites and online libraries. The period of this research will be between February 2018 until March 2018.

I.10 Thesis Structure

Chapter I – Introduction

This chapter will consist of several explanatory sub-chapters such as background of the study, problem identification, statement of problem, research objectives, significance of the study, theoretical framework, scope and limitations of the study, literature review, research methodology, and thesis structure, in order to explain the course of this thesis research.

Chapter II – South Korea’s Foreign Policy Pillars Under Park Geun-hye Administration

This chapter will provide elaboration on Park Geun-hye’s foreign policy pillars, especially on middle power diplomacy as a main focus in this thesis research. This chapter will also explain South Korea’s foreign policy starting

57 Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994).The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research . Sage Publications, 1 – 3.

19 from the orientation which is based on the three pillars, strategy and the implementation done by the government to reach the middle power goal.

Chapter III – The Overview of South Korea as a Middle Power

This chapter will describe the overview of South Korea in maintaining its middle power. In this chapter, the writer will provide a brief explanation regarding middle powers in international community and the criteria of middle powers based on 4 approaches with South Korea as the subject of criteria assessment. This chapter will also elaborate the effort made by South Korean government in maintaining its status of middle power throughout Park Geun-hye administration from 2013 to 2017 which included MIKTA, Official Development Assistance project, and green growth.

Chapter IV – The Implementation of South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy in Maintaining its Status as a Middle Power through MIKTA Initiative

This chapter will analyze the implementation of South Korea’s middle power diplomacy in maintaining South Korea’s middle power status. Using the case study of MIKTA, this chapter will assess whether South Korea has implemented its middle power diplomacy in the management of MIKTA and whether its involvement in MIKTA has supported the maintenance of South Korea middle power status.

Chapter V – Conclusion

This chapter will evaluate the materials and conclude the overall issue which has been presented in this thesis research.

CHAPTER II SOUTH KOREA’S FOREIGN POLICY PILLARS UNDER PARK GEUN-HYE ADMINISTRATION

II.1 The Orientation of South Korea’s Foreign Policy Pillars

Alongside the commencement of her administration in 2013, President Park Geun-hye prepared a new approach as her foreign policy principle guideline namely trustpolitik. The term was seen as an ideal vision that emphasized on trust as an essence of policy making and implementation.58 In her foreign policy plan, Park Geun-hye proposed three foreign policy pillars, trust- bulding process on the Korean peninsula, Northeast Asian peace and cooperation initiative and middle power diplomacy.59

“The Park administration seeks to establish a new order of continuous peace and cooperation through truspolitik, constructing trust building process on Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia peace and cooperation initiative….on the other hand, trustpolitik is pursuing another significant goal which is to contribute to global peace and development beyond Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia by playing a greater role in addressing international challenges and strengthening cooperation with other middle powers for the realization of international values.”60 Park Geun-hye has set three pillars as the orientation of South Korea’s foreign policy in purpose to become the country’s basic foundation on its action on regional and global level.61 The first pillar was the trust-building process on Korean peninsula. Park Geun-hye tried to balance the usage of diplomatic dialogue and hard-line pressure in the effort of established relations based on trust between North and South Korea. The second pillar, Northeast Asia peace

58 Byung-se Yun, “President Park Geun-Hye’s Trustpolitik: A New Framework for South Korea’s Foreign Policy,” Global Asia, 2013. 59 Sohn Yul and Won-taek Kang, “South Korea in 2013: Meeting New Challenges with the Old Guard,” University of California Press 54, no. 1 (2014): 142–43. 60 Byung-se Yun, “President Park Geun-Hye’s Trustpolitik: A New Framework for South Korea’s Foreign Policy,” Global Asia, 2013. 61 Ibid.

and cooperation initiative, claimed as a plan of trustpolitik implementation on regional level with aims to change apprehension and conflict into becoming trust and cooperation. The third pillar, middle power diplomacy intentionally to increase South Korea’s role in addressing global issues as a responsible middle power.62

Furthermore, the foreign policy orientation which presented on the first foreign policy report by then foreign minister Yun Byung-se as the allocation of President Park’s vision and policy objectives had appointed happiness as the common theme of its diplomatic vision.63

Through the vision aside for the existing pillars, there were three core objectives of South Korea foreign policy which hope to be achieved in Park Geun-hye administration were Korean peninsula peace and development, South Korea as a reliable country that actively involve in human development, and the recognition of attractive Korea.64

II.1.1 The Trust Building Process of Korean Peninsula

The election campaign of Park Geun-hye in 2012 already claimed North Korea engagement as the main focus of her foreign policy plan and become the key fact of South Korea’s diplomatic agenda.65 She wished to discuss North Korean nuclear issue by initiating North – South dialogue with denuclearization as the main topic. Park Geun-hye also touched on the topic of establishing Korean peninsula economic community based on trust-building process and denuclearization to increase symbiotic economic cooperation and cultural, as well as liaison offices exchange between South Korea and North Korea. These

62 Ibid. 63 Chung-in Moon and Seung-chan Boo, “Korean Foreign Policy: Park Geun-Hye Looks at China and North Korea,” in Japanese and Korean Politics: Alone and Apart from Each Other, First (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 224–25. 64 Ibid., 225. 65 Justyna Szczudlik-Tatar, “The New South Korean President’s Foreign Policy Directions,” The Pollish Institute of International Affairs 21, no. 474 (February 2013): 1–3.

efforts by South Korean government were created as the starting point in purpose to build mutual trust.66

“Trust is the very basis of greater inter-Korean cooperation, stable peace on Korean peninsula and the core of unified Korea. Simultaneously, it becomes a social capital that authorize our plan to further pursuing North Korea and diplomatic actions on the foundation of domestic support and international cooperation.”67 Park Geun-hye foreign policy proposal on North Korea was made to be distinctive from her predecessor’s hard-line approach and aimed to balance hard and soft approach by combining the Sunshine policy and hard-line measure. The plan was to present South Korea as a country neither too hostile nor too placid, as well as to increase the level of trust between the two Koreas. Park Geun-hye also showed her willingness to have direct negotiations with Kim Jong-un regarding the security challenges which caused by North Korea due to its nuclear program.68

This policy has been supported by several points of action, for instance a) the recommencement of North–South Korea official dialogue b) the implementation of inter Korean peninsula existing agreements c) significant solution for humanitarian issues d) pursuasion of symbiotic cooperation and exchange the enactment of Kaesong industrial complex e) and the settlement about North Korean nuclear issue in tune with Korean peninsula peaceful relations process through dialogue.69

The trust-building process on the Korean peninsula had not only concerned on establishing inter-Korean cooperation but also preparing the two

66 Chung-in Moon and Seung-chan Boo, “Korean Foreign Policy: Park Geun-Hye Looks at China and North Korea,” in Japanese and Korean Politics: Alone and Apart from Each Other, First (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 224–25. 67 A.n, “Trust-Building Process on the Korean Peninsula” (Ministry of Unification Republic of Korea, 2013), https://goo.gl/84YiNS. 68 Justyna Szczudlik-Tatar, “The New South Korean President’s Foreign Policy Directions,” The Pollish Institute of International Affairs 21, no. 474 (February 2013): 1–3. 69 Chung-in Moon and Seung-chan Boo, “Korean Foreign Policy: Park Geun-Hye Looks at China and North Korea,” in Japanese and Korean Politics: Alone and Apart from Each Other, First (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 224–25.

Koreas for any possibilities that will lead to reunification. Accordingly, South Korean ministry of unification prepared some efforts to enhance unification infrastucture by developing the formula of national community unification, pursuing public engagement, and reform the quality of life for North Korean people.70 To this end, the efforts intended to establish a consensus and understanding domestically and internationally regarding the unification formula, increase the economic development and cooperative engagement to create a better life especially for North Korean people.71

II.1.2 Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation

The initiative of peace and cooperation in Northeast Asia may have been seen as a sensible strategy in balancing South Korea’s relations with China as well as the United States. President Park Geun-hye delivered her concept on regional peace and cooperation during her speech at the United States congress in May 2013;

“Asia bears from what I called ‘Asian paradox’, or the disconnected situation between economic interdependence, sluggish political, and security cooperation. The way we manage this paradox will decide the form of new order in Asia. As we cannot solve this issue on our own, I propose Northeast Asia peace and cooperation as an initiative... For this initiative we could start on softer issues, for instance environmental related issues, nuclear management and counter-terrorism. Through these, trust will be made and will encourage the expanding horizons of our cooperation.... If we begin on where our interests overlap, later it will be easier to find resemblance on bigger challenges, as well as to find solutions for our mutual benefit.”72 Park Geun-hye’s initiative regarding peace and cooperation in Northeast Asia reflect her foregoing ideas on cooperative multilateral security outlines, which has been accentuated in her speech at Stanford University in 2009, and

70 A.n, “Trust-Building Process on the Korean Peninsula” (Ministry of Unification Republic of Korea, 2013), https://goo.gl/84YiNS. 71 Ibid. 72 Chung-in Moon and Seung-chan Boo, “Korean Foreign Policy: Park Geun-Hye Looks at China and North Korea,” in Japanese and Korean Politics: Alone and Apart from Each Other, First (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 224–25.

also self-written article in 2011 published on Foreign Affairs. She claimed the establishment of the Seoul Process, equivalent to the Helsinki Process, during the election campaign as a supporting measure of trust-building process and Northeast Asia initiative. 73 .

The purpose of Seoul process is to improve inter-Korean relations through exchange and cooperation in political and military sectors, and for Northeast Asia initiative intended to form a new regional environment by nurturing cooperation in non-traditional soft security issues such as cybersecurity, energy security, nuclear safety, terrorism, climate change, health epidemics and disaster management.74 This process will focus on doing yearly multilateral conferences, exchange and cooperation in social and economic sector.75

From the engagement of soft security issues, the process expect to expand the trust that already build into a more wide cooperation on hard security issues such as military-related issues. Furthermore, the engagement will eventually become a co-ownership multilateral framework with the flexibility in the agenda and structure that is potential to enhance non-threatening and collaborative multilateral cooperation in the region that involved major players such as China, Japan, Russia and the United States.76

The Northeast Asia peace and cooperation initiative were beneficial for the participating countries because of its flexible and collaborative approach where there will be a sense of connectivity as the participating countries have the same portion in the cooperation as co-architects. As the Northeast Asia region

73Helsinki process or Helsinki Declaration (1975) was a final act of Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) at Helsinki, Finland which offered the participating countries a fixed platform of communication, normative code of conduct for intra and inter-state relations, also a long- term program of cooperation for the sake of peace and stability change in the Europe (Official Website of CSCE). 74 Chung-in Moon and Seung-chan Boo, “Korean Foreign Policy: Park Geun-Hye Looks at China and North Korea,” in Japanese and Korean Politics: Alone and Apart from Each Other, First (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 226. 75 Ibid. 76 Heajin Kim, “Northeast Asia, Trust and the NAPCI,” The Diplomat, December 18, 2015, https://thediplomat.com/2015/12/northeast-asia-trust-and-the-napci/.

had become the strategic area of the participating countries’ regional policies such as Chinese neighborhood diplomacy, American rebalance strategy, Russian new Northeast Asia policy and Japanese proactive diplomacy. This initiative will serve to find common denominators between those policies and leniency for cooperation that would benefit all participants.77

II.2.3 Middle Power Diplomacy

Park Geun-hye administration carried a legacy of middle power status which her predecessor has developed initially, and has established its own initiative of middle power diplomacy in purpose to showcase the existency of its status as a middle power in international community also shown South Korea ability in creating policy for the sake of solving global governance issues. In regards to this matter the foreign minister, Yun Byung-se stated in the 10th annual Iftar dinner on 1 August 2013;

“Park Geun-hye administration as a responsible middle power would like to give back to the supporting partners. Therefore, the country wishes to make significant contributions to maintain peace and stability in the international community.”78 In which President Park Geun-hye has sought to support the utilization of middle power diplomacy to contribute on peace and development beyond Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia. Her ‘happiness of Koreans, Korean peninsula and international community’ vision represented the reliance that South Korea as well as the world’s peace and prosperity cannot be separated as the country and its partners deserved the same beneficial results for resolving complex issues together as members of international society.79

77 Victor Cha and Dong-Shik Shin, “2016 Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Forum,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2015, https://www.csis.org/programs/korea-chair/korea-chair- project-archive/2016-northeast-asia-peace-and-cooperation-forum. 78 A.n, “Remarks at the 10th Annual Iftar Dinner,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2013, www.mofa.go.kr/eng/brd/m_5689/view.do 79 Byung-se Yun, “President Park Geun-Hye’s Trustpolitik: A New Framework for South Korea’s Foreign Policy,” Global Asia, 2013.

The term of middle power or ‘junggyun-guk’ diplomacy had been particularly mentioned in South Korea’s foreign policy both by the government and between policy experts.80 Middle power diplomacy has been adopted as an instrument to increase South Korea’s national status. The status of middle power has seen as useful in positioning South Korea as a prominent country between great powers and small powers especially since the country has shown the tendency of playing an active role in international community.81

“South Korea middle power activism in regional and multilateral events proposes a new East Asian model of middle power diplomacy.”82 South Korea was seen as a country that had the capability in the building process of both trans-pacific and Asian community due to its position that can contribute to the stability of the region.83 The country had a proven strength in trade diplomacy with approximately a third of trades that are covered by economic cooperation or free trade agreement more than Japan and China’s ratio.84

Together with its capability in economic cooperation, South Korea showed the eagerness to play an even greater role in addressing variety of international challenges such as human rights, global economy and development, and climate change, among others.85

South Korea had also aimed to be involved in constructive manners to the process of creating international principles and norms in multilateral forums namely G20 and United Nations. Moreover, as a country that has the credibility in development, South Korea prepared a well-adjusted development partnership

80 Sookjong Lee, “South Korea as New Middle Power Seeking Complex Diplomacy,” East Asia Institute, no. 25 (September 2012): 14. 81 Ibid. 82 Michael J. Green, “Korean Middle Power Diplomacy and Asia’s Emerging Multilateral Architecture,” in The Korean Pivot: The Study of South Korea as a Global Power, First (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2017), 17 – 18. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid., 19. 85 Byung-se Yun, “President Park Geun-Hye’s Trustpolitik: A New Framework for South Korea’s Foreign Policy,” Global Asia, 2013.

program for the recipient countries while strengthening partnership system with other middle powers for the sake of realizing global values.86 Thus, South Korea had set a high standard as an emerging middle power in the 21st century with its active contribution to global governance and international order.

