Routledge Handbook of Korean Politics and Public Administration

Chung-in Moon, M. Jae Moon, Chung-in Moon, M. Jae Moon

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781317337300
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The Routledge Handbook of Korean Politics and Public Administration gathers the expertise of leading international scholars to survey the full spectrum of contemporary South Korean international relations, public management, and public policies.

Divided into four parts, the handbook covers a range of issues including: domestic Korean political parties, elections and leadership, foreign policy, national security and relations with North Korea, public administration, governance and finance, and economic, social and environmental public policies.

Offering a complete overview of the field, the handbook is an invaluable resource for academics, researchers, policy analysts, graduate and undergraduate students studying South Korean Politics and International Relations as well as East Asian Politics.

1

Introduction

Chung-in Moon and M. Jae Moon

Korea was a homogenous country with 5 thousand years of recorded history, but it was a victim of power politics in the late 19th century. Having won the Sino-Japanese War in 1895 and the Russo-Japanese War in 1905, Japan invaded Korea and colonized it in 1910. After regaining its independence in 1945, Korea was divided into two halves, the northern half being occupied by the Soviet Union, and the Southern half by the United States. In 1948, this division was institutionalized as the South established the Republic of Korea (hereafter South Korea or ROK) and the North established the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (hereafter North Korea or DPRK). North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950, and the subsequent Korean War lasted more than three years and caused more than 3 million civilian and military casualties as well as the complete destruction of infrastructure and industrial facilities. The division became fixed after the signing of the armistice agreement in July 1953 (Cumings 2005: Ch.4; Oberdorfer and Carlin 2014).

Colonial legacies, national division, and the Korean War left South Korea with a desperate situation. It was one of the poorest countries in the world, with a per capita income of less than US$100 throughout the 1950s. War-driven inflation, poor infrastructure, and the destruction of industrial facilities made South Koreans suffer from poverty, underdevelopment, and a sense of despair. The ROK-US alliance and massive American economic and military aid helped the South survive in the aftermath of the Korean War. Nevertheless, as in other newly independent countries, political deformity haunted South Korea through the 1950s. The patriarchal, authoritarian rule of President Rhee Syng-man during the First Republic (1948–1960) made the situation worse with widespread structural corruption and social chaos. The American TV drama M*A*S*H*, which was popular in the 1970s, vividly depicted the naked reality of South Korea during this period.

Today’s South Korea is a quite different country. It has been touted as one of the most successful countries in contemporary world history. As of 2017, South Korea was the 12th largest economy in the world with a GDP of $1.53 trillion USD. In 2018, its per capita income exceeded $30,000 USD. Other economic indicators are also quite impressive: it is the 5th largest state in manufacturing output, the 6th largest exporting country, and the 8th largest holder of foreign reserve (Bank of Korea 2019). Calling South Korea the “Miracle on the Han River” is not an exaggeration. South Korea is one of only a few countries that have graduated from the status of “developing” and become an advanced industrial country. It was admitted to the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) in 1996 and hosted the Summer Olympic Games in 1988, the World Cup in 2002, and the Winter Olympics in 2018. In addition, Hallyu (Korean Cultural Wave) has set a new cultural trend worldwide by attracting attention from hundreds of millions of young people. South Korea has become a new and interesting topic to outsiders (Breen 2017; Heo and Roehrig 2014).

Turbulent domestic political changes

South Korea has undergone a phenomenal political transformation (Kil and Moon 2001). The Republic of Korea, whose origin dates back to the Shanghai Provincial Government, founded in 1919, was established with a democratic constitution in 1948; but President Syng-man Rhee, a fierce independence fighter, failed to fulfill the democratic ideals of the founding constitution. Although Rhee was respected by South Koreans, election fraud, pervasive corruption, and failure of governance precipitated the April 19 Student Revolution in 1960 that overthrew the Rhee government, opening the new democratic era of the Second Republic. However, it did not last long. Major General Park Chung-hee staged a military coup on May 16, 1961, toppled the Second Republic, and ruled the country with an iron fist for 17 years. He achieved remarkable modernization and economic development, but his authoritarian reign ended when he was assassinated by his trusted lieutenant Kim Jae-kyu, then director of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) on October 26, 1979 (Vogel and Kim 2011).

