Search

Begin New Search Topic Security Political Geography Korea Content Type Working Paper Publishing Institution Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center

1. Turning Points in the Korean Space-Economy: From the Developmental State to Intercity Competition, 1953-2000

Author:
Mike Douglass
Publication Date:
10-2000
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
Territorial development processes and patterns in Korea from the 1950s have encountered four turning points. The first involved the reconstitution of the Korean nation state, which, following radical land reform, implicitly focused on the expansion of the Seoul Capital Region. The second came with the launching of strategies for export-oriented urbanindustrial growth in the early 1960s, which led to the development, in the 1970s, of an urban-industrial corridor moving from the rapidly expanding metropolis of Seoul to the southeast coast, centered on Pusan and heavy industrial complexes. The third turning point was brought about by rising wages and labor costs; the ascending value of the Korean currency; and the overseas relocation of labor-intensive industries, which saw a repolarization of growth in Seoul and a deindustrialization of other metropolitan economies. While some regions outside of Seoul began to register high rates of economic growth around automotive and electronics industries in the early 1990s, this pattern was abruptly challenged at the fourth turning point, the 1997 financial crisis in East and Southeast Asia. Recovery from the crisis is being pursued under a fundamentally new political and economic strategy of decentralized policymaking. The major territorial development question facing Korea at this turning point is whether localities can create capacities to rebuild and sustain their economies through direct engagement in a turbulent world economy.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, Asia, Korea, and Southeast Asia

2. Relating the U.S.-Korea and U.S.-Japan Alliances to Emerging Asia Pacific Multilateral Processes: An ASEAN Perspective

Author:
Chin Kin Wah and Pang Eng Fong
Publication Date:
03-2000
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
American military power underpinned the security structure of the Asia Pacific region during the Cold War. Post-Cold War, its role is still vital to peace and stability in the region. The most overt manifestations of American military might are the Japan–America Security Alliance (JASA) and the Korea–America Security Alliance (KASA). These bilateral alliances, together with a modified Australia–New Zealand–United States (ANZUS) treaty relationship, point to the diversity of security interests and perspectives in the region. Even during the height of the Cold War, the region never quite presented the kind of coherence that would have facilitated the creation of a truly multilateral defense framework of the sort exemplified by NATO. In Southeast Asia, the lack of strategic coherence resulted in a patchwork of defense arrangements between local and extraregional states. Dominated by the United States, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was only nominally regional.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, America, Asia, Korea, Southeast Asia, and New Zealand

3. Containment by Stealth: Chinese Views of and Policies toward America's Alliances with Japan and Korea after the Cold War

Author:
Yu Bin
Publication Date:
09-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
At the height of the Cold War, the dominant Western theories of alliance building in interstate relations argued that alliances tend to be motivated more by an external need to confront a clearly defined common adversary than by the domestic attributes of alliance partners. The newly reinvigorated U.S.-Japan alliance, however, together with the newly expanded NATO, seems to depart from the conventional pattern by emphasizing shared democratic values and by maintaining a high degree of ambiguity regarding the goals and targets of the alliance. Although these new features of American-led military alliances provide an anchor in an other- wise highly fluid situation in the post–Cold War world, many Chinese foreign-and defense-policy analysts believe that U.S. alliances with Asian countries, particularly with Japan, pose a serious, long-term challenge, if not a threat, to China's national security, national unification, and modernization. The ambiguity of the revised U.S.-Japan security alliance means that it is at best searching for targets and at worst aiming at China.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, Asia, and Korea

4. China and the U.S.-Japan and U.S.-Korea Alliances in a Changing Northeast Asia

Author:
Chu Shulong
Publication Date:
06-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
The American security alliances with Japan and South Korea have been a major concern of China's foreign and defense policies. China's position toward the alliances is determined by its foreign policy and security theories, doctrines, and principles; by its approach to a regional security mechanism in the Asia-Pacific region; by its bilateral relations with countries in Northeast Asia; and by incidental issues such as territorial disputes in Asia in which it is involved.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, Asia, and Korea

5. Seoul Domestic Policy and the Korean-American Alliance

Author:
B.C. Koh
Publication Date:
03-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
While domestic politics helps to shape foreign policy, the two do not necessarily covary. That is to say, fundamental change in the former may not always trigger corresponding change in the latter. This is especially true of an alliance relationship, for a shared perception of an external threat that helps to sustain such a relationship is frequently unaffected by domestic political change.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, America, Asia, and Korea

