Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Economic development, state power, and foreign policy
- 3 Inter-Korean relations: confrontation, economic exchanges, and the nuclear crisis
- 4 South Korea and the United States: from dependency to partnership
- 5 South Korea, Russia, and China: from adversaries to economic partners
- 6 South Korea and Japan: an ambivalent relationship
- 7 South Korea and the European Union: evolving cooperation and competition
- 8 South Korea and India: opportunities and obstacles
- 9 South Korea and the developing world: Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia
- 10 Contributing to the international community: from consumer to producer
- 11 Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
3 - Inter-Korean relations: confrontation, economic exchanges, and the nuclear crisis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2014
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Economic development, state power, and foreign policy
- 3 Inter-Korean relations: confrontation, economic exchanges, and the nuclear crisis
- 4 South Korea and the United States: from dependency to partnership
- 5 South Korea, Russia, and China: from adversaries to economic partners
- 6 South Korea and Japan: an ambivalent relationship
- 7 South Korea and the European Union: evolving cooperation and competition
- 8 South Korea and India: opportunities and obstacles
- 9 South Korea and the developing world: Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia
- 10 Contributing to the international community: from consumer to producer
- 11 Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
Since the division of the country, the relationship between the two Koreas has fluctuated. In general, the inter-Korean relationship can be divided into four different periods based on the characteristics of the relationship: (1) antagonistic period: from the Syngman Rhee administration to the Chun Doo-hwan government, 1948–1987; (2) period of coexistence: the Roh Tae-woo and the Kim Young-sam administrations, 1988–1997; (3) engagement policy period: the Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun administrations, 1998–2007; and (4) conditional engagement policy period: the Lee Myung-bak and the Park Geun-hye administrations, 2008 to present.
Four factors have affected South Korea’s policy toward North Korea: economic development, democratization in South Korea, the end of the Cold War, and North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Among them, South Korea’s economic development played a key role in changing its approach toward North Korea because economic development led to democratization, which gave way to political elite changes and subsequent policy changes. Furthermore, democratically elected leaders implemented their North Korean policy with confidence thanks to political legitimacy and economic superiority. In this chapter, we study the effects of economic development on South Korea’s policy toward North Korea.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- South Korea's RiseEconomic Development, Power, and Foreign Relations, pp. 28 - 49Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2014
References
, The End of North Korea (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute Press, 1999), 26Google Scholar
, “Unification Diplomacy,” in (ed.), Korea’s Foreign Policy (Seoul: Orum Publishers, 1998), 235–60 (in Korean)Google Scholar
, American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1967 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1967)Google Scholar
, “North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons: Implications for the Nuclear Ambitions of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan,” Asia Policy 3 (January 2007): 75–104 (93–94)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Two Koreas’ Unification Policy and Fifty Years of the Unification Movement (Seoul: Sa-Gyejeol, 1996) (in Korean)Google Scholar
and , “Inter-Korean and Cross-Strait Relations through the Window of Regional Integration Theories,” Asian Survey 51:5 (September/October 2011): 785–811Google Scholar
and , Sunshine in Korea: The South Korean Debate over Policies toward North Korea (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Center for Asia Pacific Policy, 2002)Google Scholar
, “The Political Economy of Defense Spending in South Korea,” Journal of Peace Research 34 (November 1996): 483–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Future Perspective on South Korea’s Foreign Relations,” Asian Survey 20:11 (November 1980): 1155–56Google Scholar
and , “The Sunshine Policy Revisited: An Analysis of South Korea’s Policy toward North Korea,” in and (eds.), Conflict in Asia: Korea-China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003), 92–93Google Scholar
, “Unification Policies of Two Koreas and Outlook for Unity,” Korea Focus 8:6 (2000): 90–113Google Scholar
, “Korean Unification: The Zero-Sum Past and the Precarious Future,” Asian Perspective 21:3 (Winter 1997): 63–92Google Scholar
, Peace and Cooperation: White Paper on Korean Unification (Seoul: Ministry of Unification, 2001), 21–22Google Scholar
, “North Korea and the US State Sponsors of Terrorism List,” Pacific Focus 24:1 (April 2009): 85–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Democratization in South Korea and Inter-Korean Relations,” Pacific Affairs 76:1 (Spring 2003): 9–35Google Scholar
, “South Korea’s Kim Young Sam Government: Political Agendas,” Asian Survey 36:5 (May 1996): 511–22 (513)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , “South Korea’s Foreign Policy toward Korean Issues: The Feasibility for Independent Variable and its Limits,” Korea and World Politics 27:4 (Winter 2011): 40–42 (in Korean)Google Scholar
and , “South Korea’s Sunshine Policy and the Inter-Korean Security Relations,” Korean Journal of Defense Analysis 13:1 (Autumn 2001): 79–101 (80)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Kim Dae-jung’s Policies on North Korea: Achievements and Future Goals (Seoul: Yangdong, 1999) (in Korean)Google Scholar
, Global Security Watch: Korea: A Reference Handbook (Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2008)Google Scholar
, A Moment of Crisis: Jimmy Carter, the Power of a Peacemaker, and North Korea’s Nuclear Ambitions (New York: Public Affairs, 2006), 57–58Google Scholar
, “Honor Guard,” in (ed.), The Two Koreas, Reference Shelf 76 (New York: H.W. Wilson, 2004), 88–91Google Scholar
and , “Changing National Identity and Security Perception in South Korea,” in , , and (eds.), Korean Security in a Changing East Asia (Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2007), 192–206Google Scholar
, “Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation: The Need for Reciprocity – Does Lopsided Cooperation Continue to Soothe North’s Bluffing Mentality?” International Journal of Korean Studies 12:1 (Fall/Winter 2008): 101–26 (102)Google Scholar
, “The Dispute over the Northern Limit Line: Toward a Negotiated Settlement,” Korea Observer 39:4 (Winter 2008): 507–37Google Scholar
, “Dialogue with Pyongyang Still the Way to Go, Says Seoul; Minister Repeats Government Stand that Nuclear Crisis Cannot Be Resolved by Sanctions or Military Force,” Straits Times, June 28, 2003Google Scholar
, “Playing by the Rules in Korea: Lessons Learned in the North-South Economic Engagement,” Asian Survey 43:2 (March/April 2003): 305–28 (308)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , “Sanctioning North Korea: The Political Economy of Denuclearization and Proliferation,” Asian Survey 50:3 (May/June 2010): 539–68 (541)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “South Korean Strategic Thinking toward North Korea: The Evolution of the Engagement Policy and its Impact on US-ROK Relations,” Asian Survey 50:2 (March/April 2010): 335–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Inter-Korean Relations and the Future of the US-ROK Alliance,” International Journal of Korean Studies 10:2 (Fall/Winter 2006): 75–106Google Scholar
, The Peninsula Questions: A Chronicle of the Second Korean Nuclear Crisis (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2007), 215Google Scholar
, “South Korea’s Squeeze Play,” Washington Quarterly 28:4 (Autumn 2005): 93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Challenges and Opportunities: The Participatory Government’s Policy toward North Korea,” East Asian Review 16:2 (Summer 2004): 97–110Google Scholar
, “Lee Myung-bak’s Foreign Policy: A 250-Day Assessment,” Korean Journal of Defense Analysis 21:1 (March 2011): 85–102 (85)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “A Holiday in North Korea amid Cross-Border Tensions,” New York Times, April 15, 2011Google Scholar