뉴스레터

Editor's Note: Professor Lee Chae-jin, a renowned scholar of international politics residing in the U.S., came to stay in Seoul in November this year as a short-term visiting professor to lecture on international politics at the Korea National Diplomatic Academy. The NAHF invited Professor Lee for an in-depth interview. At an interview with Senior Research Fellow Bae Jin-su at NAHF, Professor Lee Chae-jin reviewed the international political landscape surrounding the Korean peninsula from a historical perspective and gave an outlook on the future.

Bae Jin-ju Looking at international politics on earth, I think that changes in the power structure of international politics are taking place in Northeast Asia. Please give us an overview of the Korean peninsula's position and significance in the history of international politics from a long-term historical perspective.

Lee Chae-jin The conditions unique to the Korean peninsula in international politics, that is its geographical conditions, need to be considered. The geopolitical location of the Korean peninsula could bring tragedies or opportunities to the Korean people. It can be said that the division of the Korean peninsula was due to the influence of the international community and the internal failure to properly cope with external influences. The Cold War structure still lingers on the Korean peninsula. It can be said that the geographical conditions, combined with the historical conditions, have created the current situation of the Korean peninsula. In a bigger picture, there has been a drastic change in the power balance in Northeast Asia; while the U.S. has fallen in relative status, China has emerged as a remarkable economic power. In addition, Japan has declined relatively over the last two decades. In other words, the balance of power between China and Japan has been upset. This has made the position of the Korean peninsula even more important.

Bae Jin-ju You have spent a long period of time in the U.S. analyzing the Korean peninsula and its surrounding situations. Please explain what the U.S. policy toward the Korean peninsula has been, and is now.

Lee Chae-jin Since the end of the Pacific War, the U.S. has been the country that held the most important key to the destiny of the Korean peninsula. The Soviet Union also had big influences on the Korean peninsula in the past. But now, the former Soviet Union (Russia) has already weakened, whereas China is on the rise. The U.S. still remains as a country that can determine the destiny of the Korean peninsula. Over a long period of time, the U.S. foreign policy has been in a conflict between realism and idealism. Realism is a policy line that applies when legal rationality is not permitted in world order. Realists believe that the U.S. should develop power and deal with world affairs for itself. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan are recent examples of realists. Idealism, on the other hand, is a set of beliefs that human beings are rational and peace-oriented, and that nations can also cooperate with one another, and it is based on optimism. Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton is an idealist. What theory is the recent Obama administration based on? This administration adopts a pragmatic method which coordinates with a balance between the idealism and realism from the past. Obama has been always a good negotiator. He can take a hard line (realism) or a soft line (realism) depending on the situation.

Bae Jin-ju Does the U.S. policy toward the Korean peninsula vary depending on whether the Republican or Democratic Party comes to power?

Lee Chae-jin Generally, the Democratic Party's policy toward the Korean peninsula is known to be liberal, whereas the Republican Party's conservative. However, since the two parties have many things in common, a change in the ruling party (or president) does not change the ultimate national interests of the U.S.. But it may change the way in which the national interests are realized. While the U.S. administration tries to change their policy toward the Korean peninsula, it actually does not change much. For example, in its later years, the Bush administration used a policy toward Korean peninsula that was similar to the one used during the Clinton administration, although its early ABC (Anything But Clinton) strategy deliberated avoided any policies adopted by Clinton. Whether Democratic or Republican, the U.S. administration tends to revert to moderate policy in the end.

Bae Jin-ju The Obama administration is now in the second term. Please explain its policy toward the Korean peninsula. How do you assess Obama's policy toward the Korean peninsula so far, and how do you expect it to change in coming years?