6. Japan-ROK Security Relations: An American Perspective

Author:
Michael J. Green
Publication Date:
03-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
This monograph explores contemporary Japan-ROK security relations from the perspective of U.S. strategic interests in Asia. Japan and the Republic of Korea have been aligned but not allied since the beginning of the Cold War, and the United States has long been frustrated in its desire to strengthen the Japan-ROK leg of its network of bilateral alliances in Asia. The United States abandoned the goal of encouraging a formal U.S.-Japan-ROK alliance early on in the Cold War, and in the current strategic environment a trilateral alliance would probably be counterproductive. At the same time, however, the fluidity of East Asian security relations today has heightened the dangers of leaving the Japan-ROK security relationship in an ambiguous state. Closer Japan-ROK security cooperation will enhance U.S. efforts to maintain forward presence, manage diplomacy and potential crises on the Korean Peninsula, and integrate China as a cooperative partner in the region. In contrast, distant Japan-ROK relations would complicate all of these U.S. objectives. Hostile Japan-ROK relations, particularly in the context of Korean reunification, would have a spillover effect on Sino-U.S. relations and could return the region to the great-power rivalry of the last century.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, Asia, and Korea

7. The Korean-American Alliance and the "Rise of China": A Preliminary Assessment of Perceptual Changes and Strategic Choices

Author:
Jae Ho Chung
Publication Date:
02-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
Does history repeat itself? It appears so for Korea as an unfortunate geopolitical pawn of its stronger neighbors for the last century or so. History does not seem to repeat in quite the same way, however. As Chinese diplomat Huang Zunxian recommended in 1880 that Chosun (Korea's official designation during the Yi Dynasty) “side with the Qing” ( qinzhong ) while relegating the relative importance of Japan and the United States to the levels of “aligning and connecting” ( jieri and lianmei ), respectively, Korea remained for the most part the most loyal subsystem of the Sinic world order, thereby missing out on opportunities for self-strengthening and realignment and eventually becoming a Japanese colony. More than a hundred years later, the Republic of Korea (hereafter Korea) may now be about to confront a similar dilemma, but this time with a reversed order of preferences. That is to say, the rise of China, with which Korea has already accomplished diplomatic normalization, may gradually force the Seoul government to reconfigure its Cold War–based strategic thinking and reassess its half-century alliance relationship with the United States.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, China, Asia, and Korea

8. Asian Alliances and American Politics

Author:
Michael H. Armacost
Publication Date:
02-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
The domestic politics of our Asian alliances is like the story of the dog that didn't bark. Though our defense ties with Japan and Korea were forged in the Cold War, nearly ten years after the Berlin Wall came down, few voices are being raised to amend, let alone terminate, either the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security with Japan or the U.S.-Korea Mutual Defense Treaty. Although large numbers of U.S. troops remain in both countries, congressional criticisms of allied “free riding” are rarely heard. Our alliances with Japan and Korea provoke little discernible opposition from the Congress, the press, or the general public. Polling data suggests that public support for the alliances and for forward deployments in both countries remains high. And no prominent leaders of the Congress are threatening to link security concerns to outstanding economic issues with the Japanese or South Koreans—a tactic frequently utilized a decade ago.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, Asia, and Korea

9. The Origins and Evolution of the Korean-American Alliance: A Japanese Perspective

Author:
Koji Murata
Publication Date:
08-1998
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
This paper examines the importance of the Korean-American alliance for Japan from a historical perspective. The U.S.-Japan alliance is important for the security of South Korea because it provides logistic support for the U.S. activities on the Korean peninsula. This is obvious if we look into the reasons why the Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation were revised in September 1997. At the same time, the U.S.-ROK alliance is also important for the security of Japan because it functions as a buffer or shield for Japan. Bounded on the north by China and Russia, and only thirty miles from the closest Japanese island, the Korean peninsula is the fulcrum where the major powers' interests in Asia converge. Tokyo is about one hour from Seoul by jet aircraft.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, Asia, Tokyo, Korea, and Island

10. Benefits and Burdens: The Politically Dominated Economics of U.S. Alliances with Japan and Korea

Author:
Charles Wolf and Michele Zanini
Publication Date:
04-1998
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
Alliances are organizations between or among independent entities that concert to produce “collective goods” for the mutual benefit of alliance members. The statement applies whether the alliances are between or among countries, corporations, universities, research centers, or other institutions. Of course, the nature of the collective goods, as well as the membership in the collectivity, differs across these cases. That the goods (or benefits) are “collective” means that their availability to one alliance member (or their production by any member) implies their availability to the other members of the alliance.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Defense Policy, and Economics
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, Israel, East Asia, and Korea