II.2 The Strategy of South Korea’s Foreign Policy: Pursuing the United States’ Support & Enhancing Economic Cooperation Capacity

II.2.1 The United States – South Korea Alliance

The alliance between South Korea and the United States provided the foundation of the country’s security and defense policy. It has been existing since the Mutual Defense Agreement signing in 1953 after the end of Korean war. Afterward, the national security of South Korea has been affirmed under the United States ‘nuclear umbrella87’, as well as enabling the country to maintain peace which resulted in economic and political development. Despite of being one of the strongest economy in the world and emerged as an economic middle power, South Korea realized that it is still lacking in military and defense sectors, South Korea needed the United States support in purpose to maintain its national security.88

As a natural ally of the United States, Park Geun-hye has emphasized on the means to strengthen the alliance as South Korea’s foreign policy strategy which confirmed on her remark in the joint declaration of 60th US-ROK alliance on May 2013;

“President Obama and I shared the perspective which the alliance between Korea and the United States has been faithfully

86 Ibid., 14. 87 The term ‘nuclear umbrella’ referred to a security arrangement in which one or more countries with nuclear power provide a nuclear protection for one or more countries with no nuclear power (Source: International Law and Policy Institute). 88 Mark Stokreef, “A Rising Middle Power Facing a Strategic Dilemma: South Korea and East Asian Security” (Atlantische Commissie, April 5, 2014), https://www.atlcom.nl/upload/AP_5_2014_Stokreef.pdf.

performing its role as a stronghold of Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia peace and stability, and the alliance should continuously serve as a framework for Korean peninsula and Asia’s peace and stability…Moreover, we decided that Korea and the United States alliance should not concern only on Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia-related challenges but also pursuing broader role in international community.”89 The alliance, according to Park Geun-hye could serve as a framework and accentuated on an important role in preserving peace and stability on Korean peninsula, Northeast Asia and beyond. 90 Based on the remarks also, Park Geun- hye had mentioned comprehensive alliance which range outside security sector and included economic as well as political sectors.91

Park Geun-hye administration had pursues a foreign policy strategy mainly emphasized on the deterrence of North Korean threats. The strategy also extended to South Korea and the United States’ global partnership on non- traditional security issues.92 The United States leadership regarding major international issues gained a firm support from Park Geun-hye as it is in line with her vision of multilateral cooperation. At the same time, the United States had also given its support on South Korea’s developing global role since the era of Park’s predecessor where ‘Global Korea’ has been emphasized.93

II.2.1.1 The Deterrence on North Korean Nuclear and Missile Threats

In the realization of Park Geun-hye’s trust-building process, the involvement of the United States was fairly important as the United States’ provide an undivided protection towards North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests

89 A.n, “Remarks by President Obama and President Park of South Korea in a Joint Press Conference,” whitehouse.gov, May 7, 2013, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press- office/2013/05/07/remarks-president-obama-and-president-park-south-korea-joint-press-confe. 90 Ibid. 91 Ibid. 92 Ihn-Hwi Park, “The Park Geun-Hye Presidency and the Future of the U.S.-South Korea Alliance,” Council on Foreign Relations, March 11, 2013, https://www.cfr.org/report/park-geun-hye-presidency- and-future-us-south-korea-alliance. 93 Ibid.

based on its commitment of their longstanding security alliance.94 South Korea and the United States held the same vision regarding the termination of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic programs. Furthermore, President Obama has expressed its support on Park Geun-hye’s trust-building process on Korean peninsula and clearly stated that the United States was ready to defend itself and its allies with the its own ‘conventional and nuclear enforces’ from North Korean threat.95

“Maintaining a strong alliance with the United States will be a significant prerequisite for Park Geun-hye to guarantee peace on the Korean peninsula.”96 The North Korean issue has become the top priority of US – South Korea alliance agenda. During the transition of leadership from Kim Jong-il to Kim Jong-un has escalated North Korea’s aggressive measure. Along the way, North Korea carried on to develop medium and extensive-range missiles as well as nuclear mechanism to be used as nuclear warhead.97

The US – South Korea military alliance was used to prevent conventional attacks by North Korea, the United States involved in bilateral and multilateral dialoges with North Korea in purpose to end its nuclear and extensive-range missile programs in replacement normalization and economic aid. However, North Korea has firmly stated that it has no intention to stop its nuclear programs and declared itself as a nuclear power.98

Through this matter, the threat that North Korea professed to South Korea has continued to intensify. Despite sanctions which already been applied to North Korea, the chance of diplomacy in becoming a valuable way to handle the challenges caused by North Korea. Nethermost, diplomacy could help in

94 A.n, “Remarks by President Obama and President Park of South Korea in a Joint Press Conference,” whitehouse.gov, May 7, 2013, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press- office/2013/05/07/remarks-president-obama-and-president-park-south-korea-joint-press-confe. 95 Ibid., Cooper, Andrew F. (1993). 96 Ibid. 97 Gi-wook Shin et al., “The North Korea Problem and the Necessity for South Korean Leadership,” Policy Report (Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, March 4, 2013). 98 Ibid.

managing the situation and contribute to certain changes in the approach of North Korea to the world.99

The significant changes on Park Geun-hye administration in addressing North Korea issue in hope to encourage diplomatic process had initiated a platform of supporting greater attempts of North Korea engagement through a step-by-step plan in building trust that would increase exchanges and economic cooperation between two Koreas aimed to open a path in resolving the nuclear issue.100 By that, the United States has shown its support in Park Geun-hye’s plan. President Barack Obama expressed the importance to reaffirm their longstanding alliance which remained as the peace and stability linchpin on the Korean peninsula and beyond the region.101

As a sign of strenghtened alliance between the United States and South Korea by the deployment of Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. According to the United States, THAAD deployment will increase the protection of the United States troops and facilities in Korean Peninsula, also improve South Korea’s defense system against North Korea escalating nuclear and ballistic missile threats.102

The United States and South Korea worked together in convicting North Korea’s consecutive missile launches since it was a violation of North Korea’s international obligations. President Obama and Park Geun-hye has made a statement that the international community needs to implement the sanctions wholly and demands accountability from North Korea.103

99 Ibid., 3. 100 Gi-wook Shin et al., “The North Korea Problem and the Necessity for South Korean Leadership,” Policy Report (Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, March 4, 2013). 101 A.n, “Obama, South Korean President Reaffirm U.S.-South Korea Alliance,” U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, September 26, 2016, https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/935222/obama-south-korean-president-reaffirm-us- south-korea-alliance/. 102 Chung-in Moon and Seung-chan Boo, “Coping with China’s Rise: Domestic Politics and Strategic Adjustment in South Korea,” Sage Publications 2, no. 1 (2016): 8–10. 103 A.n, “Obama, South Korean President Reaffirm U.S.-South Korea Alliance,” U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, September 26, 2016,

II.2.1.2 The United States and South Korea’s Global Partnership

South Korea has played the role on a various international issues, in particular as a facilitator of international meetings and the manager of international agenda such as international financial balance and development policy, nuclear safety and security, as well as climate change. The involvement of South Korea’s active role as a facilitator of international forums has circumstantially benefitted from its relations with the United States, as well from its status not only as an emerging middle power but also as one of the United States’ closest allies.104

“The main factor of South Korea’s middle power identity is located in the nature of its alliance with the country’s most prominent ally, the United States.”105 The relations between South Korea and the United States had served as a strong influence on South Korea’s middle power diplomacy and the range of international issues that become its main focuses in line with the issues which also involved the United States.106

Thus, on her second visit to the United States in October 2015, President Park Geun-hye had expressed her desire to actualize all of the United States and South Korea bilateral issues and to solidify their alliance related to their common goals in international community.107 Other than discussing the issues such as North Korea nuclear issues and free trade agreement, Park Geun-hye and Barack Obama mentioned several global issues that become a concern for the two countries such as global security challenges, ISIL’s human rights violation in Syria and Iraq, the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and Nuclear disarmament; https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/935222/obama-south-korean-president-reaffirm-us- south-korea-alliance/. 104 Scott A. Snyder, “U.S. Rebalancing Strategy and South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy,” East Asia Institute, no. 12 (February 27, 2015): 2–3. 105 Sohn Yul, “Searching for a New Identity: South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy,” Policy Brief (FRIDE, December 2015). 106 Ibid. 107 Daniel A. Pinkston and Clint Work, “Park Geun-Hye’s Visit and the US-ROK Alliance,” The Diplomat, October 26, 2015, https://thediplomat.com/2015/10/park-geun-hyes-visit-and-the-us-rok- alliance/.

global humanitarian needs such as poverty, humanitarian assistance, and sustainable development; as well as renowned challenges such as global health security, climate change, cyber and space cooperation.108

“From developing anti-nuclear regime to climate change, we are committed to deepen our partnership on international challenges, and continue to work together in promoting security and prosperity around the world.”109 In accordance with joint statement of the bilateral summit, the United States and South Korea alliance is a global cooperation and the United States has given its support on South Korea leadership and active role in the international community. Both countries showed the efforts to address global governance issues and extended the strategic alliance through existing programs between the two societies in cooperation among businesses and, exchange in culture and education.110

II.2.2 The Economic Cooperation and Creative Economy

President Park Geun-hye has made an engagement to boost economic growth with enhancing the country’s economic cooperation for the sake of creating jobs through promoting exports and provide support to local companies in conducting business abroad, as well as exploring new markets overseas. By that, the government had also managed its free trade agreement, such as the KORUS FTA.111 Park Geun-hye has focused on diplomatic engagement by getting involved in international economic forums, as well as bilateral and multilateral economic diplomacy.112

108 Daniel A. Pinkston and Clint Work, “Park Geun-Hye’s Visit and the US-ROK Alliance,” The Diplomat, October 26, 2015, https://thediplomat.com/2015/10/park-geun-hyes-visit-and-the-us-rok- alliance/. 109 A.n, “Joint Fact Sheet: The United States-Republic of Korea Alliance: A Global Partnership,” whitehouse.gov, April 25, 2014, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press- office/2014/04/25/joint-fact-sheet-united-states-republic-korea-alliance-global-partnershi. 110 Wa Dae Cheong, “Joint Declaration in Commemoration of the 60th Anniversary of the Alliance between R.O.K & the U.S.,” Korea.net, May 8, 2013, http://www.korea.net/Government/Briefing- Room/Press-Releases/view?articleId=2159. 111 MOFA, “2015 Diplomatic White Paper” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2015). 112 Ibid.

South Korea had taken the active role in international economic forums such as World Economic Forum and G20 summit. The country had also taken a great concern in energy and resources cooperation on regional and global level. Moreover, South Korea has also taken the initiative to enhanced its bilateral economic cooperation such as China, Japan and the United States, as well as multilateral cooperation with international organizations such as Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), European Union (EU) also building a foundations for cooperative diplomacy in several economic areas, for instance creative economy.113

Creative economy has become the main focus of Park Geun-hye administration in economy sector which emphasized on the capacity of South Korea’s science and technology that become key sources of its economic growth.114 During Park Geun-hye inaugural speech in 2013, she has defined creative economy;

“A creative economy is defined by the union of science and technology, also the fusion of culture with industry...At the very heart of a creative economy occur science, technology, and IT industry, areas that I have allocated as key priorities.”115 Within creative economy, Park Geun-hye had suggested seven plans to become the foundation of creative economy; the establishment of new markets and jobs; software development as a future growing business; the creative economy realization through opening and sharing; realization of startup community; creation of a recruitment system to view beyond specifications; promotion of Korean move that targetted Korean youths to move the world; and the creation of Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning.116

113 MOFA, “2015 Diplomatic White Paper” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2015). 114 Ibid. 115 Doo-won Cha, “Building Creative Economt: The Creative Economy of the Park Geun-Hye Administration,” in Korea’s Economy, First, vol. 30 (The Korea Economic Institute of America, 2015), 35–37. 116 Ibid.

As the sixth most competitive country in term of science,South Korea has recognize the importance science and technology, Park Geun-hye government had also carried out several policies to create new markets through creativity and innovation. In this prospect, South Korea strived to enhanced cooperation with other countries on creative economy, including in the field of ICT and science and technology. President Park Geun-hye has agreed with the United States, Canada, Australia, France, and Hungary on strenghtening cooperation in sectors related to creative economy such as innovation, ICT and entrepreneurship.117

The creative economy plan has also emphasized on the United States involvement as the support through the commitment of KORUS FTA where South Korea could realized its purpose to create ‘Silicon Valley-like’ venture that attracts capital and funding from entrepreneurs and investors. Through the relations between South Korea and the United States, South Korea could gain investors and knowledge from joint venture between both countries in education and human resources. It will also increased the opportunity for Korean SMEs to compete in the global market.118

II.3 The Implementation of South Korea’s Foreign Policy: the Application of Diplomatic Engagement

The implementation of South Korea’s foreign policy is based on the principle of truspolitik that promoted the implication of trust-building, trust- based cooperation and diplomacy. Park Geun-hye claimed that the existence of trust in international politics and diplomacy would create a peaceful solutions for diplomatic engagement and especially for Korean peninsula would create a ‘happy unification’.119

117 MOFA, “2015 Diplomatic White Paper” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2015). 118 Sean P. Connell, “Creating Korea’s Future Economy: Innovation. Growth, and Korea-US Economic Relations,” East West Center, no. 111 (January 2014): 3–5. 119 Chung-in Moon and Seung-chan Boo, “Korean Foreign Policy: Park Geun-Hye Looks at China and North Korea,” in Japanese and Korean Politics: Alone and Apart from Each Other, First (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 223.

“The important matter in international politics and diplomacy is trust....trust is a concrete asset which can guarantee the creation of extended mutual benefits between countries. Thus, we, Korean government, held onto trust-based diplomacy as the main principle of our foreign policy and would stive to make efforts in finding mutual base with all the countries as much as possible.”120 For the sake of realizing its main objective which to achieve a possibility for peaceful reunification between two Koreas and to engage North Korea to involve as a responsible member in international community121, South Korea strive to create a progress through diplomatic engagement in a form of Inter- Korean dialogue, trilateral cooperation with China and Japan, as well as multilateral cooperation on global level.122

II.3.1 Inter-Korean Dialogue

The engagement of North Korea on Park Geun-hye administration pursued the middle-way approach which the ultimate objective is to build confidence and cooperation as the basic structure of two Koreas relationship. Park Geun-hye had repeatedly emphasized on enhancing mutual trust by several active measures in economic, political and socio-cultural sectors to pursue diplomatic efforts.123

However, in the beginning of Park Geun-hye’s presidency, it was difficult to hold a dialogue due to the escalated tension after the third nuclear test on February 2013. North Korea had also blocked inter-Korean hotline in Panmunjeon and military hotline in March, as well as the withdrawal of North

120 Han Jeon and Jae-un Lim, “President Stresses Importance of Trust in Int’l Politics, Diplomacy,” Korea.net, May 7, 2015, http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/policies/view?articleId=127332. 121 Ibid., Yun Byung-se (2013). 122 Byung-se Yun, “President Park Geun-Hye’s Trustpolitik: A New Framework for South Korea’s Foreign Policy,” Global Asia, 2013. 123 Antonio Fiori, “Whither the Inter-Korean Dialogue? Assessing Seoul’s Trustpolitik and Its Future Prospects” (Instituto Affari Interzionale, March 2017).

Korean workers from Kaesong Industrial Complex in May cutting all the communications between two Koreas.124

The South Korean government issued a statement with purpose for the normalizaton of Kaesong Industrial Complex through inter-Korean dialogue. Although there was a rejection upfront, due to South Korea’s consistent standpoint for inter-Korean dialogue, North Korean government through the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland (CPRF) released a statement to held an inter-Korean dialogue for the topics of Kaesong normalization and continuity of Mount Geumgang tourism.125

Following the special statement, South and North Korea held a working- level meeting for inter-Korean Authorities’ talks in June regarding pending political issues and first working-level meeting in July focused on the operation and continuous normalization of Kaesong Industrial Complex.126

In sum, South and North Korea held seven rounds of meetings regarding the complex normalization, reopening, internationalization and the establishment of structured mechanism to prevent one-sided suspension by North Korea. Furthermore, the North and South Korea had established a joint agreement on Kaesong normalization and established Kaesong Industrial Complex Joint Committee as a platform for dialogues regarding the improvement of the complex. Throughout 2013, the joint committee held four additional meetings and 11 sub-committee meetings to discuss system and operations improvement.127

Other than Kaesong meetings and Inter-Korean Authorities’ talks, North and South Korea had also held inter-Korean Red Cross working level meetings to discuss Park Geun-hye’s proposal on war-separated family reunions which

124 A.n, “Overview,” in South-North Dialogue in Korea, 76 (Ministry of Unification Republic of Korea, 2013), 8–11. 125 Ibid. 126 Ibid. 127 Ibid.

had been agreed by North Korea, yet in 2013 the reunion had failed to take place.128

In the following years, South and North Korea held the first Inter-Korean Military meeting which discussed the violation of Northern Limit Line by North Korea. Because of this matter North Korea demanded the termination of slander regarding North Korea and the spreading of anti-DPRK by South Korea’s private organizations. However, South Korea insisted that the government could not restrict private organizations’ activities which ended the meetings without any result or agreement.129

Between 2014 to 2015, South and North Korea had done several other meetings such as inter-Korean high level meeting, inter-Korean high level meeting for Authorities, the working level meeting for vice ministerial and the first inter-Korean vice-ministerial level talks which showed the inconsistency of North Korea’s behavior between peaceful dialogue and provocation, several working level meetings on Kaesong Industrial Complex for further review on the system, inter-Korean Red Cross working level meetings for the war-separated family reunions, inter-Korean working level meetings for Asian games an inter- Korean high level talks on the closing ceremony of the Asian games.130

No. Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 1 Political 1 2 3 - - 2 Military - 1 - - - 3 Economy 22 3 1 - - 4 Humanitarian 1 1 1 - - Issues 5 Social and Culture - 1 - - - Total 24 8 5 - -

128 A.n, “Overview,” in South-North Dialogue in Korea, 77 (Ministry of Unification Republic of Korea, 2015), 11–13. 129 Ibid. 130 Ibid.