Professor Lee Chae-jin

Lee Chae-jin During the first term of the Obama administration, economy had priority, and foreign policy became relatively less important. On the top of the priority list in foreign policy were post-war affairs in Iraq and withdrawal of the U.S. troops from Afghanistan. And the next item down the list was to fight international terrorism in general and arrest and execute Osama bin Laden in particular. The third priority was to seek peace in the Middle East in general and in Israel and Palestine in particular.
The U.S. is using a set of policies in Asia that will establish a new relationship with China and boost the declining power of Japan. The first term of the Obama administration may be characterized by 'strategic patience' or 'strategic vagueness.' During that term, the Obama administration didn't present any initiative or blueprint in the policy toward the Korean peninsula, and only exhibited 'strategic vagueness' by deliberately adopting vague policies. While the past Bush administration had called North Korea one of the 'axes of evil,' Obama avoided making such extreme statements and adopted vague policies. At the same time, the first-term Obama administration wanted Korea to take the initiative in dealing with Korean peninsula affairs. In other words, they wanted Korea on the 'driver's seat of international politics' and the U.S. on the passenger's seat or back seat. While there were small-scale agreements made between the U.S. and North Korea, there was little progress in Korean peninsula affairs.
Having successfully secured a second term, Obama is now, first of all, freed from the pressure to be reelected. He was reelected in part because there were no serious issues on the Korean peninsula over the first four years of his first-term administration. With the 'pressure to be reelected' gone, the second-term Obama administration is likely to make policies freely. In reality, however, the Republicans as a majority of the House of Representatives can be a drag on Obama. Sooner or later, the Obama administration will start trying to accumulate achievements that will be recognized in history. For any U.S. administration, the last two years in office are always important. Those American presidents who serve consecutive terms in a total of eight years try to leave behind them their own legacy. In other words, they are conscious about how they will be assessed in history. For instance, Reagan's policy toward North Korea was based on traditional anti-communism, but he made it flexible in his later years in office. Carter tried to arrange a summit between the two Koreas during the last two years in office, but without success. He also tried to invite Kim Il-sung to the U.S. Clinton sought a summit between North Korea and the U.S. in 2000. Clinton even tried to visit Pyeongyang himself. Bush made considerable changes to the U.S. policy toward North Korea from 2007 to 2008. As we don't know yet how Obama will adjust the policy during the last two days of his term, we should keep an eye on it with keen interest.

Bae Jin-ju Let us now move on to China affairs. Please give us an overview of the relationship between Korea and China from a historical perspective. And how do you think Korea should lead its relationship with China in the future?

Lee Chae-jin Sino-Korean relations in Asia are facing a big change. During the Korean War, China was directly involved in the war and in hostile relations with South Korea. China adopted the policy toward Korea by which they would endorse and support North Korea only. Consequently, China entered into a mutual defense treaty with North Korea in 1961. By 1992, China had recognized the Republic of Korea, putting an end to the hostile relations. The year 1992 marked a big turning point for China and Korea as each recognized the legitimacy of the other. Since then, China has used two Korea policies for the last twenty-one years (1992-2013). While maintaining military/diplomatic relations with North Korea, China has maintained efficiency in its relations with South Korea as well. In other words, China has well 'managed' North and South Korea.
In terms of strategy, China maintains the mutual defense treaty with North Korea, but whether they will implement it faithfully or not is questionable for now. In other words, it is doubtful whether China will assist North Korea immediately if North Korea is under attack from another country. Scholars are debating the validity of this defense treaty. In terms of economy, South Korea is much too dependent on China. South Korea is the largest trade partner of China. American scholars think that South Korea's serious dependency on China could cause trouble on diplomatic and military fronts. Given its severe economic dependency on China, South Korea cannot adopt a flexible policy toward China.
As for North Korea, its dependency on China is even more serious. North Korea relies on China for seventy to eighty percent of its external trade. Worse, this figure does not even include cross-border trade that usually escapes statistics. Economically speaking, North Korea is already a part of China's economic sphere. South Korea needs to gradually decrease North Korea's dependency on China because China could use economic relations as a means of foreign policy. As a recent example, when China had a dispute with Japan over Diaoyu dao (Senkaku Islands) a few years ago, China made Japan surrender by banning the export of rare-earth resources to Japan. When the Japanese authorities arrested Chinese sailors, China demanded that Japan should release them. Japan threatened to punish the Chinese sailors, but eventually released and sent them back to China, having yielded to China's pressure. The Chinese sailors who returned to China were treated like heroes. Japan has diversified their channels for importing rare-earth resources ever since.