There was a short period of democratic opening in the spring of 1980 after his death, but people’s high expectations quickly evaporated upon another military coup in May 1980 – this time staged by Major General Chun Doo-hwan, Commander of the National Defense Security Command. Chun later amended the constitution and became one-term, seven-year president of the Fifth Republic by an indirect election. Chun faced stiff public protests during his seven-year reign, not only because of his illicit takeover of political power in 1980 but also because of his ruthless suppression of the May 18th Democratic Movement of 1980. As the end of his term neared in 1987, public debate arose over the issue of direct versus indirect presidential election. The ruling coalition favored the preservation of the existing constitutional allowance for an indirect presidential election, while the opposition coalition rejected it. College students, then vanguards of democratic change, staged massive public protests and this time, ordinary middle-class people, mostly salarymen, joined their demonstrations, breaking their long-held code of political silence. The ruling coalition finally accommodated the public demand for a constitutional amendment for direct presidential elections, greater local autonomy, freedom of press and association, and release of political prisoners by adopting the June 29th Declaration (Kim 2003).

The upheaval in 1987 paved the way for the first meaningful democratic opening and transition in South Korea. Although Roh Tae-woo, Chun’s successor and General-turned politician, won the 1987 presidential election owing to divisions in the opposition bloc, South Korea has moved steadily toward democratic consolidation. Kim Dae-jung, a candidate from the progressive opposition bloc, won the presidential election in December 1997, marking the first peaceful transfer of political power in South Korea. Since then, there have been frequent shifts of political power between the progressive and conservative camps through the electoral process. Roh Moo-hyun, a progressive leader, served as president from 2003–2007, and conservative leaders Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye ruled from 2008–2016.

A remarkable development took place in late 2016, however. Incumbent President Park Geun-hye was embroiled in a political scandal in which her close confidante Choi Sun-sil was accused of corruption and abuse of political power. More than 10 million citizens throughout the country joined candlelight demonstrations every Saturday night from October 26, 2016 to April 29, 2017, calling for her resignation. When she refused to quit her presidency, citizens began to demand her impeachment. On December 9, 2016, the National Assembly passed an impeachment bill by a large margin, and the constitutional court delivered a unanimous impeachment verdict in March 2017. President Park Geun-hye, who was a daughter of late President Park Chung-hee, was disgracefully impeached for undermining constitutional order by violating the rule of law, abusing public power, interfering with the property rights of private firms, and revealing official secrets to a private citizen. The candlelight revolution was orderly, non-violent, massive, and persistent, leading to another peaceful change of political power in which Moon Jae-in, a candidate from the progressive opposition camp, won the special presidential election held on May 9, 2017 (Global Asia 2017).

South Korea’s political odyssey shows an exceptionally unique path toward democracy and political stability. However, it raises several interesting questions:

• Why are there recurring public debates on the appropriateness of political institutions, especially the constitution? What are the drawbacks of the current political institution? What is the evolving nature of debate on the current political situation? Are the checks and balances among the three branches of government functioning well?
• To what extent is political culture important in South Korea’s political development? How has political culture affected citizens’ political behavior? Are there any conflicts between the traditional political culture embedded in Confucianism and the modern/post-modern political culture that emerged in the process of rapid economic development?
• What is the political process in South Korea? Who are the major actors and what is the pattern of interactions among them? Does the state still influence the political process? How have political parties, elections, interest group politics, and mass media affected the nature and direction of the political process?
• What is the present status of the political party system in South Korea? Does it serve as the foundation of representative democracy? Political parties have long been characterized as being fragile and detached from the grassroots. What are the causes of the weak party system in South Korea?
• Despite democratic changes, political leadership has become questionable. Except for Kim Dae-jung, all the presidents of South Korea have come to tragic and disgraceful ends. Rhee Syng-man was forced to take exile, Park Chung-hee was assassinated, Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo were jailed, Roh Moo-hyun committed suicide, Lee Myung-bak is currently in prison, and Park Geun-hye was impeached and is also currently in jail. What went wrong with South Korea’s presidents? What is the nature of political leadership in South Korea? How can the country overcome the vicious cycle of hopeful political leadership devolving into chaos?
• Finally, democracy is all about muddling through conflicting preferences and interests. However, democratization in South Korea has been accompanied by political polarization along regional, ideological, and generational lines. What are the patterns and causes of these conflicts in South Korea? How can the country manage them?