Table 2.1 Inter-Korean Dialogue from 2013 to 2017 (Source: Ministry of Unification Official Website)

According to the table above, between 2013 to 2015, South and North Korea had been active in engaging through inter-Korean dialogue. Because of the efforts, there were a total of 24 inter-Korean dialogue in 2013 consist of one political dialogue, 22 economic dialogues and one humanitarian dialogue. From the 2013 inter-Korean dialogue, South and North Korea developed inter-Korean agreement mostly in economy, for instance the joint agreement on Kaesong Industrial Complex normalization and an agreement on war-separated families reunion.131

In 2014 to 2015, there were a total of 13 inter-Korean dialogue consisting of one military dialogue, six political dialogues, four economic dialogue, one humanitarian dialogue and one socio-cultural dialogue. During this period, North and South Korea had no significant agreement other than war-separated family reunion that was held in October 2015.132 Meanwhile in 2016 to 2017 there were no inter-Korean dialogue being held.

II.3.2 Trilateral Cooperation

In the Northeast Asia peace and cooperation initiative, Park Geun-hye had mentioned the trilateral cooperation with China and Japan as one of her major plans in realizing this initiative despite the tension between the countries on the previous years.133 The sixth summit in Seoul had become the new beginning on the relationship between China, Japan and South Korea which resulted into a Joint Declaration for Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation

131 A.n, “Overview,” in South-North Dialogue in Korea, 76 (Ministry of Unification Republic of Korea, 2013), 8–11. 132 A.n, “Overview,” in South-North Dialogue in Korea, 77 (Ministry of Unification Republic of Korea, 2015), 11–13. 133 Shannon Tiezzi, “With Trilateral Summit, China-Japan-Korea Cooperation ‘Completely Restored,’” The Diplomat, November 3, 2015, https://thediplomat.com/2015/11/with-trilateral- summit-china-japan-korea-cooperation-completely-restored/.

where the three countries uttered a positive message about the restoration of the regional partnership.134

“A significant progress has been created in trilateral cooperation in several areas despite fluctual situations in the Northeast Asian region in recent years.”135 Inside the joint statement also declared the reaffirmation of trilateral cooperation in purpose to the contribution of stable development for respective bilateral partnership between the three countries and to realize peace, stability and prosperity in Northeast Asia. The trilateral cooperation hoped to maintain peaceful resolution on Korean peninsula and supported South Korea progress in inter-Korean dialogue.136

China, Japan and South Korea agreed on Trilateral cooperation vision 2020 for further economic integration, establishing common market in the region, generating innovative technologies, enhance cooperation in science and innovation, accelerating trilateral FTA discussions to create high level and mutually beneficial FTA, also tackling important challenges to maintain economic and financial stability in the region.137

There were also several points of cooperation in disaster management, sustainable development, and people-to-people engagement. Accordingly, China and Japan has supported the Northeast Asia peace and cooperation initiative by South Korea that pursued on peaceful regional dialogue and cooperation and relevant to Northeast Asia initiative, the three countries would increase the

134 Shannon Tiezzi, “With Trilateral Summit, China-Japan-Korea Cooperation ‘Completely Restored,’” The Diplomat, November 3, 2015, https://thediplomat.com/2015/11/with-trilateral- summit-china-japan-korea-cooperation-completely-restored/. 135 A.n, “Full Text of Joint Declaration of Trilateral Summit,” Official Declaration, Yonhap News, November 1, 2015, http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2015/11/01/0301000000AEN20151101003900315.html. 136 Ibid. 137 Shannon Tiezzi, “With Trilateral Summit, China-Japan-Korea Cooperation ‘Completely Restored,’” The Diplomat, November 3, 2015, https://thediplomat.com/2015/11/with-trilateral- summit-china-japan-korea-cooperation-completely-restored/.

number of high level meetings to achieve common ground of the trilateral cooperation which is trust building.138

II.3.3 Multilateral Cooperation

In today’s order, the influence of great powers on middle powers had been subdued compared to the post-Cold War time. The decline of the United States’ influence was clearly visible on the 2008 financial crisis and the 9/11 attack.139 Together with the United States’ declining power, the rise of the rest was getting more significant. The rise of China has become a mark of shifting international system from unipolar to dualistic. The condition of dualistic system in international order had been beneficial for middle powers to engage their multilateral cooperation since middle powers obtained a wider scope for self-sufficient role when two great powers engage in moderate competition. Middle powers would have the freedom in conducting their international engagement without obligations to connect their engagement to great powers competition.140

With two great powers existed in the system, South Korea as an active and engaging middle power had a potential to rise in the leadership of middle powers network. South Korea’s effort in promoting multilateral regional and global diplomatic initiatives was based on its middle power status that used its capability in hosting and networking, by means to utilize South Korea’s influence despite being weaker than other major players in the region. Park Geun-hye had emphasized on South Korea’s multilateral diplomatic movement which can be seen on her Northeast Asia peace and cooperation and middle power diplomacy initiative.141

138 Shannon Tiezzi, “With Trilateral Summit, China-Japan-Korea Cooperation ‘Completely Restored,’” The Diplomat, November 3, 2015, https://thediplomat.com/2015/11/with-trilateral- summit-china-japan-korea-cooperation-completely-restored/.. 139 Sookjong Lee, “South Korea as New Middle Power Seeking Complex Diplomacy,” East Asia Institute, no. 25 (September 2012): 8 – 10. 140 Ibid. 141 Shannon Tiezzi, “With Trilateral Summit, China-Japan-Korea Cooperation ‘Completely Restored,’” The Diplomat, November 3, 2015, https://thediplomat.com/2015/11/with-trilateral- summit-china-japan-korea-cooperation-completely-restored/..

On global level, Park Geun-hye had placed South Korea’s multilaterism in development cooperation. As a responsible middle power with the effort to broaden its multilateral development cooperation, South Korea has taken a various attempts in optimizing the country’s development cooperation effectiveness which is distributed by multilateral channels. With an objective to play a leading role in international development, South Korea contributed to major United Nations agencies, its programs and other significant international organizations for multilateral development cooperation by donating approximately US$ 366.2 million in 2015.142

The existence of MIKTA has become one of initiatives of South Korea multilateral cooperation. With the foundation of middle power diplomacy, MIKTA and its member countries, Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey and Australia shared a common interest in strengthening international order and resolving global governance issues in niche areas for instance global security or economic integration.143

South Korea’s middle power diplomacy has a potential to show the country’s leadership out of other middle powers. The coalition of middle powers, MIKTA was the example of South Korea’s leadership in creating a group of potential middle powers in purpose to solve important issues that become the concerns of G20 and other forums.144 MIKTA was created as a loose network to address issues on global level. As a network consisting of prominent middle powers that have significant influence in their own regions, MIKTA could enhance its involvement in regional issues such as North Korean nuclear threats and human rights. This coalition also had

142 MOFA, “2016 Diplomatic White Paper” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2016). 143 Jongryn Mo, “Introduction: G20, Middle Powers and Global Governance,” in MIKTA, Middle Powers, and New Dynamics of Global Governance: The G20’s Evolving Agenda, First (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 1–3. 144 Colin I. Bradford, “South Korea as a Middle Power in Global Governance: ‘Punching above Its Weight’ Based on National Assets and Dynamic Trajectory,” in Middle-Power Korea: Contributions to the Global Agenda, First (Council of Foreign Relations, 2015), 10.

42 the potential in becoming a benchmark for other cross-regional middle power groups in conducting multilateral cooperation.145

Through multilateral cooperation also, South Korea has increased its involvement in international forums such as APEC economics leaders’ meeting on November 2014 with agenda items such as regional economic integration, innovative development, economic growth and reform, as well as extensive connectivity and infrastructure development under the theme of ‘Shaping the Future through Asia- Pacific Partnership’.146 President Park Geun-hye as the lead speaker on regional economic cooperation session, emphasized that advancing the liberalization of trade and investment as well as highlighted its achievements on South Korea’s creative economy policies launched by the government in promoting innovation and growth. During the G20 summit in 2014, Park Geun-hye had also highlighted the importance of creative economy as the new instrument of growth for the economy and provided to share experiences with other G20 members.147

President Park Geun-hye has contributed to the world economic forum’s discussion regarding the new growth instrument for global economy which she once again emphasized on creative economy and entrepreneurship and introduced South Korea’s strategy of creative economy to realized the vision of boosting economic cooperation in international community.148

145 Sookjong Lee and Hyejung Suh, “South Korea’s Middle Power Roles: Implications to Emerging Middle Powers,” in Transforming Global Governance with Middle Power Diplomacy: South Korea’s Role in the 21st Century, First (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 162. 146 MOFA, “2015 Diplomatic White Paper” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2015). 147 Ibid. 148 Ibid.

Strategy •Trust-Building •Inter-Korean Process Dialogue •Northeast Asia • US-Korea •Trilateral Initiative Alliance Cooperation •Middle Power •Multilateral • Creative cooperation Diplomacy Economy Orientation Implementation

Figure 2.1 South Korea’s Foreign Policy Framework (Source: elaborated by the writer)

South Korea’s foreign policy orientation in Park Geun-hye era had focused on three pillars in completing the vision of trustpolitik in Korean peninsula, regional also global level. The pillars for instance trust-building process on Korean peninsula, Northeast Asia peace and cooperation initiative, and middle power diplomacy. The strategy of South Korea’s foreign policy was by engaging the United States as the great power country and South Korea’s oldest ally. South Korea has also accentuated on international economic cooperation and creative economy. The United States through the alliance had given its support of South Korea’s foreign policy initiatives which implemented through inter-Korean dialogue, trilateral cooperation with Japan and China, as well as multilateral cooperation by engaging the United States itself and other significant players which contribute in strengthening econoomic development, international order, peace and prosperity.

CHAPTER III THE OVERVIEW OF SOUTH KOREA AS A MIDDLE POWER

III.1 Middle Powers in International Community

III.1.1 Criteria of Middle Powers

Middle powers is a part of power hierarchy structure which ranked below great powers and above minor powers. In terms of moral conduct, middle powers were seen as ‘less self-centered than great powers and more accountable than small powers’.149 Thus, countries that categorized as middle powers seen as a country that can be trusted in implementing diplomatic influence and military power in international community without affected by ‘the coercion of their weakness and the prejudice of their greatness’.150

Defining middle powers as a middle size countries with a moderate influence in military and economic sectors had serve only the surface of the actual criteria of middle powers. While the criteria of great powers and minor powers can be vividly defined for instance, great powers are mostly large developed countries and minor powers are mostly small developing, even underdeveloped countries, middle powers had an extended range of categorization.151 Countries that are small and highly developed such as Israel, Finland, Denmark and Singapore; countries that are mid-sized and developed such as Australia, Canada, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine, South Africa, and Argentina; as well as countries that are large and developing such as Indonesia, Mexico, Philippines and Nigeria had been categorized into middle powers.152

149 Carsten Holbraad, “The League of Nations and United Nations,” in Middle Powers in International Politics, First (The Macmillan Press, 1984), 58. 150 Ibid., 12. 151 Randall E. Schweller, “The Concept of Middle Power,” in The Korean Pivot: The Study of South Korea as a Global Power, First (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2017), 5. 152 Ibid.

In this present time, the stucture of unipolar system accentuated the pyramid hierarchy of power which means there are more actors at the bottom that at the top. By that, within the international community there are only one great powers and several major powers, while the rest 193 sovereign countries are divided on two categories, middle and minor powers.153 Minor powers, however, are a more consistent group than middle powers, that suggest additional characteristics to explained middle powers categorization.154

“Middle powers are influential and stable countries which according to their size, material resources, willingness and capability to take responsibility, are well-matched to great powers.”155 In accordance with R. G. Rindell, former Canadian Department of External Affairs about the characterization of middle powers, Andrew F. Cooper had included four approaches in characterize middle powers for instance, hierarchical approach, geographical approach, normative approach, and behavioral approach.156

The hierarchical approach which elaborate middle power capabilities in international community through statistical criteria that projected countries’ national power such as GDP, population rate, territorial size, economic growth and military expanditure. Geographical approach which emphasized on the location of middle powers either physically or ideologically between great powers in international order.157

Normative approach views middle powers in accordance with its moral conducts, seeing its tendency to be neutral, trustworthy, and level-headed in emphasizing their influence of diplomacy rather than hardline approach, as well

153 Randall E. Schweller, “The Concept of Middle Power,” in The Korean Pivot: The Study of South Korea as a Global Power, First (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2017), 5. 154 Ibid. 155 Carsten Holbraad, “The Hierarchy of Powers,” in Middle Powers in International Politics, First (The Macmillan Press, 1984), 69. 156 Andrew F. Cooper, “Leadership, Followership, and Middle Powers in International Politics: A Reappraisal,” in Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order, First (University of British Columbia Press, 1993), 17–19. 157 Ibid.

as generating responsibility for the sake of establishment and implementation of international order.158

Finally, behavioral approach elaborate their tendency of middle power activism for instance, seeking multilateral solutions to international affairs, choosing a position of compromise in international disputes and embracing the notion of good international citizenship as a guideline of its diplomacy.159 In extend to this approach; Cooper had also divided middle powers behavior into three forms; 1) the catalyst which provide the leadership to ignite diplomatic initiatives; 2) the facilitator which concentrate on agenda-setting and coalition- building; and 3) the manager which emphasize on institutional building and developing principle.160

III.1.2 South Korea as a Middle Power

In accordance with the criteria of middle powers and the emergence of new middle powers, South Korea has been categorized as a middle power seeing the matching indication toward existing criteria by Andrew F. Cooper.

III.1.2.1 Hierarchical Approach

Based on hierarchical approach which assessed statistical data of middle powers, South Korea ranked 11th based on GDP in 2016 according to the World Bank.161 Between 2013 to 2016, South Korea ranking based on GDP stayed between 11th and 14th in the world.162

158 Ibid. 159 Andrew F. Cooper, “Leadership, Followership, and Middle Powers in International Politics: A Reappraisal,” in Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order, First (University of British Columbia Press, 1993), 17–19. 160 Ibid., 21 – 22. 161 A.n, “Gross Domestic Products 2016,” World Bank, 2017, https://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf. 162 A.n, “World GDP Ranking 2017 | GDP by Country | Data and Charts - Knoema.com,” Knoema, 2017, https://knoema.com//nwnfkne/world-gdp-ranking-2017-gdp-by-country-data-and-charts.

Figure 3.1 GDP World’s Ranking 2016 (Source: Korean Herald/World Bank)

The figure above showed South Korea’s GDP in 2016 with nominal of US$ 1.4 billion. The United States and China which ranked first and second consecutively represented great powers. Together with other middle powers such as India, Canada, Italy, and Brazil.163

South Korea’s population rate ranked 27th compared to the world with the population of 51.2 million in 2017.164 And based on Human Capital Index 2016, South Korea was a part of global human capital success in the region with well-educated population in the learning area, however still limited in employment department due to lack of inclusive work environment.165

163 Holbraad, Carsten, “The League of Nations and United Nations,” in Middle Powers in International Politics, First (The Macmillan Press, 1984), 164 A.n, “The World Factbook — South Korea,” CIA World Factbook, July 2017, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ks.html. 165 A.n, “The Human Capital Report 2016,” Insight (World Economic Forum, 2016), http://www3.weforum.org/docs/HCR2016_Main_Report.pdf.

Figure 3.2 The Chart of World’s Most Powerful Countries in 2017 (Source: Statista)

Furthermore, based on survey of world power ranking in 2017, South Korea ranked 11th with the measurement of economic and political influence, military expanditure and international cooperation as seen on the figure 2.2 above which in line with the indicator of hierarchical approach.166

III.1.2.2 Geographical Approach

Located in the pivotal area of Northeast Asia, South Korea had a strategic location among major actors in international order such as China and Japan, as

166 Bridgitte Van de Pas, “Infographic: Power on the World Stage,” Statista Infographics, accessed March 10, 2018, https://www.statista.com/chart/8592/power-on-the-world-stage/.

well as share a direct border with the subject of international security concern, North Korea.167 In accordance with the map of Northeast Asia below (Figure 2.2).

