Challenges for Korean Diplomacy and Security from a Regional Perspective

“Governance” is no longer a concept confined solely to domestic politics or administration. As interactions and interdependence among actors in international relations have intensified since the 20th century, the importance of national diplomacy and security governance capabilities in ensuring national survival and prosperity, as well as the safety and happiness of citizens, has become increasingly prominent. In particular, governance capabilities in the field of diplomacy and security are indispensable for navigating the current era of great transformation. However, governance cannot be secured through government efforts alone. Only when a system is in place to converge and coordinate the various voices within our society to achieve optimal harmony can Korea's diplomacy and security governance capabilities be considered complete.

Accordingly, the East Asia Institute (EAI) planned a Diplomacy and Security Governance Roundtable to foster a knowledge network related to diplomacy and security in our society by inviting scholars and experts directly or indirectly involved in diplomacy and security to share their concerns and strengthen bonds. The first Diplomacy and Security Governance Roundtable invited experts from Gyeonggi, Gangwon, Daegu, and Busan regions to hear the voices of local areas that have been marginalized regarding security issues related to the US Forces in Korea, such as the expansion and relocation of US military bases. In particular, the objective was to identify areas for improvement for more progressive Korean diplomacy and security policies by exploring mechanisms that can effectively represent and exchange the needs of local residents who share their “lives” with USFK personnel stationed in the region. The main points of the presentations and discussions by the four experts are as follows.

Presentation 1. Kim Dong-seong (Gyeonggi Research Institute)

South Korea's Military Strategy Against North Korea and Military Facility Protection Zones

While traditional military security has been considered in conflict with regional development, research findings suggest that they can be achieved simultaneously. This study was conducted with the aim of addressing the issue of US military base relocation in Pyeongtaek from the perspective of human security for local residents. The objective was to establish new measures for rationally reducing and adjusting military facility protection zones without compromising South Korea's security.

Currently, in Gyeonggi Province, residents suffer annual losses of 20-40 trillion won due to military facility protection zones, infringing upon their property rights. While the establishment of military facility protection zones may be unavoidable under the current open-field-based defense strategy, improvements are necessary as the equitable distribution of national security burdens and regional development are also important values. A solution is needed that can simultaneously ensure the living conditions of local residents and national security.

In this context, the Gyeonggi Research Institute recently proposed a plan to shift the military defense strategy from an open-field-based defense strategy requiring large military facility protection zones to urban warfare. This strategy involves luring and annihilating invading North Korean forces in urban areas where organized defense preparations are in place. Historical examples of urban defense show advantages in reducing the arrival time of support units, such as the Battle of Stalingrad in the Soviet Union, the Battle of Aachen in Germany, and the Battle of Grozny in Chechnya. Modifying the military defense strategy against North Korea to focus on urban warfare would benefit not only our national defense but also regional development, according to recent research findings from the Gyeonggi Research Institute.

Conflict and Cooperation Between USFK and Local Communities: Seeking Mutual Understanding for Coexistence

As of 2009, USFK is estimated to comprise 28,500 personnel and operate approximately 90 bases nationwide. These forces need to be rooted in local communities; this can be likened to USFK being the “tree” and the US military bases being the “soil” (local community).

A perception survey conducted by the Gyeonggi Research Institute in 2006 revealed that while USFK personnel were friendly towards Korea, local residents showed antipathy towards them. This reaction from our citizens is understood to stem from national pride that may emerge after achieving stability in living conditions due to economic development. This asymmetrical perception is expected to be utilized as meaningful data when formulating policies regarding USFK. In reality, the crime rate among USFK personnel is not particularly high. Despite many prejudices and misunderstandings about USFK, those who have actually interacted with USFK personnel, such as those in commercial sectors, reportedly harbor less antipathy. Furthermore, the language barrier appears to be a significant factor in these mutual prejudices and misunderstandings. USFK personnel may feel as if they are stranded on a deserted island. Among the survey respondents, 210 USFK personnel expressed dissatisfaction with the abundance of entertainment establishments near their residences and desired to be integrated into the lives of local residents and have equal living conditions. To improve this, USFK needs to adopt an open attitude towards local residents by opening its doors.