Bae Jin-ju Please give us an overview of Korea-Japan relations from historical/long-term perspectives. And how do you think Korea should lead its relationship with Japan in the future?

Lee Chae-jin Speaking from a long-term perspective, I am sorry that Korea-Japan relations have worsened. This will not benefit the national interests of Korea. If certain conditions mature, improving Korea-Japan relations will benefit the national interests of Korea in the long run. Given any chance, the bilateral relations should be improved. Unfortunately, however, Japan doesn't seem to provide opportunities for improving the relations.
In my opinion, it is not good for Korea and China to make any attempt to form an anti-Japan bond or even give the impression to make such an attempt. Joining forces with China to put pressure on Japan is not good, either. Korea needs to assume a little bit vague attitude toward Japan for now. As for with China, Korea should maintain one-to-one relations and should not consider trying to use this country as a lever. Speaking from a media's perspective, I don't think it is necessary for the Korean media to go along with the Chinese media's nationalistic reports. It is not advisable for Korea to join hands with China simply because it doesn't like Japan. Korea must remain cool in conducting its relations with Japan.

Bae Jin-ju.
Senior Research Fellow at NAHF

Bae Jin-ju As a political scientist studying in the U.S., what do you think about the Korean community of political science or international political science?

Lee Chae-jin Korean political scientists are excellent. They either teach or conduct research at universities. They also produce many books or papers of high quality. I am proud of them. But I feel that Korean scholars should be focused more on their own areas of expertise. A particular problem with many college professors is that they are dabbling in a number of areas rather than focused on their own areas of expertise. For example, I've seen a few Korean political scientists, though they are experts in China, comment on European affairs. I believe that Korean scholars should become internationally competitive by developing their expertise further. I also hope that Korean scholars will have more opportunities that will allow them to fully express themselves. I feel that Korea should produce more renowned scholars on a par with Lee Hong-gu, Kim Kyeong-won, or Han Seung-ju. In particular, a younger group of talented and professional scholars should expand and be more active on the international stage. There are some Korean scholars who have appeared on the international stage recently, but with almost nothing new to say.

Bae Jin-ju You have resided in the U.S. for about fifty years. Please tell us about the merits and demerits of American society that you've identified over this long period of time, in comparison with the situations of Korea.

Lee Chae-jin Any country has merits and demerits. As for the demerits of the U.S, the U.S. is a power and therefore self-centered in its thinking. I believe that when dealing with Korea, the U.S. should take into consideration not only perspectives of a power but also responsibility between the two countries as well as international and regional responsibility. The U.S. should value the bilateral relations with Korea first and then consider the degree of importance from global perspectives. However, the U.S. does not understand Korea properly when the two countries are off beat. For example, when Park Geun-hye was elected president, the U.S. media didn't treat it with much importance. From Korea's viewpoint, this is a serious problem. The U.S. may have thought that the news of the presidential election in Korea as one of 200 countries on earth was not important. But that's difficult for Korea to understand. American society has many merits, too, of course. The U.S. is basically a society of immigrants. The social atmosphere of welcoming and accepting immigrants helped me become an assistant professor only a few years after I started living in the U.S. Things like this would be unimaginable anywhere else in the world. The U.S. is a country that 'offers ample, if not equal, opportunities.' You can join the mainstream of American society as long as you are able, regardless of where you are from, whether Korea or Africa. The U.S. is accepting many immigrants from overseas. This is what sets the U.S. apart from Japan or Europe. In the U.S., even illegal immigrants are occasionally made into legal ones.

Bae Jin-ju Please tell us about your plans for future life or research.

Lee Chae-jin My plan is to continue to study the Obama administration's policy toward the Korean peninsula. So, in the near future, I will update and expand my book on Korea-US relations published seven years ago, Chae-Jin Lee, A Troubled Peace: U.S. Policy and the Two Koreas (2006). In addition, if given a chance, I would like to serve Korea by teaching younger students.