Figure 3.3 The Map of Northeast Asia (Source: Atlantislc.com)

The ‘stuck in the middle’ location of South Korea in between China and Japan was seen as important for the two countries because the location of Korean peninsula itself provide a strategic block or springboard for major powers.168 With its position, South Korea could possibly block Japan’s access to East China Sea and potentially disrupt China’s access to the Yellow Sea.169

Beside its potential location between major players such as China and Japan, South Korea had also become the main focus of its old ally, the United States in engaging its diplomatic and military influence in Northeast Asia. South Korea has become the home of 15 military bases of the United States consist of 3 air force bases, 11 army bases, and 1 navy base.170 The country had also

167 Jonathan D. Pollack, “Order at Risk: Japan, Korea and the Northeast Asian Paradox” (The Brookings Institution, September 2016), https://www.brookings.edu/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/fp_20160901_northeast_asian_paradox_v2.pdf. 168 George Friedman, “These 3 Maps Explain North Korea’s Strategy,” Business Insider, April 1, 2016, http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-2016-3. 169 Ibid. 170 A.n, “US Military Bases in South Korea,” Military Bases (blog), 2017, https://militarybases.com/overseas/south-korea/.

become the location of the anti-missile system, Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) deployment prior to the fourth nuclear test conducted by North Korea.171

III.1.2.3 Normative Approach

South Korea, on its development, had shown its concern on humanitarian activities. Upholding ‘good international citizenship’ in its diplomatic activities, South Korea had actively involved on foreign aid as a donor country. In 2010, South Korea had joined Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee as 24th member and totally committed in poverty reduction.172 South Korea had also hosted the fourth High Level Forum of Aid Effectiveness in 2011 which produced the Busan Global Partnership principle. The principle had become main standards on effective development in the future agenda setting.173

“Having the lessons from its experience as a recipient country for the last 60 years, South Korea is playing an active role as a donor country in the international foreign aid community.”174 Together with the realization of having the capability to set the standard as a donor country, South Korea had created Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) which will bear the country’s vision of global inclusive growth and poverty reduction.175 Thus, KOICA had bear the total of 30% of South Korea’s commitment to ODA in 2015 by the nominal of US$ 2.2 billion, as well as organizing several partnership and supporting programs with private institutions, the Korea EXIM bank and the Poverty Reduction Special Fund.176

III.1.2.4 Behavioral Approach

171 Koike Osamu, “Deployment of the THAAD System to South Korea—Background and Issues,” Commentatory (Japan: The National Institute of Defense Studies, March 28, 2017). 172 Young-mok Kim, “Korea-U.S. on International Development Cooperation,” in The Korean Pivot: The Study of South Korea as a Middle Power, First (Council of Foreign Relations, 2017), 47. 173 Ibid. 174 Ibid. 175 Ibid. 176 Ibid.

The notion of South Korea’s middle power behavior can be seen through its leadership in pursuing multilateral solutions. Through the changes in international systems for instance, globalization of information, economy, and even the more complex global issues such as uncureable diseases, terrorism and climate change.177 This matter had increase the needs of multilateral management through specified form of coalition or institutions. Since South Korea had the capability to pursue its global ambitions, The country had shown its thorough assistance in several important organizations such as Official Development Assistance and G20.178

“Middle powers are countries which leaders consider that they cannot act individually to be effective, but be able to give a significant impact in a small group or international institutions.”179 South Korea had also initiated a coalition-building with like-minded countries to pursue the role as facilitator and catalyst in international community. Being the consultative platforms consist of G20 countries that have the capability in creating and implementing global governance reform, MIKTA as a middle power network contained of middle powers behavior which also become a statecraft to promote international order.180

III.2 The Diplomatic Instruments of Park Geun-hye Administration in Maintaining Middle Power Status

As a country that is known as a middle power, South Korea has seen the importance of being involved in international affairs especially since the country has serve as a leading model of Asian country that have successfully combined democratic values and practices into political and economic structures.181 Thus,

177 Sookjong Lee, “South Korea as New Middle Power Seeking Complex Diplomacy,” East Asia Institute, no. 25 (September 2012): 6. 178 Ibid. 179 Randall E. Schweller, “The Concept of Middle Power,” in The Korean Pivot: The Study of South Korea as a Global Power, First (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2017), 8. 180 Ibid., 9. 181 Balbina Y. Hwang, “The Limitations of “Global Korea’s” Middle Power | The Asan Forum,” accessed March 8, 2018, http://www.theasanforum.org/the-limitations-of-global-koreas-middle- power/.

making the country as a potential example of modernization and democratization for developing countries.182

However, the involvement of South Korea in global leadership had become clearly visible when South Korea played the role as a host for G20 summit in 2010 as South Korea presented its global ambitions by the willingness to embrace greater international responsibility.183 It has become the escalation of South Korea’s role in international community and as middle power which facilitating a platform between developed and developing countries in economic, development, environmental and security sectors.184

The era of Park Geun-hye administration emphasized on the vision of creating a new hope for Korean people where the happiness of the people become the benchmark of the country’s strength which in turn will be beneficial for all Korean people.185 The happiness of Korean people, according to Park’s perspective in her 2013 inauguration speech, will as well bring happiness throughout international community. By that, she had also envisioned South Korea as a country that share struggles with other countries while also contributing to resolve major international issues.186

The means of contributing in international affairs generated by Park government through multilateral initiatives in her foreign policy strategy which focusing on being a responsible middle power.187 The initiatives that have been a part of Park Geun-hye’s responsible middle power goal for instance, MIKTA, Official Development Assistance project, and green growth.

182 Snyder, Scott A. “Introduction.” In Middle-Power Korea: Contributions to the Global Agenda, First., 1 – 3. Council of Foreign Relations, June 2015. 183 Jongryn Mo, “South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: A Case of Growing Compatibility between Regional and Global Roles,” Sage Publications 71, no. 4 (2016): 591. 184 Ibid., 592. 185 A.n. “Full Text of Park’s Inauguration Speech.” Yonhap News, February 25, 2013. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/02/25/95/0301000000AEN20130225001500315F.HT ML. 186 Ibid. 187 MOFA, “2015 Diplomatic White Paper” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2015).

III.2.1 MIKTA (2013 – 2016)

MIKTA was established by the foreign ministers of five countries for instance, Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey and Australia as a sideline of United Nations General Assembly in September 2013.188 The members of MIKTA consisted of countries that are members of G20 and belong to neither G7 nor BRICS. The five countries, led by South Korea, designed MIKTA to be a platform to explore measures and solutions to contribute in hadling international issues.189 MIKTA creation is a significant progress for a network consist of middle power countries, in accordance with Yun Byung-se, South Korea foreign minister at the fifth MIKTA meeting in 2015;

“MIKTA is a group of cross-regional middle powers which become a new model of middle power cooperation and deliver fresh motivation for global governance....MIKTA gather key middle power countries which could play a bridging role between developed and developing countries, as well as pursuing rational solutions to global challenges and build the cooperation framework in promoting global governance reform.”190 MIKTA as a group of like-minded countries with strong market economies and democratic systems, shared same interests and visions to contribute in resolving global issues. The members also coordinated initiatives to enhance multilateralism, promote international efforts for world’s peace and development, also take a leadership in global governance reform.191

Foreign minister Yun Byung-se believed that MIKTA could develop into a grown cooperation system by increasing the utilization, visibility and

188 Schiavon, Jorge A., and Diego Dominguez. “Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and Australia (MIKTA): Middle, Regional, and Constructive Powers Providing Global Governance.” Wiley Online Library 3, no. 3 (2016): 7. 189 Lee, Seungjoo. “MIKTA and Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: Opportunities and Challenges.” Issue Briefing. East Asia Institute, April 19, 2016. http://eai.or.kr/data/bbs/eng_report/2016041818143365.pdf. 190 Unal, Ali. “MIKTA Provides Fresh Impetus to Global Governance, Says South Korean FM.” DailySabah, May 26, 2015. https://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2015/05/26/mikta-provides-fresh- impetus-to-global-governance-says-south-korean-fm. 191 Lee, Seungjoo. “MIKTA and Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: Opportunities and Challenges.” Issue Briefing. East Asia Institute, April 19, 2016. http://eai.or.kr/data/bbs/eng_report/2016041818143365.pdf.

flexibility of its active role. On the second foreign ministers’ meeting in 2014, South Korea with its leadership role in the creation of MIKTA, also eagerness to be involve in the development of MIKTA chose to chaired as the next coordinator on 1 year term.192 Along with the appointment, South Korea will composed an official document of MIKTA vision and a guideline for a thorough operation of the system. On the same event also, South Korea re-emphasized the urgency of North Korea nuclear issue which resulted on a joint communique that urged North Korea to abstain its dangerous actions and stop the nuclear and missile tests program.193

Taking a leadership role at MIKTA as the next coordinator after Mexico, South Korea has successfully raised the issue of Ebola Virus and lead a joint agreement regarding the danger of Ebola Virus194 as well as importance of global health responding to the United Nations Resolution 2177 and United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/69/1 about Ebola Virus. In this case, MIKTA has also eager to participate in preventing Ebola Virus to spread in West Africa and beyond, by promoting global health and provide humanitarian assistance technically and financially purposefully to build infrastructure and health sector for the sake of global governance.195

Prior to the joint statement on Ebola Virus at the third meeting of MIKTA, the fourth foreign ministers had continue the discussions related to the involvement of MIKTA on the recent global governance issue such as Ebola outbreak which had already been discussed in the third meeting. The ministers also discussed a possible steps to maintained political momentum, information and knowledge exchange, public promotion and diplomacy, increased MIKTA’s

192 A.n, “Second MIKTA Foreign Ministers’ Meeting Takes Place – MIKTA Foreign Ministers Adopt Joint Communiqué on the Situation in North Korea and Agree to Hold Next Meeting in the ROK View,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 5 April 2014, https://goo.gl/Z54g5x 193 Ibid. 194 MOFA. “2015 Diplomatic White Paper.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2015. 195 A.n. “Joint Statement on the Ebola Outbreak and Global Health.” Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2014. http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/international- organisations/mikta/Pages/joint-statement-by-mikta-on-the-ebola-outbreak-and-global-health- 20140925.aspx.

visibility as well as enhanced cooperation among MIKTA countries.196 In this meeting, South Korea as an annual coordinator of MIKTA proposed the establishment of MIKTA website which will provide various information to promote cooperation between MIKTA countries. The government will also hold a retreat meeting in 2015 as a combination with other international events to show an effort in improving MIKTA’s visibility and synergy effects.197

MIKTA fifth foreign ministers meeting, the member countries has realized their plan to enhance MIKTA’s visibility through cooperative projects, MIKTA academic network and the future cooperation between MIKTA member countries. MIKTA had also launch its official website as a part of sharing information among members and raising awareness of MIKTA.198 The website contained MIKTA’s official vision statement that has been composed by South Korea. The vision statement, which completed 2 years after the group’s creation consist of MIKTA’s principle, identity and direction in the future as follows;

• The creation of MIKTA is to answered the world changes which include the areas of economics, security, environmental, and sustainable development, as well as the initiatives to preserve stability and welfare of international community. • The member countries of MIKTA share the same values in democracy, had a significant economic power and growth, as well as strategically located and earnestly connected to other major players in the regions. • MIKTA member countries are like-minded in tackling international challenges and possess the capability to protect public goods and strenghten global governance. By working together, MIKTA could play a leading role in global agenda and expend better influence.

196 A.n, “Foreign Minister Chairs the 4th MIKTA Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on the Sidelines of the G20 Summit View,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, November 16, 2014, http://www.mofa.go.kr/eng/brd/m_5676/view.do?seq=314531&srchFr=&srchTo=&srchWord=Foreig n&srchTp=0&multi_itm_seq=0&itm_seq_1=0&itm_seq_2=0&company_cd=&company_nm=&page =100&titleNm=. 197 Ibid. 198 Gordon Flake and Wang Xu, “MIKTA: The Searching for a Strategic Rationale,” Perth USAsia Centre, January 2017, 5.

• MIKTA strive to play as a consultative platforms to enhance bilateral connection, find the common ground of cooperation, and mutual understanding. • MIKTA will play a bridging role among developed and developing countries to develop global governance and improve regionalism efforts by increasing the notion of multilateral forums. • MIKTA will become a facilitator in becoming agenda-setter and implementing the reform of global governance. • MIKTA also will act as a channel for any forms of cooperation by performing its new cross-regional and value-added cooperation model, that based on utilization, visibility and flexibility.199

During the sixth foreign ministers meeting after the official installation of MIKTA vision statements, the ministers of MIKTA countries had acknowledge joint cooperation on six issues such as energy management, security and counter terrorism, good governance, gender equality, human rights, development partnership and democracy,200 as well as a joint statement on climate change and to continued close consultations to achieve a successful result from the upcoming 21th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference of parties in 2015.201

The seventh foreign ministers meeting as the sideline of 71th United Nations General Assembly focused on the topic of the main event which was humanitarian crisis, however given the importance of this particular issue, the ministers agreed to released a joint statement on fifth6 North Korean nuclear

199 A.n, “MIKTA Vision Statement,” 2015, http://www.mikta.org/about/vision.php. 200 Gordon Flake and Wang Xu, “MIKTA: The Searching for a Strategic Rationale,” Perth USAsia Centre, January 2017, 5. 201 A.n, “6th MIKTA Foreign Ministers’ Meeting Held View,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, accessed March 6, 2018, http://www.mofa.go.kr/eng/brd/m_5676/view.do?seq=315697&srchFr=&srchTo=&srchWord=Foreig n&srchTp=0&multi_itm_seq=0&itm_seq_1=0&itm_seq_2=0&company_cd=&company_nm=&page =81&titleNm=.

test.202 On the humanitarian crisis, South Korea’s foreign minister, Yun Byung- se re-stated that MIKTA as a consultative platforms between middle power countries which have the capability to play a bridging role should take an initiative regarding women and further discussion on humanitarian aid.203

As the last foreign ministers meeting in 2016, the eigth meeting was used to reaffirmed the member countries’ like-minded interests on issues such as energy management and access, international security, peacekeeping, counter terrorism, economics, sustainable development, gender equality and democracy in the purpose of upholding a significant rules-based international order.204

Other than official foreign ministers’ meeting, MIKTA had two senior official meetings on February 2015 and February 2016 which both emphasized on enhancing cooperation on bilateral and multilateral issues, as well as MIKTA role in regional and global affairs.205

Furthermore, South Korea had initiated an inaugural meeting consist of parliamentary speakers of MIKTA member countries. The first speaker consultation with the theme ‘Parliamentary Leadership for a Global Future’ had come to the conclusion in a form of Seoul Statement which contained reaffirmation of speakers’ consultation as one of the main platforms for MIKTA to assist its development as a multilateral consultative platform between middle powers in addressing major global challenges.206

Park Geun-hye had regarded the speakers on the first speakers’ consultation by emphasized the importance of MIKTA in response to international issues such as climate change, security, counter terrorim and

202 Gordon Flake and Wang Xu, “MIKTA: The Searching for a Strategic Rationale,” Perth USAsia Centre, January 2017, 5. 203 A.n, “MIKTA Holds Its 7th Foreign Ministers’ Meeting: Korean Mission’s Main Activities Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations,” September 22, 2016, https://goo.gl/yYAAvA. 204 Ibid., Gordon Flake and Wang Xu (2017). 205 Ibid. 206 A.n, “MIKTA Speakers’ Consultation (Seoul, July 1-5 2015),” MIKTA, July 15, 2015, http://www.mikta.org/network/speakers.php?at=view&idx=137&ckattempt=2.

development.207 She urged the MIKTA countries speakers to take a step in providing assembly-level of support, therefore MIKTA can play a bigger role in resolving the international issues. Park Geun-hye had also expressed MIKTA’s role in Korean peninsula;

“The international community should converse in one voice in order to acknowledge challenges raised by North Korea and its nuclear program. Therefore, I believe MIKTA can play a pivotal role as a consultative platform.”208 The efforts of South Korean government for security and a peace building of Korean peninsula had been supported by MIKTA speakers. The member countries will also taking significant actions in assembly level to assist South Korea in achieving its efforts.209