The media and broadcasting should also improve in this regard, as they tend to focus heavily on incidents and accidents involving USFK rather than their contributions, thereby provoking antipathy among residents. Having USFK-related personnel participate in programs like “100 Minute Debate” to publicly explain their policies could be one improvement.

Presentation 2. Kim Young-geun (Keimyung University)

Before proceeding with the discussion, I would like to pose the question: Does the regional perspective on South Korea's diplomacy and security policy exhibit unique characteristics different from that of the Seoul metropolitan area or the nation as a whole? It is necessary to examine how specific diplomacy and security issues are evaluated. I believe that the regional perspective on macro-level issues does not significantly differ from the perspective of the Seoul metropolitan area or the nation as a whole.

Generally, domestic public opinion is divided into two major camps, conservative and progressive, regarding issues related to the ROK-US alliance or North Korea's nuclear program. While the distribution of these opinions may vary by region, this polarization trend is also reflected in the regions. However, regarding national strategies such as North Korea policy and ROK-US alliance strategy, there is relatively less interest, and even when there is interest, the level of support tends to vary according to one's own conservative or progressive inclination, similar to the central government. Nevertheless, for specific issues such as the relocation of US military bases, there is a more active effort to reflect regional interests.

In this regard, it is necessary to actively listen to the opinions of local residents during the US military base relocation process and to pursue policies from a regional perspective. Furthermore, the government's policies should be explained sufficiently and proactively.

From a regional perspective, the effectiveness of the central government's diplomacy and security policies is more important than their intentions. In a survey of Daegu university students regarding the Six-Party Talks, a considerable number responded that they did not know. This appears to reflect public indifference to government policies. It is necessary to more actively inform the public about the challenges facing South Korea's diplomacy and security and how government policies are decided and implemented. For instance, limiting the scope to South Korea's North Korea diplomacy policy, rather than exerting excessive pressure on North Korea or making unrealistic demands, policy formulation that considers policy outcomes is the immediate priority. The security and defense policies of the Lee Myung-bak administration require more flexible and cooperative strategies and policies to respond to new security conditions, such as increased instability of the North Korean regime amidst a global economic crisis and changes in the US Obama administration's approach to North Korea. It is crucial to secure broad support, regardless of region or government, for the diplomacy and security challenges based on the “Global Korea” policy, which is re-emphasized here.

Finally, I would like to offer my opinions on the major issues facing South Korea's security and defense. First, regarding North Korea policy, ROK-US cooperation must be strengthened. The condition of “denuclearization first, then support” presented in the current administration's North Korea policy may be perceived as too rigid by North Korea. There is a view that recent US policy is shifting from denuclearization to nuclear management [acknowledging North Korea's nuclear possession], and a corresponding North Korea policy is needed, taking this into account. The improvements needed to strengthen ROK-US cooperation are, first, to resolve the lack of understanding with the US regarding MB's Grand Bargain concept, and second, regarding the linkage of governance, to confirm and address future stages of “consultation and implementation” and doubts about cooperation.

Presentation 3. Yang Ki-yong (Pukyong National University)

Resetting the Relationship Network Between Stationed US Forces and Local Governments

How should the relationship between the US military and local areas be reset? The problem lies in the Missing Link. Research and policies on USFK by the central government are confined to a macro-level national policy perspective. Research on USFK by the central government is largely limited to discussing the understanding and direction of change regarding USFK and the ROK-US alliance from a strategic perspective of Northeast Asian military and diplomacy, or discussing the problems and improvement measures of the SOFA agreement, all from a macro (Micro) perspective. Conversely, conflicts with the US military, such as crimes, soil and water contamination, noise, accidents during military exercises and damage to crops, and infringement of property rights, are approached and attempted to be resolved in a fragmented (Micro) manner, focusing on isolated incidents. Consequently, public perception of USFK shows a coexistence of love and hate, acknowledging the necessity of USFK but harboring very negative emotions on individual issues. This problem stems from the lack of a regional perspective, a meso-level viewpoint, between the macro national security strategy and the micro individual perspective. To improve this, the role of local governments, which can consider regional communities, property rights, urban development rights, and environmental rights simultaneously from a meso-level perspective, should be expanded, in addition to macro national security strategy.

