Strategic Asia 2007-08: Domestic Political Change and Grand Strategy

The Two Koreas: Making Grand Strategyamid Changing Domestic Politics

executive summary This chapter explores the post–Cold War grand strategies of South Korea and North Korea with emphasis on the effects of external factors on domestic politics, the impact of domestic politics on grand strategies, and the policy implications for Northeast Asia in general and the U.S. in particular. main argument: Despite their historical “shrimp among whales” identity, both Koreas have found new opportunities to take strategic initiatives that would not have been possible during the Cold War. South Korea is now a pivotal player in Northeast Asian economics, security, and culture, while North Korea has pursued a survival-centered strategy well despite increasing challenges on both domestic and external fronts. Upcoming leadership changes within both countries and the growing influence of domestic political forces on strategy formation suggest the Koreas’ strategic trajectories in the next five years will continue to evolve. policy implications: • If the six-party process is allowed to continue, then there may be scope for Seoul’s two-legged grand strategy of globalization and engagement with the North to continue. • If the U.S. continues to view North Korea through a Manichean lens and the sanctions regime continues, then Pyongyang could accelerate its survival tactics or even step up its nuclear program. • If the U.S. cooperates with Beijing, Seoul, Tokyo, and Moscow to address the issue of common security, then the chances for long-term stability on the Korean Peninsula will be increased. Korea The Two Koreas: Making Grand Strategy amid Changing Domestic Politics Samuel S. Kim This chapter explores the grand strategies of South Korea (Republic of Korea, ROK) and North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK) in the post–Cold War era. The chapter poses and addresses three key questions. First, what has been the interplay of external factors (three global transformations—the end of the Cold War, “the third wave” of democratization, and globalization) and the making of grand strategies in Seoul and Pyongyang? Second, what explains the dynamics of Seoul’s and Pyongyang’s domestic politics from which these grand strategies have emerged? Third, what are the policy implications of the two Koreas’ evolving grand strategies for Northeast Asia in general and the United States in particular? Despite the conventional realist wisdom about the security predicament of the weak in the region of the strong, both Koreas (albeit more for South Korea) have found new opportunities—and challenges—for taking new strategic initiatives and assuming new national roles and identities that would not have been possible during the Cold War years. The synergy of local, regional, and global transformations in the post–Cold War era has now brought to an end the proverbial identity and role as the helpless “shrimp among whales.” South Korea is now a pivotal middle-power player in Northeast Asian politics, economy, and culture, while North Korea has survived despite multiple external shocks and internal woes and has played the nuclear card to enhance its asymmetrical bargaining power. South Korea has made Samuel S. Kim is Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University’s Weatherhead East Asian Institute. He can be reached at . 114 • Strategic Asia 2007–08 several subtle but significant policy shifts. Once fearing allied abandonment, Seoul now fears allied entrapment in the U.S.-ROK alliance. South Korea has also fundamentally shifted its policy toward North Korea, away from confrontation toward functional engagement. Pyongyang’s strategy has faute de mieux been forced to shift from Kim Il-sung’s “magnificent obsession” (i.e., the quest for absolute international legitimation and reunification on his terms) to a security-cum-survival strategy. Although important in the successful enactment of preferred national roles or identities, capabilities convey little meaning unless they are parsed in the context of the domestic politics that define the parameters within which political leaders mobilize national resources in the pursuit of core national values, interests, and identities. Any assessment of the ultimate significance of the new roles adopted by Seoul and Pyongyang in the conduct of their post–Cold War international relations in Asia in general and Northeast Asia in particular therefore requires an understanding of their grand strategies. “Grand strategy” is a concept associated with “great powers.” As such the term is largely absent in the literature of Korean and small-state foreignpolicy studies.1 Nonetheless both Koreas can be said to have developed grand strategy by dint of both their pivotal geographical location and strategic behavior...