The second speakers’ consultation, the parliamentary speakers of MIKTA raised ‘Open Parliament for Open Government’ as the theme which generated a broad discussions of challenges, interests and solutions in the maintenance of open parliament in the era of constant changing environment. The speakers also mentioned the desire to continue building MIKTA parliamentary network by conducted meetings on the sideline of the assembly of inter-parliamentary union. This network was purposefully to develop strategies to enhance understanding and participation in parliament to support MIKTA core priorities on global governance.210

Between the year of its creation until its third year, MIKTA has established progressively meaningful cooperation and discussion patterns which assembled 12 level meetings, released 11 joint statements and six joint

207 Sojung Yoon, “President Park Meets with MIKTA Speakers : Korea.Net : The Official Website of the Republic of Korea,” July 7, 2015, http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/policies/view?articleId=128581. 208 Ibid. 209 Ibid. 210 A.n, “Second MIKTA Speakers’ Consultation - Open Parliaments for Open Government (Hobart, October 6, 2016),” MIKTA, December 20, 2016, http://www.mikta.org/network/speakers.php?pn=1&sn=&st=&sc=&sd=&sdate=&edate=&sfld=&sort =&at=view&idx=252.

communique, established an academic network ad well as launched an informative website.211

III.2.2 Official Development Assistance Project (2013 – 2016)

As an emerging economy in the world, South Korea has earned recognition as the 13th based on GDP, sixth based on international trade in the world and tenth highest GDP per capita among G20 members in 2014.212 The poverty reduction and development growth were a part of South Korea’s middle power diplomacy and to realized its role as a donor country, South Korea has become a facilitator in creating global standards to improve Official Development Assistance quality.213 Furthermore, South Korea increased the opportunity for youth and small-medium entreprises (SMEs) to participate projects conducted by ODA and also joining international aid initiative. The purpose of South Korea government are enhancing and seeing how effective the ODA project transparency to increase people participation.214

This notion was done by South Korea seeing the importance of ODA as a channel to contribute in international peace and welfare, also as a form to interact in international community. The ODA activism of South Korea had continue as one of initiatives in Park Geun-hye’s middle power diplomacy. South Korea has provided US$ 9 billion for foreign aid in 2014 which showed 0.13% of gross national income (GNI) and has increased 0.8% from the previous year in 2013.215

Park Geun-hye administration had also realized the official model of South Korea’s Official Development Assistance in September 2013 through the

211 Ibid., Gordon Flake and Wang Xu (2017), 3. 212 Lee, Kyungsuk. “New Approach of South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: Focusing on Global Agenda Setting.” Association for Research, Innovation and Social Science, Global Politics Review, 2, no. 2 (October 2016): 47. 213 MOFA. “2015 Diplomatic White Paper.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2015. 214 Ibid. 215 Lee, Kyungsuk. “New Approach of South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: Focusing on Global Agenda Setting.” Association for Research, Innovation and Social Science, Global Politics Review, 2, no. 2 (October 2016): 48.

signing of Memorandum of Understanding together with United Nations Development Program (UNDP) for the enactment of Saemaul or new village movement. Along the way, the budget of Saemaul movement by the government increased to 36% in 2014.216 Followed by the decision of South Korea commission on International Development Partnership to introduced the initiative in order to distribute South Korea’s development model, the government has pledged approximately US$ 23 million of direct sponsorship to 5 Asian countries such as Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal and Vietnam as well as 4 African countries such as Ethiopia, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Uganda for the period 2014 to 2019. The sponsorship was to intoduced saemaul program in the developing countries.217

216 Antoine Bondaz and Leonie Allard, “How Unique Is South Korea’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) Model?” (European Asian Centre, November 2014), http://www.centreasia.eu/sites/default/files/publications_pdf/note_oda_-_bondaz_-_allard_- _21112014.pdf. 217 Ibid.

Figure 3.4 Gross and Net ODA Disbursements of South Korea (Source: Donor Tracker)

The figure above showed South Korea’s budget on Official Development Assistance expanditure year on year. As the 16th largest donor country in the world for the year 2016, South Korea spent US$ 2 billion net ODA218 which contributed to 0.14% of South Korea’s gross national income (GNI). From significant rises between 2015 to 2016, South Korea’s ODA and GNI share projected to reach 0.16% in 2017 or equivalent to US$ 2.4 billion.219

In 2016 also, South Korea launched the strategic plan for international development cooperation 2016 – 2020 which divided into several initiatives; the initiative of ‘Better Life for Girls’ which supported projects of health and education for girls with budget of US$ 200 million; the initiative of ‘Better Life through Science, Technology and Innovation’ aimed to encourage science proficiency, research and development, as well as entrepreneurship with budget of US$ 200 million; the initiative of ‘Safe Life for All’ concentrated on fighting contagious diseases with budget of US$ 100 million; and Better Educatin to Support Africa’s Development’ that aimed technical and industrial development with budget of US$ 100 million.220 The allocation of program funding will focused on the programs or other programs that already made by the government of recipient countries which have similar focuses.221

South Korea’s ODA mostly focused on bilateral endowment with the allocation of bilateral ODA by South Korean government by 78% above average OECD Development Assistance Committee countries by 61% in 2015. Meanwhile, the government allocated the rest of ODA through multilateral

218 Net ODA referred to government aid to enhance economic development and welfare of developing countries excluded loans and credits for military intention (taken from OECD). 219 Seek Development, “South Korea: Donor Profile,” Donor Tracker, August 2017, 3–11. 220 Ibid., 5. 221 Ibid.

organizations such as World Bank by 39%, United Nations Agencies by 25%, and Regional Development Bank by 24%.222

As for recipient countries of South Korea’s ODA brought together 24 priority countries divided into 4 regions which are Asia-Pacific by 57%, Africa by 25%, Middle East/Central Asia by 11% and Latin America by 7%.223 The figure below will show the 24 priority countries as South Korea ODA recipient.

No. Region Countries 1 Asia-Pacific Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Vietnam 2 Africa Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda. 3 Middle East/Central Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan Asia 4 Latin America Bolivia, Colombia, Paraguay and Peru

Table 3.1 The 24 Priority Countries of South Korea’s ODA (Source: Donor Tracker)

The priority countries of South Korea’s ODA are mostly a lower middle income countries that received 36% in 2015 or more than a third of South Korea’s bilateral ODA. Once again outreaching the average rate of OECD Development Assistance Committee countries which by 20%.224

III.2.3 Green Growth (2014 – 2015)

Climate change has become one of the main concerns in international community. In Park Geun-hye administration, she highlighted climate change as an opportunity for economic growth by invested in industry of new energy. She

222 Ibid., 11. 223 Ibid. 224 Ibid.

also initiated a project of environmental friendly cities with emphasized on renewable energy usage for electricity.225 Due to its combination on environmental and economic sectors, Park Geun-hye has given the honor to chaired on climate finance event during the United Nations Climate Summit in 2014. Climate finance referred to investment in technologies of renewable energy, or other related activities that decrease climate change impact. In the presentation of climate finance, South Korea pledged US$ 100 million in supporting greener economy.226

Accordingly, Park Geun-hye remarks at the 2015 Climate Summit in Paris had accentuate on the beginning of new climate regime which South Korea will take an active role to realized. On this issue, South Korea once again mentioned its initiative of industry of new energy for the purpose of reduce gas emissions. Having an ambitious target of reducing the country’s gas emissions by 37% compare to business-as-usual level until 2030, South Korea proposed a strategy of developing industries of new energy 2030 where electricity market will be open to allow people to sell self-producing power and saved power through renewable energy storage system at the same time.227 Thus, on the targetted year, South Korea could produce an estimated US$ 100 billion of new market and organize 500.000 jobs which in accordance with South Korea’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) target.228

South Korea had as well created an eco-friendly energy island model which had the approval of Green Climate Fund (GCF). This model utilized a new technology that changes diesel generators to a photovoltaic combined with

225 O’Donnell, Jill Kosch. “South Korea’s Role as Host of the Green Climate Fund: Implications for ROK Contributions to Green Growth.” In Middle-Power Korea: Contributions to the Global Agenda, First., 66–67. Council of Foreign Relations, 2015. 226 Ibid., 68 – 69. 227 A.n, “Remarks at the Climate Summit by Park Geun-Hye, President of Republic of Korea” (United Nations Framework Convention of the Climate Change, November 30, 2015), https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/cop21cmp11_leaders_event_rep_kor ea.pdf. 228 Ibid.

energy storage systems. This replacement will guaranteed the decrease of carbon trace as well as provides electricity steadily.229

Finally, South Korea taken the initiative to become a bridge between developed and developing countries in facilitating international emission trading scheme (ETS). South Korea become the first Asian country which have the legislation to introduce this scheme. The emissions trading scheme created to support the gas reduction for the country. The ETS was expected to comprise approximately 500 companies with the emission of total 250.000 tonnes in South Korea for the beginning.230 By applying the ETS to South Korea, later the implementation wil be the example for other countries to be actively involved.

229 Ibid. 230 Changmin Yoo, “Emission Trading: South Korea Steams Ahead,” Environmental Finance Publications (Seoul: PwC Seoul, 2012), https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/sustainability/publications/assets/pwc-emmisions-trading-south- korea.pdf.

CHAPTER IV THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SOUTH KOREA’S MIDDLE POWER DIPLOMACY IN MAINTAINING ITS STATUS OF MIDDLE POWER THROUGH MIKTA INITIATIVE

IV.1 MIKTA as an Instrument of South Korea in Asserting its Leadership on Middle Power Diplomacy

Park Geun-hye administration has carried on the means of middle power diplomacy as a part of her foreign policy. Aside for having a satisfying result in the previous administration, middle power diplomacy had become one of instruments in addressing international issues.231 Seeing the profound alteration of strategic environment due to China’s rise and the United States moderate decline of power232, as well as the threat that caused by North Korea, South Korea which have the status of middle power have only limited influence if the country tried to addressed those significant issues on its own. Thus, Park Geun- hye encountered the needs to create a joint middle powers cooperation since in accordance with the concept of middle power where a country with the status of middle powers, in order to work effectively have to work in a small group or institution.233

The G20 summit has become a place for middle power activism to emerged as it given a space for new emerging powers to build their influence in international community.234 The first middle power group that emerged in the

231 Songchan Chen and Sulong Chu, “Is America Declining?,” Brookings, November 11, 2011, https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/is-america-declining/. 232 Sukjoon Yoon, “Middle-Power Cooperation between South Korea and India: Hedging the Dominance of the Great Powers,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, no. 10 (January 28, 2014): 1–3. 233 Pinar Kandemir et al., “21st Century Global Governance: Rise of the Rest – Cross-Regional Networks,” DailySabah, December 21, 2014, https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/2014/12/21/21st- century-global-governance-rise-of-the-rest-crossregional-networks. 234 Andrew F. Cooper, “Recalibrating Middle Power Diplomacy: Republic of Korea and Canada in Comparative Perspective,” East Asia Institute, no. 11 (February 2015): 7–9.

midst of G20 was BRIC in 2001. Consist of countries that according to the creator, Jim O’Neill, a Goldman Sachs’ executive, stand in the same way of economic growth. Later South Africa joined the group together with the existing countries Brazil, Russia, India, and China, added the letter in the acronym to BRICS.235

Thenceforth, other countries have been categorized into a group based on economic development and growth. For instance, MINT236, CARBS237, N- 11238, and EAGLE239 were categorized by financial institutions in accordance with their financial growth and economic performance. Despite of representative meetings and the commitment for joint policies and strategies by each group, their agenda focus was quite limited on economic and financial partnership only.240

MIKTA had differentiate its existence from other groups while being the only group that is created by the respective countries in purpose to cooperate with each other in promoting shared ideas and interests. Moreover, the range of issues that MIKTA covered were broader than other groups which become the basis of the members cooperation in order to solve the issues based on common facts and goals.241

MIKTA is a middle power group consist of Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey and Australia. All of MIKTA members are G20 members which shared a vast economic and political capabilities yet not powerful enought to threaten other countries. The member countries are recognized as pacificists

235 Jorge A. Schiavon and Diego Dominguez, “Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and Australia (MIKTA): Middle, Regional, and Constructive Powers Providing Global Governance,” Wiley Online Library 3, no. 3 (2016): 6. 236 Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey. 237 Canada, Australia, Russia, Brazil, and South Africa. 238 Mexico, Egypt, Iran, Nigeria, Turkey, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines and South Korea. 239 Egypt, Taiwan, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey and BRIC. 240 Ibid., Sukjoon Yoon (January 28, 2014). 241 Jorge A. Schiavon and Diego Dominguez, “Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and Australia (MIKTA): Middle, Regional, and Constructive Powers Providing Global Governance,” Wiley Online Library 3, no. 3 (2016): 6.

since they have no nuclear powers which could support their goal of peace and security by promoting nuclear disarmament in international community.242

As an important fact, the five countries were partners or had a direct relations with major actors in the international order for instance, the United States, China, and Russia. They have also established active foreign policies that include the establishment and distribution of international norms; the establishment and active contribution in multilateral organizations; utilization of mediating measure and other peaceful manners to resolve international conflicts; coalitions building between countries to achieve mutual goals; and become a mediator to ensure the usage of coercion is the last choice in conflicts resolution.243

Finally, all of MIKTA countries adhere democracy as their ideology and based on their competitiveness, the flow of foreign direct investment as well as innovation they are developed economies. In particularly, the member countries are diverse in terms of culture, value and region which become a good representation of each member for their regions, values and cultures to international community. Thus, MIKTA could utilize their similar characteristics as well as their differences that complement each others to go forward as a group.244 The diversity of MIKTA member countries as a basis to increase their voice in global governance was in line with MIKTA vision statement;

“The member countries are from variety of cultures and regions, yet they share similarities and values. The needs to coordinate the members’ efforts within the G20 and beyond was the reason that brings these countries together.”245 The means to be a facilitator between developed and developing countries and a catalyst for global governance reform had also contained within

242 Jorge A. Schiavon and Diego Dominguez, “Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and Australia (MIKTA): Middle, Regional, and Constructive Powers Providing Global Governance,” Wiley Online Library 3, no. 3 (2016): 7. 243 Ibid. 244 Ibid. 245 A.n, “MIKTA Vision Statement,” 2015, http://www.mikta.org/about/vision.php.

