Special Report on Promoting Democracy: How South Korea's International Development Cooperation Can Contribute to Global Democracy Support

I. Global Trends in International Development Cooperation and Democracy Support

The field of international development cooperation and Official Development Assistance (ODA) holds policy value as a tool that reflects the interests of donor countries in conjunction with international political dynamics and realizes universal values demanded by global governance. Although all UN member states have set the UN's 'Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)' to be achieved by 2030 as common universal goals and are striving to implement them, global governance for international development cooperation is facing a crisis due to complex crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the US-China strategic competition, and the Russia-Ukraine war.

Above all, international development cooperation policies are increasingly being used as tools for national geopolitical objectives. Compared to the freezing or reduction of ODA budgets for securing domestic public health security due to the global pandemic, there has been a stronger emphasis on countering China's aggressively expanding Belt and Road Initiative as part of the US-China strategic competition. For example, the 'Building Back Better World (B3W)' launched in 2021 and the 'Partnership for Global Infrastructure Investment (PGII)' launched in 2022 as new development cooperation platforms led by the US and G7 have pledged to provide more transparent and high-quality infrastructure to partner countries in the Global South. US, Japanese, and South Korean Indo-Pacific strategies have actively included humanitarian aid and infrastructure assistance, and a platform for high-quality infrastructure support has also been established within the Quad. At the South Korea-US-Japan summit held at Camp David in August 2023, the three countries agreed to jointly respond to global issues such as economic norms, climate change, and development cooperation, in addition to security cooperation, to solidify a 'free and open' order.

Meanwhile, it can be interpreted that a normative occasion has been established for South Korea, the US, Japan, and the G7 to jointly implement policies for international development cooperation centered on supporting democracy, peace, and human rights to build a liberal international order and a rule-based order. Tasks such as democratic governance, the rule of law, a rights-based approach, and peacebuilding, which are universal values and cross-cutting criteria for sustainable development, have become key agendas for international development cooperation in response to changing international dynamics. Various sectors and themes, collectively termed 'democracy aid,' are establishing themselves as key issue areas for individual donor countries to share experiences in supporting global democracy. In particular, the war in Ukraine has spurred discussions within the international community regarding post-war reconstruction efforts in Ukraine to protect and restore liberal democracy. South Korea is also expected to actively participate in Ukraine's reconstruction efforts through its international development cooperation projects, as its ODA budget for 2024 includes funding for Ukraine's reconstruction support.

At a macro level, alongside changes in global governance for international development cooperation, there is a strengthening trend emphasizing the field-based nature of development cooperation at a micro level. Without the driving force of development cooperation being autonomously implemented on the ground in partner countries, the effectiveness of aid input at the global level will be lost. The importance of democracy support can be found in the principle of 'localization' in international development cooperation projects, which is currently being emphasized by the UN and the international community. The concept of localization emphasizes the ownership of the local partners and communities, rather than the donor countries or international organizations, as the ultimate agents of international development cooperation. Therefore, it implies that it is difficult to ensure the effectiveness and accountability of development cooperation projects if citizen participation and democratic governance are not fostered on the ground in partner countries. To localize international development, there will be an increasing need for donor entities to expand democracy aid, such as supporting the activation of civil society in partner countries and providing direct support for the capacity development of local communities. With approximately seven years remaining until 2030, democracy contributions are likely to gain prominence as a key agenda in discussions related to global democratic governance, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the post-SDGs development agenda.

II. Environmental Changes within South Korea and Diplomacy for Global Democracy Contribution

Changes in South Korea's domestic policies related to international development cooperation can be summarized in three main areas.

First, the Yoon Suk-yeol administration has included 'Global Pivotal State contributing to freedom, peace, and prosperity' and value-based contribution diplomacy as core pillars of its foreign policy strategy among its 120 national tasks. The Global Pivotal State signifies the will to actively utilize resources such as ODA to exert South Korea's global leadership in key areas of the multilateral diplomatic arena. This can be assessed as a decision for South Korea to play a leading role in an international order based on universal values, without being constrained by regional US-China competition. As the Yoon Suk-yeol administration emphasizes freedom and democracy as key values of a Global Pivotal State, there is a possibility that value-based diplomacy will materialize into international development cooperation policies, expanding the front of value diplomacy with the Biden administration in the Indo-Pacific region. President Yoon Suk-yeol's pledge of $100 million in democracy aid over the next three years at the Second Summit for Democracy demonstrates this direction.