Currently, the relationship network between stationed USFK and local governments is highly exclusive and ceremonial. Local governments maintain very limited official channels with the US military, engaging only in post-hoc, ceremonial, and formal relationships, thus having a weak role and negligible influence. This is also due to limitations stemming from the administrative capabilities, organization, and personnel of local governments. Amidst this, the central government continues to exhibit a centralized administrative behavior. For example, in base relocation negotiations or ROK-US Combined Land Use Planning negotiations, the opinions of local governments are excluded, and central ministries such as the Ministry of National Defense, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of Justice, and Ministry of Environment hold exclusive positions in the negotiations. The strategic choice by the US military to unify negotiation channels has also contributed to central ministries monopolizing negotiation rights.

Therefore, how should we prepare for the formation of new relationship networks following the relocation of USFK units? As a new role for local governments and a search for new relationship networks, I propose the establishment of an inclusive governance system as follows:

The inclusive governance system is an attempt to form a new relationship network between local governments and regional USFK through a governance perspective, aiming to increase the potential for mutual exchange, cooperation, and interdependence by transforming the existing asymmetrical and unilateral relationship. To establish an inclusive governance system, it is necessary to form a stable network by regularizing and institutionalizing the interactions between local governments and regional USFK. To this end, the communication channels with the US military, which have been unified under the central government, should be expanded to include the central government, local governments, and local communities. Efforts such as mutual exchange of public services like emergency relief, healthcare, water, and waste are necessary. Through these efforts, we aim to bring about a shift in mutual perceptions as follows: In an inclusive cooperative relationship, local governments perceive USFK as an actor within the local community, and local residents perceive USFK as a facilitator and collaborator providing services and jobs in the region. USFK, in turn, should perceive the local community not as a strategic location but as a place for shared living, and perceive local governments as collaborators and local residents as co-members of the community. This is the ideal inclusive cooperative relationship.

The formation of this new relationship network cannot be achieved in a short period. It requires sustained effort from a long-term perspective. This necessitates the leading role of local governments and support from the central government.

Presentation 4. Choi Seong-rok (Gangwon Research Institute)

The theme of ‘diplomacy and security’ is a very grand discourse from a regional perspective. From a local viewpoint, it is approached from the perspective of ‘the lives of local residents’ rather than concepts of ‘diplomacy and security’ related to inter-Korean issues or USFK issues. In particular, in the demilitarized zone, the reduction of the civilian control line has led to secondary conflict factors such as ownership disputes, and grievances related to the relocation of US military bases are also being raised.

Regarding the return of common land by US military bases, the government's passive response to legal responsibilities and cleanup costs for environmental pollution occurring during and after base usage is also problematic. Furthermore, USFK loses trust in local communities because of cases that are irresponsible or inequitable when friction arises with local residents. The South Korean government should also take a more active stance to protect its citizens and their property.

Gangwon Province borders the demilitarized zone, and extensive research is conducted for the investigation and management of the DMZ area. In the case of investigations in the civilian control line area, censorship/deletion of photographic materials under the name of ‘security’ is sometimes excessively carried out to an incomprehensible degree, requiring a more flexible attitude and cooperation from the military authorities. Additionally, I would like to point out that the response to the flu outbreak among forward military units is also negatively impacting the local economy. The government's measure to prohibit soldiers' leave and passes has led to significant economic losses in the local community. It is regrettable that a clear statement of position is lacking on whether such measures were absolutely necessary after fully considering all factors, or if they were implemented for administrative convenience on a blanket basis.