MIKTA vision statement. To achieve its objective, MIKTA has actively engaged with each others through official meetings on emerging international issues, promoting international norms, and bridging communication between countries on various regions.246 Other than addressing the issues, MIKTA had also conducted several programs connecting the member countries through academic network initiative, exchange and training programs for young professionals, journalists, and diplomats, as well as development cooperation workshops. The programs had increased bilateral and multilateral trade connection between MIKTA countries which showed further potential of MIKTA as a multilateral platform.247

South Korea’s leadership in the creation of MIKTA was rooted on Park Geun-hye foreign policy orientation of middle power diplomacy with its main goal to contribute in peace and cooperation on global level a responsible middle power.248 Park Geun-hye has pursued international happiness as one of her major policy vision which shown her plan in emphasized on diplomatic engagement in realizing peaceful arena and common prosperity on global level.249

South Korea used middle power diplomacy, with better sense of strength and maturity, as the basis of its action in playing the role of structured and reliable connector between developed and developing countries in international community. The same objective which applied to MIKTA and any other active middle power countries. Accordingly, MIKTA has become the instrument of South Korea’s network building process with other middle powers. The establishment of coalition consist of like-minded countries with the willingness

246 Benjamin Engel, “MIKTA and Middle Power Diplomacy in the South China Sea,” The Diplomat, August 15, 2015, https://thediplomat.com/2015/08/mikta-and-middle-power-diplomacy-in-the-south- china-sea/. 247 Gordon Flake and Wang Xu, “MIKTA: The Searching for a Strategic Rationale,” Perth USAsia Centre, January 2017, 7. 248 MOFA, “2015 Diplomatic White Paper” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2015). 249 Taeyul Cho, “2nd Vice Minister’s Welcoming Remarks at the 6th Korea Foundation Global Seminar View,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, November 21, 2013, https://goo.gl/niuHVt .

and capability to integrating and expanding the scope of their partnership, South Korea and the member countries could apply an effective leadership on global issues resolution that goes beyond the initiative on only one country.250

The middle power diplomacy of South Korea has adopted characteristics of developing specific dispute settlement mechanism, developing multilateral institutions and participating in existing cooperation, as well as creating a coalition with like-minded middle power countries to build up their position in international community.251 Accordingly to these characteristics, South Korea’s middle power diplomacy could engage other countries to join its network or supporting its existing network on a multilateral cooperation to establish a desirable international order.252

IV.1.1 MIKTA and Official Development Assistance Project

The G20 has become the background of MIKTA’s establishment however, in regards of sustainable development, The United Nations SDG goals and agenda 2030 most likely will provide a more relevant basis of MIKTA’s further action.253 In regards to ODA also, the diversity of MIKTA member countries has provided unique potential. Indonesia as a middle income economy, Mexico and Turkey as middle-upper economies as well as South Korea and Austrilia as high income economies projected the reality of world’s current development.254

MIKTA’s training program on development cooperation has become one of the programs that directly linked to South Korea’s middle power diplomacy

250 Taeyul Cho, “2nd Vice Minister’s Welcoming Remarks at the 6th Korea Foundation Global Seminar View,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, November 21, 2013, https://goo.gl/niuHVt . 251 Scott A. Snyder, “U.S. Rebalancing Strategy and South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy,” East Asia Institute, no. 12 (February 27, 2015): 15. 252 Grace Oh, “Seoul’s Middle-Power Diplomacy to Lead to Peaceful Inter-Korean Unification,” Yonhap News, November 28, 2013, http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/11/28/5/0301000000AEN20131128008500315F.html. 253 Sebastian Huang, “Exploring ‘Constructive Engagement’: MIKTA and Global Development,” Rising Powers Quarterly 2, no. 4 (2017): 63. 254 Ibid., 64.

initiative which was Official Development Assistance (ODA) project. The training program had allowed staff from each member country’s development assistance agencies to have an exchange to train at one of the institutions of MIKTA’s country. The staff on exchange could contribute in the design process of a joint MIKTA’s development cooperation project as well as learned about specific processes of the organization that is needed in their home institutions.255

As a leading development cooperation country, South Korea has followed the logic of MIKTA’s consultative platform which focused on mutual understanding, bilateral partnership, and the importance of sharing knowledge and information.256 This matter is in line with South Korea’s sharing knowledge program which goals are to assist the selected countries in establishing their competitiveness and also become a facilitator for the efforts of institutional restructure based on South Korea’s unique development experiences.257

South Korea’s as an active ODA donor country on not only applying its leadership as a middle power but also to learn from both recipients and donor countries on their mechanism and perspective on creating the best structure for a development agenda.258

IV.1.2 MIKTA and Green Growth

Between the member countries of MIKTA, Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Australia had considered as major emittters in the world and have the willingness to reduce the emissions by strenghened its green growth policies. MIKTA had the potential to facilitate a new agreement which referred to network building emphasized on strong commitment to the green growth vision,

255 Sebastian Huang, “Exploring ‘Constructive Engagement’: MIKTA and Global Development,” Rising Powers Quarterly 2, no. 4 (2017): 66. 256 Ibid. 257 Yulan Kim and Moonjoong Cha, “Introduction to the Knowledge Sharing Program (KSP) of Korea” (Korea Economic Institute, November 2012), http://keia.org/sites/default/files/publications/kei_koreacompass_tcha_final.pdf. 258 Gordon Flake and Wang Xu, “MIKTA: The Searching for a Strategic Rationale,” Perth USAsia Centre, January 2017, 32.

sharing a cost effective climate policies, and actively hold regular meetings in the United Nations climate negotiations.259

South Korea has take a great concern regarding green growth and particually took the green growth initiative as a chance for economic growth for the new energy sector. Park Geun-hye government in addressing the commitment of enhancing green growth established the prime ministerial committee on green growth. This committee was the successor of previous government’s presidential committee on green growth and the initiative of green growth commitment by Park Geun-hye has been spoken on her speech at the 2015 Conference of climate change in Paris.260

“South Korea will become the pioneer to decrease carbon emissions through new energy industries. With an ambitious target of 37% from the business-as-usual level by 2030 and strategy for enhancing new energy industries 2030, South Korea will be able to open new market in the area by approximately US$ 100 billion by 2030, generating 500.000 jobs, at the same time when we meed our INDC target.”261 Green growth has become a part of Park Geun-hye’s creative economy plan which purpose to create a new opportunity of economic growtg in a creative way. In 2014, South Korea had launched second five year plan for green growth for the period 204 – 2018 which focused on further managing initiatives that have been developed on the first five year plan.262 In line with MIKTA potential in creating new agreement on green growth, South Korea could also potential served as the active provider in sharing knowledge on establishing green growth plan and business model of renewable energy

259 Siwon Park, “Middle Power Cooperation for Climate Change and Green Growth,” in MIKTA, Middle Power, and New Dynamics of Global Governance, First (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 63. 260 Sunyoung Kim, “South Korea Doubles down on Green Growth,” East Asia Forum, December 25, 2015, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/12/25/south-korea-doubles-down-on-green-growth/. 261 A.n, “Remarks at the Climate Summit by Park Geun-Hye, President of Republic of Korea” (United Nations Framework Convention of the Climate Change, November 30, 2015), https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/cop21cmp11_leaders_event_rep_kor ea.pdf. 262 Ibid.

equipments in purpose to significantly enhance the development of new climate regime.263

IV.1.3 MIKTA and North Korean Issues

The needs of multilateralism on regional and global level was highly anticipated especially since the heightening tension due to North Korea nuclear ambitions. South Korea which has been threatened by North Korea’s provocations, the country has enhance the utilization of middle power diplomacy in engaging North Korea. Park Geun-hye has seen middle power diplomacy as an effort to build trust through multilateral engagement and has become an important diplomatic way in exercising its influence not only between two Koreas but also on global level.264

“South Korea’s middle power diplomacy will win the trust of international community and will highly involve in the establishment of the framework of Korean peninsula possible reunification.”265 As South Korea’s middle power initiative, MIKTA could also supported South Korea’s main foreign policy goal, which was peace and stability on Korean peninsula. MIKTA has provided a platform of multilateral engagement for the purpose of addressing North Korean nuclear issue.266

Based on the MIKTA’s joint communique in 2014 and joint statement in 2016 regarding the immediate action in handling North Korean nuclear and missile threats as well as the support of member countries on South Korean government efforts in realizing trust-building process and possibly peaceful unification between two Koreas267, MIKTA could be a potential tool in extending South Korea’s diplomatic opportunity outside its alliance with the

263 Ibid. 264 Jongryn Mo, “South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: A Case of Growing Compatibility between Regional and Global Roles,” Sage Publications 71, no. 4 (2016): 589–91. 265 Grace Oh, “Seoul’s Middle-Power Diplomacy to Lead to Peaceful Inter-Korean Unification,” Yonhap News, November 28, 2013, http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/11/28/5/0301000000AEN20131128008500315F.html. 266 Gordon Flake and Wang Xu, “MIKTA: The Searching for a Strategic Rationale,” Perth USAsia Centre, January 2017, 5 – 6. 267 Ibid.

United States as well as implement its middle power diplomacy as a supporting measure for North Korean further peaceful engagement.268

IV.2 The Implementation of Middle Power Diplomacy in Maintaining South Korea’s Middle Power Status through MIKTA

Under the administration of Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye, South Korea’s middle power status has become prominent and absolute within the scope.269 Lee Myung-bak has been the one who began South Korea’s middle power diplomacy, which given the opening to Park Geun-hye into continuing its efforts as a middle power. The government’s trustpolitik, and the initiation of MIKTA has become her strategy to enhance middle power diplomacy in international community.270

The middle power status is important for South Korea because its showed the county’s international commitment and role to actively connected other coutries as a middle-man when at the same time pointed out its capability of conducting its soft power. The status had also projected South Korea’s influence that the country may have as a middle power on global governance.271

Being a country that referred as ‘shrimp between whales’, South Korea is constantly stucked in between power struggle dynamics because Korean peninsula is the place that bears interest of global and regional powers such as China, the United States, Japan and Russia overlapped. However, being a relatively weaker than other powers in the region, South Korea’s cannot showed its influence only by its own to addressed regional and international agendas. Thus, as a country that have the status of middle power, South Korea used

268 Scott A. Snyder, “Korean Middle Power Diplomacy: The Establishment of MIKTA,” Council on Foreign Relations, October 1, 2013, https://www.cfr.org/blog/korean-middle-power-diplomacy- establishment-mikta. 269 Andrew O’Neil, “South Korea as a Middle Power: Global Ambitions and Looming Challenges,” in Middle-Power Korea: Contributions to the Global Agenda, First (Council of Foreign Relations, 2015), 82. 270 Ibid. 271 Jojin V. John, “Becoming and Being a Middle Power: Exploring a New Dimension of South Korea’s Foreign Policy,” Sage Publications 50, no. 4 (2014): 330.

middle power diplomacy for the purpose of securing its interests in the region and on global level.272

Foreign Policy

Implementation

Middle Power Diplomacy

The creation of MIKTA

Maintaining Leadership as a Middle Power middle power Status

Figure 4.1 The Implementation of South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy

The implementation of South Korea’s middle power diplomacy has been rooted on Park Geun-hye foreign policy pillars as the orientation of her era’s foreign policy. South Korea’s self-identification and international recognition as a middle power in 1996 alongside its membership on OECD, were based on its economic

272 A.n, “Maintaining South Korea’s Middle-Power Status,” Economy Watch, December 15, 2014, http://www.economywatch.com/features/Maintaining-South-Koreas-Middle-Power-Status.12-15- 14.html.

75 capability, military expanditure, and the willingness to highly performed on multilateral diplomacy and active involvement in international organizations.273

Other than the physical criteria, South Korea in implementing middle power diplomacy has considered several circumstances that are beneficial for its diplomatic process. South Korea strategically positioned between two major powers in Northeast Asia, China and Japan as well as the developing regions, ASEAN. South Korea is an old ally of the United States and had played an important role of the United States’ position in Northeast Asia. The geographic position of South Korea also is favorable for South Korea’s middle power diplomacy.274

South Korea had also striven to become a model of international community in terms of democratization and modernization. South Korea applied its soft power and network building in promoting issues such as human rights, nuclear safety, counter terrorism, and market economy, as well as implemented its longstanding knowledge sharing program as a part of its development cooperation to shared experiences in democratization and economic development together with developing countries. The leadership of South Korea in implementing its middle power diplomacy emphasized on the dependency reduction of South Korea to the major players in international community.275

Being a responsible middle power that involve in peace and development on global level has become South Korea’s goal of middle power diplomacy and the existence of MIKTA had become an instrument of South Korea’s middle power diplomacy in expanding its economic capability and diplomatic support through the engagement with like-minded countries.276 MIKTA served as an exemplary initiative which shown South Korea’s leadership in creating network to connect not only

273 Mehmet Ozkan, “A NEW APPROACH TO GLOBAL SECURITY: PIVOTAL MIDDLE POWERS AND GLOBAL POLITICS” (University of Johannesburg, 2006), http://sam.gov.tr/wp- content/uploads/2012/02/MehmetOzkan1.pdf. 274 Euikon Kim, “Korea’s Middle-Power Diplomacy in the 21st Century,” Pacific Focus 30, no. 1 (April 2015): 5–6. 275 Euikon Kim, “Korea’s Middle-Power Diplomacy in the 21st Century,” Pacific Focus 30, no. 1 (April 2015): 5–6. 276 Ibid.

76 developed and developing countries, but also other middle power countries.277 As well as elevate South Korea’s presence in international community.278

The creation of IIGOs MIKTA

Maintaining Leadership as a Middle Power middle power Status

Figure 4.2 MIKTA as an Informal Inter-governmental Organization

Based on informal inter-governmental organizations (IIGOs), the existence of informal groups is needed in order to resolve issues that based on mutual interests. IIGOs could also provide a flexibility that is important in handling issues with high uncertainty and provided countries a loose way in adjusting an unexpected results. IIGOs had also allowed to do a horizontal decision-making process with less of bureaucracy which emphasized on more interconnectedness than formal organizations.279

MIKTA has emphasized on multilateralism by demonstrating its utility and flexibility in line with global governance as a new model for trans-region and partnerships based on value. The existence of MIKTA will preserving

277 Kyungsuk Lee, “New Approach of South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: Focusing on Global Agenda Setting,” Association for Research, Innovation and Social Science, Global Politics Review, 2, no. 2 (October 2016): 52. 278 Seungjoo Lee, “MIKTA and Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: Opportunities and Challenges,” Issue Briefing (East Asia Institute, April 19, 2016), http://eai.or.kr/data/bbs/eng_report/2016041818143365.pdf. 279 Felicity Valubas and Duncan Snidal, “Organization without Delegation: Informal Intergovernmental Organizations (IIGOs) and the Spectrum of Intergovernmental Arrangements,” Springer Science + Business Media 8, no. 2 (January 2013): 194–96.

various shapes of cooperation that bound by its middle power identity.280 MIKTA have positioned itself as a platform with a sense of like-mindedness and showed the potential to be an autonomous forum that advance in legitimacy and efficiency on global governance.281

The mutual interests and understanding that showed by the member countries of MIKTA are the concerns of global governance reform and middle power status. As middle power countries, it is necessary to maintained its status as it defined its diplomatic movement. And by existing as a group, the member countries could show its entrepreneurial and rational leadership in cooperation to perform another part of diplomatic movement which was middle power diplomacy.282

Global governance has become an important part of MIKTA since it is a cooperation process consist of various interest and objectives in which gathered and adjusted through coordinating policy for the purpose of managing mutual interests that are share by the member of international community. In accordance to this definition, global governance could be effective when a group of like- minded countries has established an innovative group, possibly informal groups that provide a system to link issues with mutual interest.283

MIKTA as an initiative of South Korea to established middle power network with a capability to express the aspirations of their respective regions, push the legitimacy of generating peaceful engagement in achieving international security and prosperity through the issues such as counter-

280 Andrew F. Cooper, “MIKTA and the Global Projection of Middle Powers: Toward a Summit of Their Own?,” Oxford University Press 1, no. 1 (2015): 97 – 8. 281 Ibid. 282 John Ravenhill, “Cycles of Middle Power Activism: Constraint and Choice in Australian and Canada Foreign Policies,” Australia National University Press 52, no. 3 (1998): 312. 283 Jorge A. Schiavon and Diego Dominguez, “Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and Australia (MIKTA): Middle, Regional, and Constructive Powers Providing Global Governance,” Wiley Online Library 3, no. 3 (2016): 6.

terrorism, deterrence for weapons of mass destruction, human rights, human development and sustainability.284

The leading role through MIKTA could also help South Korea in achieving its main foreign policy goal on North Korean nuclear threat and Korean reunification. The coalition-building between middle powers is highly important for South Korea since for middle power countries, it is necessary to build coalitions with like-minded countries as they ought to perform effectively in a group. MIKTA as a result of coalition building will increase more support and legitimacy on agenda settings.285 The Seoul statement as a result of MIKTA speakers’ consultation in 2015 has officially pointed out their support on South Korea’s efforts in addressing North Korean nuclear issue and peaceful unification, since those issues are critical for peace and prosperity on both regional and global level.286

The status of middle power that South Korea’s middle power diplomacy has provided in the era of Park Geun-hye has been maintained through its initiative as a responsible middle power. MIKTA as one of South Korea’s initiative has enhance South Korea’s middle power status to addressed global governance issues which increased South Korea’s global presence.287

Middle powers showcased the global ambitions to be involve for great goods in the world, as well as fulfill the interests of the respective countries. Middle powers strive to contribute to the world’s visions of peace and security as well as provide creative ideas that is important both in terms of good governance and individual interests, thus reasonable for the members of international community. South Korea had realizing its capability and capacity

284 Ibid. 285 Kyungsuk Lee, “New Approach of South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: Focusing on Global Agenda Setting,” Association for Research, Innovation and Social Science, Global Politics Review, 2, no. 2 (October 2016): 52. 286 A.n, “Seoul Statement: MIKTA Speakers’ Consultation 2015,” MIKTA, 2015, http://www.mikta.org/document/state.php?at=view&idx=138. 287 Randall E. Schweller, “The Concept of Middle Power,” in The Korean Pivot: The Study of South Korea as a Global Power, First (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2017), 5.

as middle powers that can carry out proactive diplomacy in line with its global visions.288

South Korea as a middle power has pursued a proactive diplomacy through middle power diplomacy in sectors that are in line with international order such as development cooperation and peace and prosperity.289 In development cooperation, South Korea has showed an enhanced leadership. South Korea strived to assist developing countries in advancing their economic development, as it is also a part of world’ economic development. On further note, South Korea has envisioned middle power diplomacy in a form of flexible, informal and issue-driven dialogue mechanism between countries that have the mutual interests as middle powers.290

As a group of middle power countries, MIKTA directly possessed the vision of South Korea’s middle power diplomacy, as well as middle power characteristics altogether. The creation of MIKTA had shown the leadership of South Korea and its foreign policy implementation to become a responsible middle power, not only because South Korea has fitted into the criteria of middle powers in theory, but also in practice by showing its capability and willingness to engage in multilateral cooperation to create a peaceful order and development throughout international community.291

“MIKTA – Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey and Australia, as a trans-regional group of middle powers, for me has fulfill South Korea’s leadership in middle power diplomacy and its growing contribution to regional and global governance.”292 The foreign minister of South Korea, Yun Byung-se at the 10th Jeju Forum for peace and prosperity in 2015, emphasized on the leadership role of

288 Sunghan Kim, “Luncheon Keynote Speech: How Is It Pursued in the G20 Framework?,” in MIKTA, Middle Powers, and New Dynamics of Global Governance: The G20’s Evolving Agenda, First (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 99. 289 Ibid., 100. 290 Ibid., 101. 291 Randall E. Schweller, “The Concept of Middle Power,” in The Korean Pivot: The Study of South Korea as a Global Power, First (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2017), 5–6. 292 A.n, “Towards a New Asia of Trust and Harmony,” Annual Report, Jeju Forum for Peace and Prosperity (Jeju Island, South Korea: Jeju Peace Institute, 2015).

