Canada's Middle Power Diplomacy Strategy and Suggestions for South Korea's Middle Power Diplomacy Direction

Amidst the rebuilding of the global governance system following the 2008 global economic crisis, the voices of emerging great powers have grown louder, making "middle power diplomacy" crucial for coordinating the preferences and reconciling the differing positions of various nations to foster cooperation. South Korea, having successfully hosted the G20 Seoul Summit in 2010, has garnered attention as an emerging middle power, and its future diplomatic trajectory will significantly shape its international standing.

The East Asia Institute (EAI) posits that South Korea can enhance its external influence through middle power diplomacy and contribute to resolving regional instability, which is increasing due to shifts in the balance of power between the U.S. and China. EAI is conducting research on the potential of middle power diplomacy as a future vision for South Korean foreign policy. As part of this initiative, on April 3, 2013, the Institute invited the Canadian Ambassador to Korea, David Chatterson, to host the first Roundtable with Ambassadors to Korea, themed "Canada's Middle Power Diplomacy Strategy and Suggestions for South Korea's Middle Power Diplomacy Direction." Ambassador Chatterson offered suggestions for the future direction of South Korean diplomacy based on Canada's experience in multilateral diplomacy, followed by a Q&A session with the discussants. The main discussion points are as follows.

Canada's Experience

History and Development of Canadian Multilateral Diplomacy

The end of the "Great Power Era" after World War II prompted Canada to fundamentally reassess its perspective on the international community. Amidst the rise of Western allies led by the United States and the Eastern socialist bloc centered around the Soviet Union, Canada recognized the importance of securing diplomatic independence and maneuverability, actively pursuing a role in the establishment of new international institutions. If the American values are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," then Canadian values can be described as "peace, order, and good government." It was a natural consequence for Canada, emerging as a middle power during the formation of the post-war world order, to focus its diplomatic efforts on building international institutions.

Canada played a pivotal role in drafting the frameworks for numerous international organizations by dispatching representatives with exceptional expertise to discussions on institutional building, contributing crucial ideas. Canada's role was highly significant in the formation processes of most major international organizations, including the United Nations (UN), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Group of Seven (G7) summits, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).

Concurrently, Canada has pursued "constructive diplomacy" by considering the interests of various nations, motivating relevant parties, proposing win-win alternatives, and building diverse coalitions. However, characterizing Canada's role as an "honest broker" or "consensus builder" is somewhat exaggerated. Canada has always focused on cooperating with its major allies and "like-minded" countries based on its national interests. As evidenced by its participation in the creation of the United Nations Emergency Forces and dispatching peacekeeping troops during the Suez Crisis in 1956, as well as its involvement in the First Gulf War (1990), the Kosovo conflict (1998), the war in Afghanistan (2001), and the Libyan War (2011), Canada has consistently emphasized cooperation with its Western allies. Therefore, describing Canada's diplomatic actions as "constructive diplomacy" is more appropriate than the term "middle power diplomacy."

Implications

1. It is not necessary to resolve all issues through multilateral diplomacy. In cases like Kosovo or Libya, Canada sought solutions through NATO intervention rather than referral to the UN Security Council. Comprehensive support from numerous countries is not always required for the resolution of every issue.

2. Middle powers, in particular, should play a more active role in the rule-making processes of international institutions. Having coexisted with the superpower United States for 200 years, Canada is well aware that in the absence of rules, power often dictates outcomes. Therefore, it is advantageous for smaller states and middle powers, which are weaker than great powers, to establish rules and institutions to counterbalance the power of great powers. A comparison of how trade disputes were resolved before and after the establishment of the WTO readily illustrates why middle powers should concentrate their diplomatic efforts on the rule-making processes of international institutions.

3. It is essential to flexibly form coalitions based on the situation, with a clear understanding of national interests. As middle powers cannot unilaterally set agendas or enforce their will, coalitions are indispensable. In the post-Cold War international community, where the interests of various nations are intricately intertwined depending on the issue, building diverse coalitions suited to the situation is crucial. This requires, above all, a clear understanding of one's own national interests and the need to appropriately manage conflicts and disputes with all countries to build coalitions that align with national interests on a case-by-case basis.

Characteristics of the 21st Century World Order

The most significant characteristic of the 21st-century world order is that national interests are no longer confined within national borders. The world in the 1950s, when Canada emerged as a middle power, differs drastically from the post-9/11 era of 2001. Transnational issues such as economic governance in trade and finance, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, food security, energy, and the environment, which were not particularly important to countries like Canada or South Korea in the past, have now become critical matters directly linked to national interests.