Second, unlike the global trend of developed Western donor countries freezing or reducing their ODA budgets, South Korea is actively increasing its ODA budget for 2024. The ODA budget for next year is projected to reach approximately 6.5 trillion won, a significant increase of about 40% compared to previous years. This represents one of the highest increase rates among OECD DAC member countries and starkly contrasts with the austerity measures in ODA budgets of other Western donor countries amidst the global pandemic and refugee crisis. The issue lies in how this substantially increased budget will be utilized. While areas for ODA investment are already being discussed within broad categories such as climate and environment, digital infrastructure, Ukraine's reconstruction, and humanitarian aid, further public deliberation on specific plans will be necessary. Therefore, efforts are needed to restructure South Korea's ODA strategy and vision to align with value-based diplomacy, utilizing a portion of the increased budget, rather than relying on the existing fragmented ODA system.

Third, South Korea has reached a social consensus to establish a normative framework and clarify and continuously deepen cooperative relationships with civil society organizations (CSOs) through partnerships between the government and development cooperation CSOs. In 2019, the 32nd International Development Cooperation Committee adopted the 'Basic Policy on Government-Civil Society Partnership in International Development Cooperation' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Basic Policy'), and in 2021, the 'Implementation Plan for the Basic Policy' was announced, discussed by the Government-Civil Society Regular Policy Consultative Body. Consequently, a platform has been established where the government supports South Korean development CSOs to implement or delegate international development cooperation projects, and civil society can systematically pursue cooperative relationships with the government regarding development cooperation projects and policies. Based on this, the government-CSO partnership is expected to play a significant role in the planning and implementation of South Korea's international development cooperation projects for contributing to democracy.

III. Ways for South Korea to Contribute to Democracy

Democracy aid does not assume a standardized model or sector. Various aid methods and complex sector choices can be integrated under the broad theme of promoting and contributing to democracy. In line with this integrated approach, the sectors and implementation methods of aid chosen may diversify depending on the domestic conditions and context of the donor country, and South Korea's democracy support contributions should also be presented with policy recommendations reflecting South Korea's unique characteristics. Furthermore, without cooperation from various stakeholders beyond government agencies, it will be difficult to properly plan or execute South Korea's democracy aid. The key domestic stakeholders for democracy aid must be structured in a multi-layered cooperative system, including major government agencies, the National Assembly, and civil society. Based on the integrated cooperation between the changing environment of international development cooperation domestically and globally, and the various domestic implementing actors of democracy aid, four strategic responses for South Korea's international development cooperation policy for global democracy support can be proposed as follows.

1. Whole-of-Society Integrated Management

A whole-of-society approach that holistically reconstructs the value and role of South Korea's contribution to global democracy support must be institutionalized as the foundation of South Korea's democracy aid. While South Korea's experience with democracy aid is not long, its history of democratization is richer than that of many other democratic nations. South Korea's democratization experience can offer more attractive and practical support to partner countries in the Global South than traditional donor countries in the Global North, thus differentiating South Korea's global democracy support from conventional Western-centric democracy aid. South Korea's experience of democratization, which has undergone a complex modernization process in a short period, including war, colonization, economic growth, and democratization, is likely to be more persuasive to partner countries than Western donor groups, who were former colonial powers. Therefore, South Korea's democracy support, as a global narrative, can positively connect with the political conditions of the Global South.

South Korea's democracy aid requires an approach that links related issue areas centered on contributing to democratic values and integrates various implementing actors. It is necessary to establish a system for systematically integrating and managing the diverse democracy support projects planned in South Korea. As discussed earlier, democracy aid is implemented through various sectors and themes. Therefore, even if a sector or theme does not explicitly include the term 'democracy,' such as public administration, electoral systems, or governance, it can be included under the broader classification of contributing to democracy. Consequently, to operate democracy support experiences in an integrated manner, a system is needed to build and manage data related to democratic elements implemented across various sectors. In South Korea, a unified concept and systematic management method have not yet been established, making it impossible to ascertain the exact budget scale of democracy-related aid projects, and the project content tends to be fragmented. The implementing actors of democracy aid should not be limited to government agencies; various implementing actors related to democracy contribution must be integrated and managed, with particular emphasis on the cooperation and roles of the National Assembly and civil society. To transform South Korea's accumulated experience in democracy into a method of development cooperation contribution, the National Assembly and civil society organizations (CSOs), beyond government aid agencies, must cooperate as key implementing actors of democracy aid.