South Korea in MIKTA which has become a place where South Korea implement its middle power diplomacy and enhance its contribution on regional and global governance293, that also showed South Korea’s diplomatic leadership in accordance with its middle power status.294

South Korea in showing its leadership in MIKTA had clearly shown in the MIKTA vision statement. South Korea had took the initiative in the making of the vision and guideline of MIKTA operation system which presented in 2015 at the same time when South Korea had appointed the chairmanship of MIKTA.295 As South Korea becoming the chair country of MIKTA in 2015, the country has enhanced the mechanism of MIKTA into more systemized consultative platform by involving more in the international stage in line with the vision statement of ‘performing its new cross-regional and value-added cooperation model that based on utilization, visibility and flexibility’.296

“As a foreign minister I would like to restate the message from my President regarding global issues such as poverty and development cooperation, health epidemics, terrorism, and proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction on a wider context in terms of the government’s own diplomatic paradigm, international happiness which driven by a commitment to globalism. This way, South Korea is strengthening its international partnership with various group s of middle powers such as MIKTA.”297 During its chairmanship between September 2014 to August 2015, South Korea has initiated MIKTA dialogue as a sideline of Seoul Defense Dialogue and the first Senior Officials meeting.298 The 2015 Seoul Defense Dialogue has become the first place of MIKTA to address defense cooperation between

293 Ibid., 30. 294 Sunghan Kim, “Luncheon Keynote Speech: How Is It Pursued in the G20 Framework?,” in MIKTA, Middle Powers, and New Dynamics of Global Governance: The G20’s Evolving Agenda, First (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 100. 295 A.n, “Second MIKTA Foreign Ministers’ Meeting Takes Place – MIKTA Foreign Ministers Adopt Joint Communiqué on the Situation in North Korea and Agree to Hold Next Meeting in the ROK View,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 5 April 2014, https://goo.gl/Z54g5x 296 MOFA, “2016 Diplomatic White Paper” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2016). 297 MOFA, “Remarks by Minister of Foreign Affairs at 7th World Policy Conference” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, December 8, 2014). 298 Ibid.

middle power countries. The MIKTA dialogue as the sideline of Seoul Defense Dialogue has been used by South Korea to prove a better understanding of Korean peninsula issue and the need for reunification which necessarily need the support of international community.299 Meanwhile, the first Senior Officials’ meeting, MIKTA had officially launched its official website and adopted the vision statement which showed the background and future agenda of the group.300

MIKTA has not only supported South Korea’s multilateral cooperation on regional and global level, but also enhanced as the linkage between South Korea and member countries such as Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey and Australia within the range of their common interest in global governance. Through MIKTA, South Korea could enhance the bilateral partnership with the member countries. For instance, South Koreaand Australia had agreed to implemented the Korea-Australia FTA in 2016, regularized Korea-Australia summit and also strenghten their cooperation in global governance issues such as Information and communications technology (ICT), as well as cybersecurity.301 Beside bilateral relations with Australia, Turkey and South Korea has made a progress in strengthening their bilateral cooperation in economy and trade also expanded their coooperation into defense industry.302 Then together with Mexico, South Korea has signed memorandum of understanding on international development cooperation for the sake of strengthening development cooperation which included multilateral cooperation with Latin American countries.303

The potential of MIKTA as an instrument for middle power diplomacy had been recognized by Park Geun-hye as a part of the trust-building process and even as a extended version of South Korea’s trust diplomacy. Thus, South Korea had been bringing regional issues such as Korean reunification and

299 Jihye Jun, “Defense Forum Focuses on Northeast Asian Stability,” Korea Times, September 11, 2015, http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2018/03/113_186670.html. 300 MOFA, “2016 Diplomatic White Paper” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2016). 301 Ibid., 133. 302 Ibid.,161 – 162. 303 Ibid., 2016 Diplomatic White Paper.

North Korea nuclear threat into MIKTA in order to preserve cooperation and support for South Korea’s foreign policy initiatives.304

MIKTA had also taken development cooperation into an important matters in line with South Korea’s ODA project especially on sharing knowledge and aid effectiveness. MIKTA has established two development cooperation workshops in 2015 and 2016 which discussed the topic of financial development, aid effectiveness, the 2030 sustainable development agende, G20 development agenda and the international humanitarian summit as well as emphasized on the potential of MIKTA countries as a proactive facilitator in ensuring post-2015 development agenda. The workshops were meant to find the linkage between MIKTA countries’ interests with global development agenda.305

304 Sookjong Lee et al., “Middle Power in Action: The Evolving Nature of Diplomacy in the Age of Multilateralism,” EAI Middle Power Diplomacy Special Report (East Asia Institute, April 2015). 305 Sebastian Huang, “Exploring ‘Constructive Engagement’: MIKTA and Global Development,” Rising Powers Quarterly 2, no. 4 (2017): 66–67.

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION

South Korea academically recognized as a middle power based on the criteria that assessed its position in the world order, geographic location, normative tendency and behavior. Bearing middle power status, South Korea under Park Geun-hye administration has generated a foreign policy goal of responsible middle power that contribute to global governance, peace and development.

Through the set of foreign policy pillars as the orientation, particularly on middle power diplomacy. South Korea had create several initiatives in purpose to perform its middle power diplomacy for instance Official Development Assistance (ODA) project that emphasized on South Korea’s significance as an active donor country that contribute to foreign aid, its effectiveness and development cooperation with developing countries; green growth which in Park Geun-hye administration has focused on new energy industries and technologies for the sake of enhancing economic growth while operate its obligation of reaching Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) target on cutting gas emissions; and the creation of MIKTA.

Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey and Australia or MIKTA is an informal group of like-minded middle powers with the purpose to strenghten economic cooperation, addressing global challenges, protecting public goods and enhancing global governance in international community by multilateral cooperation. MIKTA which had contained the characteristics of middle powers has also played the role of facilitator or catalyst in taking initiatives and become a bridge between developed and developing countries for global governance reform.

MIKTA as an initiative of South Korea has become an exemplary group of middle powers that showed willingness in embarking its capacities to address global governance issues such as sustainable development, counter-terrorism, nuclear safety, economic cooperation, and international security. MIKTA had also showed

South Korea’s leadership in implementing middle power diplomacy for the purpose of securing its interests on regional and global level such as North Korean-related issues. This is possible since middle powers are working effectively as a group rather than individually and since South Korea has been limited in projecting its influence between ‘whales’ such as the United States, China, Japan and Russia, working as a group will widen the country’s diplomatic engagement. In addition, as an informal group, MIKTA has as well a flexibility in addressing high-uncertainty issue like North Korea. Thus, the resolution can always discuss further, without a procedural regulation that hampered issues that need immediate actions.

The implementation of South Korea’s middle power diplomacy in Park Geun-hye era can be recognized through the creation of MIKTA and South Korea’s leadership role in addressing significant issues which need immediate actions especially on its chairmanship in 2015. The actions such as the immediate joint statement of North Korea nuclear tests, the support for South Korea initiative in Korean peninsula trust-building process and the reunification, as well as development cooperation programs and workshops within MIKTA countries in line with South Korea’s ODA project especially on aid effectiveness and exchange knowledges. Furthermore, MIKTA had also enhance South Korea’s bilateral relations with other member countries in wide range of sectors that also become a concern within global governance. Although the results for those addressed issues are mostly through joint statements and communiques, it can be certain that MIKTA could develop into a more structured and valuable multilateral network for global governance reforms.

MIKTA has not only served as an exemplary group in the midst of other middle power groups, but also had maintain the status of middle power for South Korea, as its directly possessed the vision of South Korea’s middle power diplomacy by connecting and facilitating multilateral cooperation with and between developed and developing countries, as well as the country’s middle power diplomacy foreign policy goal which was creating global peace and development by becoming a responsible, if not reliable middle power.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Cha, Doo-won. “Building Creative Economt: The Creative Economy of the Park Geun- Hye Administration.” In Korea’s Economy, First., 30:35–37. The Korea Economic Institute of America, 2015. Chun, Chaesung. “East Asian Security and South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy.” In Transforming Global Governance with Middle Power Diplomacy: South Korea’s Role in the 21st Century, First., 17. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

Cooper, Andrew F. “Leadership, Followership, and Middle Powers in International Politics: A Reappraisal.” In Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order, First., 17–19. University of British Columbia Press, 1993.

Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994).The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research . Sage Publications, 1–3.

Efstathopoulos, Charalampos. “Middle Power Diplomacy in International Relations.” In Middle Powers in World Trade Diplomacy, First., 15–21. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

Green, Michael J. “Korean Middle Power Diplomacy and Asia’s Emerging Multilateral Architecture.” In The Korean Pivot: The Study of South Korea as a Global Power, First., 27–28. Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2017.

Holbraad, Carsten. Middle Powers in International Politics. First. The Macmillan Press, 1989.

Kim, Sunghan. “Luncheon Keynote Speech: How Is It Pursued in the G20 Framework?” In MIKTA, Middle Powers, and New Dynamics of Global Governance: The G20’s Evolving Agenda, First., 99. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

Kim, Young-mok. “Korea-U.S. on International Development Cooperation.” In The Korean Pivot: The Study of South Korea as a Middle Power, First., 47. Council of Foreign Relations, 2017.

Lee, Sookjong. “South Korea Aiming to Be an Innovative Middle Power.” In Transforming Global Governance with Middle Power Diplomacy: South Korea’s Role in the 21st Century, First., 4–6. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

Lee, Sookjong, and Hyejung Suh. “South Korea’s Middle Power Roles: Implications to Emerging Middle Powers.” In Transforming Global Governance with Middle Power Diplomacy: South Korea’s Role in the 21st Century, First., 162. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

Mo, Jongryn. “Introduction: G20, Middle Powers and Global Governance.” In MIKTA, Middle Powers, and New Dynamics of Global Governance: The G20’s Evolving Agenda, First., 1–3. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

Moon, Chung-in, and Seung-chan Boo. “Korean Foreign Policy: Park Geun-Hye Looks at China and North Korea.” In Japanese and Korean Politics: Alone and Apart from Each Other, First., 224–27. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

O’Donnell, Jill Kosch. “South Korea’s Role as Host of the Green Climate Fund: Implications for ROK Contributions to Green Growth.” In Middle-Power Korea: Contributions to the Global Agenda, First., 66–67. Council of Foreign Relations, 2015.

O’Neil, Andrew. “South Korea as a Middle Power: Global Ambitions and Looming Challenges.” In Middle-Power Korea: Contributions to the Global Agenda, First., 82. Council of Foreign Relations, 2015.

Oh, Miyeon. “Korea’s Role in Asian Energy Cooperation.” In The Korean Pivot: The Study of South Korea as a Global Power, First., 64. Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2017.

Park, Siwon. “Middle Power Cooperation for Climate Change and Green Growth.” In MIKTA, Middle Power, and New Dynamics of Global Governance, First., 63. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

Schweller, Randall E. “The Concept of Middle Power.” In The Korean Pivot: The Study of South Korea as a Global Power, First., 5. Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2017.

Snyder, Scott A. “Introduction.” In Middle-Power Korea: Contributions to the Global Agenda, First., 2–3. Council of Foreign Relations, 2015.

Watson, Iain. “Economic Democratization and Exporting the New Village Movement (Saemaul Undong).” In Foreign Aid and Emerging Powers: Asian Perspectives on Official Development Assistance, First., 235–37. Routledge, 2014.

Journals, Working Papers, Review, Magazines

Bondaz, Antoine, and Leonie Allard. “How Unique Is South Korea’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) Model?” European Asian Centre, November 2014. https://goo.gl/eekQWp.

Bradford, Colin I. “South Korea as a Middle Power in Global Governance: ‘Punching above Its Weight’ Based on National Assets and Dynamic Trajectory.” In Middle- Power Korea: Contributions to the Global Agenda, First., 10. Council of Foreign Relations, 2015.

Brockie, Chris. “South Korea’s Ebola Response.” The Diplomat, October 31, 2014. https://thediplomat.com/2014/10/south-koreas-ebola-response/.

Chang, J.S. “S. Korea Pledges Additional $5 Million to Tackle Ebola Virus.” Yonhap News, September 27, 2014. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/full/2014/09/27/26/1200000000AEN201409270002 00315F.html.

Connell, Sean P. “Creating Korea’s Future Economy: Innovation. Growth, and Korea-US Economic Relations.” East West Center, no. 111 (January 2014): 3–5. Cooper, Andrew F. “MIKTA and the Global Projection of Middle Powers: Toward a Summit of Their Own?” Oxford University Press 1, no. 1 (2015): 97.

Cooper, Andrew F. “Recalibrating Middle Power Diplomacy: Republic of Korea and Canada in Comparative Perspective.” East Asia Institute, no. 11 (February 2015): 7– 9.

Easley, Leif-Eric, and Kyuri Park. “South Korea’s Mismatched Diplomacy in Asia: Middle Power Identity, Interests, and Foreign Policy.” Palgrave Macmillan, 2017, 4. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-017-0073-5.

Engel, Benjamin. “MIKTA and Middle Power Diplomacy in the South China Sea.” The Diplomat, August 15, 2015. https://thediplomat.com/2015/08/mikta-and-middle- power-diplomacy-in-the-south-china-sea/.

Faure, Anais. “2016: A Pivotal Year for South Korean Diplomacy.” The Diplomat, May 24, 2016. https://thediplomat.com/2016/05/2016-a-pivotal-year-for-south-korean- diplomacy/11/.

Fiori, Antonio. “Whither the Inter-Korean Dialogue? Assessing Seoul’s Trustpolitik and Its Future Prospects.” Instituto Affari Interzionale, March 2017.

Flake, Gordon, and Wang Xu. “MIKTA: The Searching for a Strategic Rationale.” Perth USAsia Centre, January 2017, 5.

Holbraad, Carsten. “The Role of Middle Powers.” Sage Publications 6, no. 1 (March 1, 1971): 81. Huang, Sebastian. “Exploring ‘Constructive Engagement’: MIKTA and Global Development.” Rising Powers Quarterly 2, no. 4 (2017): 66.

