[EAI Special Report] A Desirable Korean-Style Foreign and Security Policy Command Tower

2013 EAI Special Report

The East Asia Institute's Center for Asian Security Studies launched the 'EAI Foreign and Security Policy Decision-Making System Research Team' with the objective of presenting a desirable model for a Korean-style national security decision-making system regarding the establishment of a foreign, security, and unification policy command tower, the necessity of which has been increasingly emphasized since the Cheonan and Yeonpyeong Island incidents. After a year-long research process analyzing and evaluating Korea's past experiences and foreign policy decision-making system, the research team published the report [A Desirable Korean-Style Foreign and Security Policy Command Tower], proposing the 'Strategic Staff Model' and the 'Secretariat Model with Strategic Planning Functions' as foreign and security policy decision-making systems suitable for our circumstances. We hope this research can contribute to the ongoing discussions at the Presidential Transition Committee regarding the establishment of a National Security Office.

I. Introduction

1. Research Objectives

Based on the premise that the content and execution efficiency of national policies are significantly influenced by a country's policy decision-making system (structure, procedures, operational methods, human resources, and relationships), this study aims to present a desirable foreign and security policy decision-making system suitable for Korea by analyzing and evaluating Korea's past experiences and foreign policy system.

During the five-year term of the Lee Myung-bak administration, various incidents, accidents, and challenges occurred in the foreign and security policy domain, including the detention of South Korean personnel at the Kaesong Industrial Complex, the shooting incident of a tourist at Mt. Geumgang, North Korea's missile test launches and nuclear tests, the Imnam Dam water release incident, the Battle of Daecheong, the sinking of the Cheonan, the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, and the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) with Japan. In response to each of these events, a common and recurring criticism was the lack of policy coordination and the inefficiency and inconsistency in policy execution among relevant ministries due to the inadequacy of a 'control tower' in foreign and security affairs. While measures were taken to supplement and strengthen the system after specific incidents, they are assessed to have been limited and minimal responses and adjustments, rather than fundamental and comprehensive solutions.

In contrast, during the Roh Moo-hyun administration, operations were centered around the National Security Council (NSC). While this ensured that related ministries spoke with a unified voice and policy consistency was maintained, the excessive elevation of the NSC's status and influence led to a critique that the 'top-down' approach became entrenched in policy formulation and alternative setting, exhibiting a bias towards a specific direction. Furthermore, the opinions and judgments of related ministries were often disregarded. In essence, by performing not only planning, coordination, and adjustment but also execution functions, the scope of action for related ministries was reduced, leading to a situation where they were compelled to adopt a limited approach in identifying and executing alternatives and countermeasures.

The divergent systems represented by the Roh Moo-hyun and Lee Myung-bak administrations, as described above, clearly illustrate the significance and impact of the foreign and security policy decision-making system and its operational methods on policy direction, the selection of policy alternatives, and overall efficiency. In other words, it is important to note that the outcomes and results can differ depending on the procedures and form of the foreign and security policy decision-making system established, even excluding the policy direction itself.

One of the crucial factors to consider in conducting such research is the changing conditions and environment related to the foreign and security policy decision-making system. Unlike in the past, the actors influencing foreign and security policy have diversified to include civil society organizations, and foreign and security issues have become more complex and multi-layered. To devise effective solutions for complex problems, the ability to analyze issues from various perspectives and to combine or integrate diverse means is essential. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze and evaluate which system is appropriate for reflecting the characteristics of the changed environment and ensuring a multifaceted approach, thereby enhancing the completeness and achievement of policies.

In this context, analyzing the relationship between the system (structure) and procedures (process) – the relationship between the system and its operation – is also required. A detailed review of the entire policy-making and execution process, including information gathering, situation analysis and evaluation, goal setting, development of implementation strategies, securing means and methods, execution, and review and supplementation, is necessary. It is crucial to determine which system can ensure a smooth implementation process. This study aims to present a desirable foreign and security policy decision-making system that reflects the policy-making flow by considering not only the structural system but also the operational methods and examining ways to ensure the linkage between the system and its operational methods.

2. Research Methods

This study aims to present a desirable foreign and security policy decision-making system suitable for our circumstances by comparatively reviewing past cases. The past cases include the Kim Dae-jung administration, which established the National Security Council Secretariat and introduced new operational systems and methods such as the Standing Committee, the Working-Level Coordination Meeting, and the Situation Assessment Meeting, operating the Secretariat and the NSC in parallel; the Roh Moo-hyun administration, which further expanded and strengthened the NSC, adopting an NSC-centered system; and the Lee Myung-bak administration, which can be seen as a return to the form prior to the Kim Dae-jung administration, adopting a Secretariat-centered system. The Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun administrations can be collectively referred to as a 'staff' type organization due to their significant similarities, while the Lee Myung-bak administration can be termed a 'secretary' or 'liaison' type organization. The Kim Dae-jung administration, upon its inauguration, reviewed foreign cases and, based on this, introduced an NSC-centered foreign and security policy decision-making system, establishing a structure that coexisted with the Secretariat. Routine daily affairs were handled primarily by the Foreign and Security Policy Secretariat, while the NSC was tasked with mid- to long-term policy planning and crisis management. The Roh Moo-hyun administration transitioned to an NSC-centered system by integrating the Secretariat and the NSC, which was responsible for planning, coordination, and even execution functions. Conversely, the Lee Myung-bak administration abolished the NSC Secretariat and reverted to the previous system, shifting to a structure centered around the Senior Secretary for Foreign and Security Affairs (maintaining only the Information and Situation Room under the Chief of Staff). The former model faced criticism for the Blue House's unilateral actions and overreach, while the latter model was criticized for the absence of a control tower and policy confusion. More specifically, each model is assessed to have had the following advantages and disadvantages.

[Table 1] Comparison of Advantages and Disadvantages Between Staff-Type and Secretariat-Type Organizations

In conclusion, the objective of this study is to present a system suitable for Korea by analyzing and evaluating the different forms of foreign policy and security decision-making systems that we have experienced over the past 15 years, while also examining foreign cases.

II. Cases from Past Administrations

Since the enactment of the National Security Council Act on December 14, 1963, following President Park Chung-hee's directive in 1962, the National Security Council (NSC) has operated nominally, failing to meet the demands of the times due to its formal structure, despite two amendments to the law. In the 35 years following the establishment of the Security Council until the advent of the Kim Dae-jung administration, only 51 meetings were held. From 1993 until just before the launch of the Kim Dae-jung administration in 1998, it convened only three times. The Kim Dae-jung administration established the foundation for the NSC system by setting the revitalization and strengthening of the National Security Council as one of the 100 national projects and by regularizing the NSC Standing Committee and establishing a secretariat through amendments to the 'National Security Council Act' and the 'Regulations on the Operation of the National Security Council'...(continued)