2. Global Democracy Contribution Led by the National Assembly

South Korea's contribution to global democracy should extend beyond government agencies, with the National Assembly, the source of democracy, taking a central role in participating in democracy aid projects directly and indirectly. Similar to the Swedish Political Party Foundation, there is a need for an institutional foundation at the parliamentary level to establish foundations or funds, enabling bipartisan cooperation and sustainable support for democracy contribution in developing partner countries, regardless of changes in government. When the South Korean government faces difficulties in actively planning and implementing democracy support due to the political sensitivity of democracy aid, the National Assembly and political party foundations can pursue democracy aid in cooperation with domestic and international CSOs, thereby avoiding the direct political sensitivity that the government would have to bear. Furthermore, the National Assembly can lead legislative efforts for South Korea's global democracy contribution, providing a legal basis for implementing actors to carry out development cooperation activities. As the National Assembly represents South Korean democracy, it has the advantage of seeking democracy support with legitimacy.

3. Contributing to Democracy Through Civil Society Partnerships

As key implementing actors for South Korea's global democracy contribution, active cooperation with domestic development CSOs, as well as CSOs and local communities in partner countries, is essential. Specifically, development cooperation projects should be planned so that South Korea's ODA for democracy can be directly provided to civil society in partner countries. Nordic donor countries already support their domestic development CSOs, enabling Nordic civil society to communicate with civil society in partner countries and directly implement democracy support. South Korea has also provided direct support to domestic development CSOs through KOICA, but this was short-lived, and currently, there is no direct support for democracy-related contributions to civil society. For the localization of development cooperation and democracy aid, the pros and cons of direct support from South Korean aid agencies to partner civil society organizations should be analyzed, and projects that provide direct support to civil society through a localization strategy with comparative advantages should be planned. One of the directions for South Korea's ODA policy is 'localization,' and CSOs in South Korea and partner countries must be positioned as key actors at the center of localization. However, if the capacity of civil society in partner countries is unreliable, or if transparency and accountability in partnership operations are not guaranteed, the effectiveness of South Korea's ODA projects will ultimately be compromised, leading to accountability on the part of the South Korean government. Therefore, priority should be given to exploring ways to enhance the capacity of CSOs in partner countries through cooperative projects with domestic development CSOs.

4. Providing Global Democracy Aid Through Multilateral Cooperation

As a strategy for South Korea to contribute to the spread of global democracy, it can explore democracy aid through multilateral assistance, in addition to methods involving domestic aid agencies and implementing actors. Traditional multilateral organizations such as the UN and the World Bank have extensive experience in implementing development cooperation projects to realize universal values such as democracy, human rights, and gender equality through earmarked or voluntary contributions. International NGOs such as Oxfam and Save the Children have also contributed directly and indirectly to the promotion of global democracy. While South Korea should strive to develop its own methods for contributing to democracy, it is also necessary to expand opportunities to learn from the democracy contribution methods of multilateral organizations by cooperating with international organizations and international NGOs to contribute to the promotion of democracy in the international community. Furthermore, South Korea can plan and participate in joint democracy contribution projects with the G7 and South Korea-US-Japan, or pursue democracy cooperation in a multi-stakeholder format with partner countries that share the Indo-Pacific strategy and have a common goal of promoting democracy in the region.

IV. Accountability of South Korea's Democracy Aid

In pursuing contribution diplomacy for global democracy support, South Korea must move beyond a mercantilist ODA policy and strengthen its role in contributing to democratic governance, peace, and human rights improvement. To deviate from the trajectory where South Korean ODA has focused on economic development and commercial interests for the expansion of Korean companies, it is necessary to actively expand democracy support and pursue systematic management, thereby finding a new direction for South Korea's international development cooperation policy and enhancing South Korea's national standing in line with the Global Pivotal State initiative.

Finally, as South Korea本格的に global democracy support, it must prepare for various issues that may arise from contributing to democracy through international development cooperation. A representative obstacle is that democracy is a matter of sovereignty, and thus, democracy reform cooperation projects may be interpreted as politically sensitive by partner governments. Without sufficient consultation with partner countries, there is a high possibility of receiving negative evaluations as an attempt to export the 'Korean model of democracy.' Therefore, the principle of 'Do No Harm' to local communities and civil society in partner countries must be strictly adhered to in the implementation of development cooperation projects for actual democracy support, and the introduction of an accountability mechanism for democracy aid should be actively considered. ■

■ Kim Tae-gyun_Professor, Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University.

■ Responsible Editor: Oh Jun-chul_EAI Research Assistant

Contact: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 205) | jcoh@eai.or.kr