John, Jojin V. “Becoming and Being a Middle Power: Exploring a New Dimension of South Korea’s Foreign Policy.” Sage Publications 50, no. 4 (2014): 330.

Jun, Jihye. “Defense Forum Focuses on Northeast Asian Stability.” Korea Times, September 11, 2015. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2018/03/113_186670.html.

Kandemir, Pinar, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Byung-se Yun, José Antonio Meade Kuribreña, Retno. L. P Marsudi, and Julie Bishop. “21st Century Global Governance: Rise of the Rest – Cross-Regional Networks.” DailySabah, December 21, 2014. https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/2014/12/21/21st-century-global-governance- rise-of-the-rest-crossregional-networks.

Kim, Euikon. “Korea’s Middle-Power Diplomacy in the 21st Century.” Pacific Focus 30, no. 1 (April 2015): 5–6.

Kim, Heajin. “Northeast Asia, Trust and the NAPCI.” The Diplomat, December 18, 2015. https://thediplomat.com/2015/12/northeast-asia-trust-and-the-napci/.

Kim, Kwan S. “THE KOREAN MIRACLE (1962-1980) REVISITED: MYTHS AND REALITIES IN STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT.” Kellogg Institute, no. 166 (November 1991): 3–5.

Lee, Kyungsuk. “New Approach of South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: Focusing on Global Agenda Setting.” Association for Research, Innovation and Social Science, Global Politics Review, 2, no. 2 (October 2016): 47.

Lee, Sookjong. “South Korea as New Middle Power Seeking Complex Diplomacy.” East Asia Institute, no. 25 (September 2012): 15–16.

Mo, Jongryn. “South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: A Case of Growing Compatibility between Regional and Global Roles.” Sage Publications 71, no. 4 (2016): 589–91.

Moon, Chung-in, and Seung-chan Boo. “Coping with China’s Rise: Domestic Politics and Strategic Adjustment in South Korea.” Sage Publications 2, no. 1 (2016): 8–10.

Noland, Marcus. “South Korea: The Backwater That Boomed.” Foreign Affairs 93, no. 1 (January 2014): 17.

Oh, Grace. “Seoul’s Middle-Power Diplomacy to Lead to Peaceful Inter-Korean Unification.” Yonhap News, November 28, 2013. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/11/28/5/0301000000AEN2013112800 8500315F.html.

Osamu, Koike. “Deployment of the THAAD System to South Korea—Background and Issues.” Commentatory. Japan: The National Institute of Defense Studies, March 28, 2017.

Ozkan, Mehmet. “A NEW APPROACH TO GLOBAL SECURITY: PIVOTAL MIDDLE POWERS AND GLOBAL POLITICS.” Research Paper, University of Johannesburg, 2006. http://sam.gov.tr/wp- content/uploads/2012/02/MehmetOzkan1.pdf.

Pinkston, Daniel A., and Clint Work. “Park Geun-Hye’s Visit and the US-ROK Alliance.” The Diplomat, October 26, 2015. https://thediplomat.com/2015/10/park-geun-hyes- visit-and-the-us-rok-alliance/.

Pollack, Jonathan D. “Order at Risk: Japan, Korea and the Northeast Asian Paradox.” The Brookings Institution, September 2016. https://www.brookings.edu/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/fp_20160901_northeast_asian_paradox_v2.pdf.

Ravenhill, John. “Cycles of Middle Power Activism: Constraint and Choice in Australian and Canada Foreign Policies.” Australia National University Press 52, no. 3 (1998): 312.

Robertson, Jeffrey. “Middle Power Definitions: Confusion Reigns Supreme.” Routledge 71, no. 4 (March 2, 2017): 6–12. Schiavon, Jorge A., and Diego Dominguez. “Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and Australia (MIKTA): Middle, Regional, and Constructive Powers Providing Global Governance.” Wiley Online Library 3, no. 3 (2016): 6.

Seek Development. “South Korea: Donor Profile.” Donor Tracker, August 2017, 3–11.

Smith, Sheila A. “New Impulses for Security Cooperation in Northeast Asia.” Council of Foreign Relations, September 2009, 1–3.

Snyder, Scott A. “U.S. Rebalancing Strategy and South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy.” East Asia Institute, no. 12 (February 27, 2015): 2–3.

Snyder, Scott A. “South Korean Identity Under Park Geun-Hye: Crosscurrents & Choppy Waters.” Korea Economic Institute of America, 2016, 110–11.

Szczudlik-Tatar, Justyna. “The New South Korean President’s Foreign Policy Directions.” The Pollish Institute of International Affairs 21, no. 474 (February 2013): 1–3.

Tayfur, M. Fathir. “Main Approaches to the Study of Foreign Policy: A Review.” METU Studies in Development 21, no. 1 (1994): 114–17.

Tiezzi, Shannon. “With Trilateral Summit, China-Japan-Korea Cooperation ‘Completely Restored.’” The Diplomat, November 3, 2015. https://thediplomat.com/2015/11/with-trilateral-summit-china-japan-korea- cooperation-completely-restored/.

Unal, Ali. “MIKTA Provides Fresh Impetus to Global Governance, Says South Korean FM.” DailySabah, May 26, 2015. https://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2015/05/26/mikta-provides-fresh-impetus- to-global-governance-says-south-korean-fm.

Valubas, Felicity, and Duncan Snidal. “Organization without Delegation: Informal Intergovernmental Organizations (IIGOs) and the Spectrum of Intergovernmental Arrangements.” Springer Science + Business Media 8, no. 2 (January 2013): 194–96.

Williams, Brock R., Mark E. Manyin, Remy Jurenas, and Michaela D. Platzer. “The U.S.- South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implementation.” Congressional Research Service, no. RL34330 (December 16, 2014): 6.

Yoon, Sukjoon. “Middle-Power Cooperation between South Korea and India: Hedging the Dominance of the Great Powers.” Center for Strategic and International Studies, no. 10 (January 28, 2014): 1–3.

Yul, Sohn, and Won-taek Kang. “South Korea in 2013: Meeting New Challenges with the Old Guard.” University of California Press 54, no. 1 (2014): 142–43.

Yun, Byung-se. “President Park Geun-Hye’s Trustpolitik: A New Framework for South Korea’s Foreign Policy.” Global Asia, 2013.

Official Statements/Documents

A.n. “Full Text of Park’s Inauguration Speech.” Yonhap News, February 25, 2013. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/02/25/95/0301000000AEN20130225 001500315F.HTML

A.n. “Trust-Building Process on the Korean Peninsula.” Ministry of Unification Republic of Korea, 2013. https://goo.gl/84YiNS.

A.n. “Remarks by President Obama and President Park of South Korea in a Joint Press Conference.” Whitehouse.gov, May 7, 2013. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/07/remarks- president-obama-and-president-park-south-korea-joint-press-confe.

A.n. “Joint Fact Sheet: The United States-Republic of Korea Alliance: A Global Partnership.” Whitehouse.gov, April 25, 2014. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/25/joint-fact-sheet- united-states-republic-korea-alliance-global-partnershi

A.n. “Joint Statement on the Ebola Outbreak and Global Health.” Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2014. http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/international- organisations/mikta/Pages/joint-statement-by-mikta-on-the-ebola-outbreak-and- global-health-20140925.aspx

A.n. “MIKTA Speakers’ Consultation.” MIKTA, July 15, 2015. http://www.mikta.org/about/vision.php

A.n. “Joint Fact Sheet: The United States-Republic of Korea Alliance: Shared Values, New Frontiers.” Whitehouse.gov, October 16, 2015. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/16/joint-fact-sheet- united-states-republic-korea-alliance-shared-values-new

A.n. “Full Text of Joint Declaration of Trilateral Summit.” Official Declaration. Yonhap News, November 1, 2015. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2015/11/01/0301000000AEN2015110100 3900315.html

A.n. “MIKTA Vision Statement.” MIKTA, 2015. http://www.mikta.org/about/vision.php

A.n. “Seoul Statement: MIKTA Speakers’ Consultation 2015.” MIKTA, 2015. http://www.mikta.org/document/state.php?at=view&idx=138

A.n. “Second MIKTA Speakers’ Consultation - Open Parliaments for Open Government.” MIKTA, December 20, 2016. http://www.mikta.org/network/speakers.php?pn=1&sn=&st=&sc=&sd=&sdate=&e date=&sfld=&sort=&at=view&idx=252

A.n. “Human Development Reports.” United Nations Development Programme, 2017. http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI

Cho, Taeyul. “2nd Vice Minister’s Welcoming Remarks at the 6th Korea Foundation Global Seminar View.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, November 21, 2013. https://goo.gl/niuHVt.

MOFA. “2014 Diplomatic White Paper.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2014.

MOFA. “Remarks by Minister of Foreign Affairs at 7th World Policy Conference.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, December 8, 2014.

MOFA. “2015 Diplomatic White Paper.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2015.

MOFA. “2016 Diplomatic White Paper.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2016.

Online Sources/Web Sources

A.n. “Maintaining South Korea’s Middle-Power Status.” Economy Watch, December 15, 2014. http://www.economywatch.com/features/Maintaining-South-Koreas-Middle- Power-Status.12-15-14.html.

A.n. “Obama, South Korean President Reaffirm U.S.-South Korea Alliance.” U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, September 26, 2016. https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/935222/obama-south-korean- president-reaffirm-us-south-korea-alliance/.

A.n. “Second MIKTA Foreign Ministers’ Meeting Takes Place – MIKTA Foreign Ministers Adopt Joint Communiqué on the Situation in North Korea and Agree to Hold Next Meeting in the ROK View.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, April 5, 2014. https://goo.gl/hLkTwK.

A.n. “Foreign Minister Chairs the 4th MIKTA Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on the Sidelines of the G20 Summit View.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, November 16, 2014. https://goo.gl/5rgp1S.

A.n. “MIKTA Holds Its 7th Foreign Ministers’ Meeting.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, September 22, 2016. https://goo.gl/bSJgrH.

A.n. “6th MIKTA Foreign Ministers’ Meeting Held View.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea, 2016. https://goo.gl/d2bQDk.

A.n. “SIPRI Fact Sheet.” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2016. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/Trends-world-military-expenditure- 2016.pdf.

A.n. “US Military Bases in South Korea.” Military Bases, 2017. https://militarybases.com/overseas/south-korea/.

A.n. “World GDP Ranking 2017 | GDP by Country | Data and Charts - Knoema.Com.” Knoema, 2017. https://knoema.com//nwnfkne/world-gdp-ranking-2017-gdp-by- country-data-and-charts.

A.n. “The World Factbook - Central Intelligence Agency.” CIA World Factbook, July 2017. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html.

A.n. “The World Factbook — South Korea.” CIA World Factbook, July 2017. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ks.html.

A.n. “The World Bank In Republic of Korea - Overview.” Text/HTML. World Bank. Accessed February 21, 2018. http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/korea/overview.

Cha, Victor, and Dong-Shik Shin. “2016 Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Forum.” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2015. https://www.csis.org/programs/korea-chair/korea-chair-project-archive/2016- northeast-asia-peace-and-cooperation-forum.

Chen, Songchan, and Sulong Chu. “Is America Declining?” Brookings, November 11, 2011. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/is-america-declining/.

Cheong, Wa Dae. “Joint Declaration in Commemoration of the 60th Anniversary of the Alliance between R.O.K & the U.S.” Korea.net, May 8, 2013. http://www.korea.net/Government/Briefing-Room/Press- Releases/view?articleId=2159.

Evans, Gareth. “Middle Power Diplomacy.” Gareth Evans, June 29, 2011. http://www.gevans.org/speeches/speech441.html.

Friedman, George. “These 3 Maps Explain North Korea’s Strategy.” Business Insider, April 1, 2016. http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-2016-3.

Hwang, Balbina Y. “The Limitations of “Global Korea’s” Middle Power.” Accessed March 8, 2018. http://www.theasanforum.org/the-limitations-of-global-koreas-middle- power/.

Hwang, Jaeho. “The ROK’s China Policy under Park Geun-Hye: A New Model of ROK- PRC Relations.” Brookings, November 30, 2001. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-roks-china-policy-under-park-geun-hye-a- new-model-of-rok-prc-relations/.

Jeon, Han, and Jae-un Lim. “President Stresses Importance of Trust in Int’l Politics, Diplomacy.” Korea.net, May 7, 2015. http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/policies/view?articleId=127332.

Kim, Sunyoung. “South Korea Doubles down on Green Growth.” East Asia Forum (blog), December 25, 2015. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/12/25/south-korea-doubles- down-on-green-growth/.

Lee, Shin-hwa. “South Korea’s Middle Power Multilateral Diplomacy: Optimistic and Pessimistic Views.” The Asan Forum, December 27, 2015. http://www.theasanforum.org/south-koreas-middle-power-multilateral-diplomacy- optimistic-and/.

Park, Ihn-Hwi. “The Park Geun-Hye Presidency and the Future of the U.S.-South Korea Alliance.” Council on Foreign Relations, March 11, 2013. https://www.cfr.org/report/park-geun-hye-presidency-and-future-us-south-korea- alliance.

Park, Kang-ho. “Korea’s Role in Global Development.” Brookings, November 30, 2001. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/koreas-role-in-global-development/.

Sneider, Daniel C. “Advancing U.S.-Japan-ROK Trilateral Cooperation: A U.S. Perspective.” The National Bureau of Asian Research, March 30, 2016. http://nbr.org/research/activity.aspx?id=662.

Snyder, Scott A. “Korean Middle Power Diplomacy: The Establishment of MIKTA.” Council on Foreign Relations, October 1, 2013. https://www.cfr.org/blog/korean- middle-power-diplomacy-establishment-mikta.

Stokreef, Mark. “A Rising Middle Power Facing a Strategic Dilemma: South Korea and East Asian Security.” Atlantische Commissie, April 5, 2014. https://www.atlcom.nl/upload/AP_5_2014_Stokreef.pdf.

Van de Pas, Bridgitte. “Infographic: Power on the World Stage.” Statista Infographics. Accessed March 10, 2018. https://www.statista.com/chart/8592/power-on-the- world-stage/.

World Bank. “Gross Domestic Products 2016.” World Bank, 2017. https://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf.

Yoon, Sojung. “Korea-U.S. Alliance Opens a New Era of Hope,” May 8, 2013. http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/policies/view?articleId=107794.

Yoon, Sojung. “President Park Meets with MIKTA Speakers,” July 7, 2015. http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/policies/view?articleId=128581.

Reports

A.n. “South-North Dialogue in Korea.” Ministry of Unification Republic of Korea, 2015.

A.n. “Towards a New Asia of Trust and Harmony.” Annual Report. Jeju Forum for Peace and Prosperity. Jeju Island, South Korea: Jeju Peace Institute, 2015.

A.n. “The Human Capital Report 2016.” Insight. World Economic Forum, 2016. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/HCR2016_Main_Report.pdf

Kim, Yulan, and Moonjoong Cha. “Introduction to the Knowledge Sharing Program (KSP) of Korea.” Korea Economic Institute, November 2012. http://keia.org/sites/default/files/publications/kei_koreacompass_tcha_final.pdf.

Lee, Seungjoo. “MIKTA and Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: Opportunities and Challenges.” Issue Briefing. East Asia Institute, April 19, 2016. http://eai.or.kr/data/bbs/eng_report/2016041818143365.pdf.

Lee, Sookjong, Chaesung Chun, Hyejung Suh, and Patrick Thomsen. “Middle Power in Action: The Evolving Nature of Diplomacy in the Age of Multilateralism.” EAI Middle Power Diplomacy Special Report. East Asia Institute, April 2015.

Shin, Gi-wook, Karl Eikenberry, Thomas Fingar, Daniel C. Sneider, and David Straub. “The North Korea Problem and the Necessity for South Korean Leadership.” Policy Report. Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, March 4, 2013.

Yoo, Changmin. “Emission Trading: South Korea Steams Ahead.” Environmental Finance Publications. Seoul: PwC Seoul, 2012.

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/sustainability/publications/assets/pwc-emmisions- trading-south-korea.pdf.

Yul, Sohn. “Searching for a New Identity: South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy.” Policy Brief. FRIDE, December 2015.