Regarding Defense Reform 2020, when forward units are relocated to the rear, the process should involve consultation with the local government regarding the sale of the unit's land. This would acknowledge the contribution of the local community, whose property rights have been restricted by excessive regulations, and also help prevent haphazard development.

Discussion

Defining the Issue

Before proceeding with the discussion, it is most important to first define what the issue is from a regional perspective. If we consider it as the problems we encounter in our daily lives, it would involve socio-political issues such as property rights, the environment, and safety. Socio-political issues inevitably become economic issues intertwined with compensation and budget matters. There are three dilemmas that arise in relation to these issues of property rights, environment, and safety. One is the dilemma between democracy and security, which involves protecting citizens' fundamental rights while strengthening national defense. Another is the dilemma among various social groups over socioeconomic interests and rights, concerning who should bear the costs incurred in creating the public good of national security. Naturally, the issue of who should pay how much for security costs will incite social conflict and political struggle. The last one is the dilemma between society and the individual, which ultimately leads to the philosophical question of the extent to which the social community can infringe upon the rights of its individual members. Only when we systematically connect these three dilemmas and proceed with the discussion will we truly understand the concerns of the residents of Gyeonggi and Gangwon Provinces. Understanding is the first step toward rational cooperation. The state cannot find solutions by unilaterally imposing critical issues such as property rights, safety, and the environment on the residents of Gyeonggi and Gangwon Provinces. The state must conceptualize the dilemmas encountered at the levels of democracy, society, and the individual, and create new frameworks for discourse. The reorganization of USFK and the ROK military and the issue of base relocation are undoubtedly major diplomatic and security challenges. However, recognizing that there can be no ROK military or ROK-US alliance without public support, efforts must be made to fairly distribute the costs incurred in strengthening diplomacy and security among the public. Only then can national defense, a public good, be strengthened. The unilateral sacrifices of the residents of Gyeonggi and Gangwon Provinces should no longer be demanded. This is contrary to the ideals of democracy.

The Role of Meso-Level Governance

From a socio-structural perspective, finding a meso-level (e.g., institutions and governance) missing link that transcends macro (e.g., democracy) and micro (e.g., property rights) levels and developing discussions around it represents a significant leap. In this context, the research on the meso-level perspective presented by Professor Yang Ki-yong at this meeting is a crucial endeavor as it deeply considers the position of local communities and explores how meso-level governance can actually be discoursed. If meso-level governance is established, it can serve as a mediating role between the local and central governments, and consequently, the relationship between USFK and local communities/residents is expected to significantly improve. Furthermore, by improving communication channels between the central government, USFK, and local communities, the dilemma between democracy and security, arising from the asymmetry of public goods such as property rights and security, can be resolved. The key to translating these ideas into actual discourse and implementing them lies in how the issues are framed, particularly how they are linked to the interests of USFK. As a proposal for this, we can consider mayors of Paju and Pyeongtaek as key actors for the new meso-level governance, and it is a task that local communities must deeply contemplate as to what they can specifically do for that governance.

Regarding the Proposed Defense Strategy Centered on Urban Warfare

Comparing the policies of Gyeonggi Province and Gangwon Province, which host USFK bases, we observe that Gyeonggi Province seeks to develop its region with a focus on development by transforming the area into an urban warfare zone in relation to military security, while Gangwon Province aims to grow its region by making environmental issues a major agenda. However, this project raises questions about its legitimacy as a national strategy, as it holds urban residents hostage. If information about such a project is posted on websites and becomes known, it could lead to a backlash from public opinion and the military.■

List of Participants

Kim Dong-sung, Director of the Northeast Asia Center for Unification, Gyeonggi Research Institute

Kim Byung-gook, Professor at Korea University

Kim Young-geun, Professor at Keimyung University

Yang Ki-yong, Professor at Pukyong National University

Cha Du-hyun, Head of Research Department, Korea Institute for Defense Analyses

Choi Kang, Professor at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security

Choi Seong-rok, Senior Researcher, Kangwon Institute for Economic Development