The information revolution is dramatically enhancing the capabilities of non-state actors. In the past, information itself was a source of power, but now high-quality information is easily accessible from anywhere. Diplomacy today is increasingly difficult to view as solely a business between diplomats. This is why middle power multilateral diplomacy must strengthen cooperation with various international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the future.

The adjustment and transformation of international and regional organizations are proceeding slowly compared to the pace of global change. Furthermore, within many international institutions, most countries are not actively participating in resolving transnational issues. This is largely because, despite having significant stakes, most nations lack the capacity to address transnational problems. Only a very small number of countries possess both the capability and the will to confront these shifts in the world order and the emerging challenges. Canada and South Korea are among these nations.

Suggestions for South Korean Diplomacy

1. To conduct successful middle power multilateral diplomacy, South Korea must clearly define the issues, opportunities, and challenges on which it intends to focus its influence. Exercising comprehensive authority across general issue areas is feasible only for great powers like the United States. Middle powers must specify the issue areas in which they will actively engage. The primary problem with the term "middle power" is the misconception that one automatically gains power by becoming one. For middle powers, influence is not "given" but must be "created." Therefore, the approach should be from the perspective of "constructive diplomacy" rather than "middle power diplomacy."

2. Since the influence of middle powers is significantly dependent on reputation, it is crucial to enhance South Korea's credibility in the international community by pursuing consistent values. Realistically, to bring issues involving core national interests to the international forum agenda, a clear capacity in terms of knowledge, technology, and economic strength must be supported. For middle powers, reputation can be a vital resource for exercising influence, and positioning is paramount in building this reputation. That is, demonstrating "consistency" in terms of "values." For example, pointing out human rights issues in North Korea while remaining silent on human rights issues in Iran does not contribute to building reputation. A country's reputation in the international community can be assessed by how many countries seek its opinion on specific issues, how many working group discussions it participates in, and how many international conferences it chairs. Even when disseminating South Korea's economic development experience to various developing countries in the region through knowledge-sharing programs, it is necessary to have a clear strategic vision rather than simply expecting it to enhance South Korea's reputation.

3. It is essential to accurately identify which countries to cooperate with and on which issues. When various groups of countries compete to find solutions to specific issues within diverse international institutions, a precise understanding of which countries South Korea should cooperate with is necessary. It is important to recognize that cooperation with a particular country cannot extend to all issues. Possessing diverse frameworks for cooperation depending on the issue is crucial. A focus on "issues" rather than "actors" is required.

4. To successfully conduct middle power multilateral diplomacy, it is important to exercise leadership based on strategic judgment at the national level, avoiding being bogged down in domestic political issues. Middle power multilateral diplomacy often requires a high degree of specialization. However, as the saying "All politics is local" suggests, political discourse tends to be discussed from the perspective of narrower interests rather than a national strategic dimension. Therefore, seeking comprehensive support and understanding for middle power multilateral diplomacy strategies at the domestic political and public opinion level may have limitations.

5. To successfully conduct middle power multilateral diplomacy, it is necessary to enhance the openness of South Korean society to the international community and improve overall national capabilities. Similar to Canada, for South Korea to actively participate in the rule-making processes of international institutions, it needs to cultivate competent talent capable of fulfilling such roles. However, talent cultivation is an issue intertwined with the overall strengthening of national capabilities, not just individual effort. Therefore, by increasing the openness of South Korean society and fostering closer connections with the international community, South Korea must develop institutions and capabilities commensurate with international standards.

6. While the direction of U.S.-China relations presents the greatest challenge for South Korean diplomacy, it is considerably difficult for South Korea to act as a mediator between the U.S. and China. What South Korea should pursue is to contribute to establishing diverse communication channels between the two countries, thereby helping them enhance each other's strategic transparency.■

Speaker

Ambassador David Chatterson (B.A., University of Manitoba) began his public service career in 1980 at the Anti-Dumping Tribunal of the Department of National Revenue. He served twice in Tokyo, Japan, first as a First Secretary in 1984 and then as a Counsellor in 1994. Prior to his posting in Japan in 1994, he was the Chief of Research at the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. He joined the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1998 as a First Secretary and subsequently served as Director of the Multilateral Trade Policy Division. From 2005 to 2009, he was the Deputy Head of Mission at the Canadian Embassy to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris, France. Before his appointment to Korea, he served as the Canadian Ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 2009. He has held the position of Canadian Ambassador to the Republic of Korea (concurrently Ambassador to North Korea) since 2011.

Moderator

Lee Sook-jong, President of the East Asia Institute

Discussants

Kang Chan-ho, Political Editor, JoongAng Sunday

Seo Jeong-geon, Professor, Kyung Hee University

Lee Baek-soon, Director-General, North American Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Chun Jae-sung, Professor, Seoul National University

Hwang Jin-ha, Member of the National Assembly, Saenuri Party