Shifting international politics and national security and foreign policy

The Korean War was a defining moment in South Korea’s history that not only consolidated the national division, but also left South Koreans with a protracted military confrontation with the North. The Cold War between the US and USSR further aggravated hostilities between the two Koreas. For Seoul, the main enemy was North Korea, but China and the Soviet Union also emerged as hostile countries in the Cold War context. Facing this mounting security dilemma, the ROK-US alliance played a pivotal role in assuring South Korea’s survival and security. The presence of a large number of American forces in South Korea as well as massive US economic and military aid helped Seoul manage its precarious security environment throughout the 1950s and 1960s (Cumings 2005; Oberdorfer and Carlin 2014).

Nevertheless, North Korea became much more provocative as the US was struggling in the Vietnam War in the late 1960s. On January 21, 1968, Pyongyang’s special forces commandos attempted to attack the presidential mansion in Seoul. They infiltrated the US-controlled area of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) and came all the way to the heart of Seoul. It was a shocking and fearful moment for South Koreans. Two days later, the North seized the US navy intelligence ship Pueblo in the East Sea, and the US forward-deployed its Seventh Fleet strategic assets toward the Korean peninsula. Military tension heightened.

The escalating military tension on the Korean peninsula notwithstanding, on July 26, 1969, recently inaugurated US President Richard Nixon announced the Guam Doctrine that called for “Asian defense by Asians,” signaling the reduction and withdrawal of American forces in South Korea. The US took out one combat division (7th Army Infantry Division) from South Korea in 1972 and planned to withdraw another 50,000 American forces in five years (Kim 2011). The fall of Saigon in April 1975 deferred this move, but President Jimmy Carter, who was inaugurated in January 1977, declared his plan to withdraw American forces from South Korea completely. Owing to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Carter reversed his plan, and Seoul and Washington established the ROK-US Combined Forces Command on November 7, 1978. As President Ronald Reagan revived a containment strategy against the Soviet Union in 1981, the bilateral alliance between the two countries became stronger.

South Korea’s security environment changed profoundly following the end of the Cold War in 1989. Seoul first established diplomatic ties with Eastern European countries in the wake of the Seoul Olympics in 1988 and normalized diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in 1990 and with China in 1992. The dissolution of the Cold War order also facilitated improvements in inter-Korean relations. As the US withdrew 950 tactical nuclear warheads from South Korea and suspended the massive ROK-US joint military training Team Spirit, Pyongyang reciprocated by engaging with Seoul. Both Koreas adopted both the Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula as well as the Basic Agreement on Non-aggression, Reconciliation, and Exchange and Cooperation in 1992. Military tension was substantially reduced, and peaceful co-existence became all the more plausible (Lim 2012).

However, the first nuclear crisis in 1993–1994 soon ruined the mood for peace and cooperation. As North Korea refused to accept special inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Clinton administration deliberated about making a surgical strike on nuclear facilities in Yongbyon in May 1994. Jimmy Carter, who visited Pyongyang in early June 1994, reached a deal with Kim Il Sung, helping to narrowly defuse the nuclear crisis. The US and North Korea adopted the Geneva Agreed Framework in October 1994 that stipulated an exchange of Pyongyang’s freeze of nuclear activities and eventual dismantling of nuclear facilities in Yongbyon for the completion of two light-water nuclear reactors in the North by the US. Improved ties between Pyongyang and Washington in turn facilitated inter-Korean relations. President Kim Dae-jung and Chairman Kim Jong Il had a historic first summit in Pyongyang in June 2000, opening a new horizon of peace and cooperation (Lim 2012; Moon 2012).

The moment of enthusiasm did not last long, however, as the second North Korean nuclear crisis erupted in October 2002 (Funabashi 2007; Pritchard 2007). The G.W. Bush administration accused the North of clandestinely developing highly enriched uranium and scrapped the Geneva Agreed Framework. Pyongyang responded by reactivating nuclear facilities in Yongbyon. Although the joint statement adopted by the six party talks on September 19, 2007, opened the new possibility of a negotiated settlement of the North Korean nuclear problem, America’s imposition of financial sanctions on North Korea through the Banco Delta Asia in Macau the next day critically undermined the opportunity, leading to North Korea’s first nuclear test on October 9, 2006. Some progress notwithstanding, North Korea continued to provoke by undertaking four more nuclear tests and numerous ballistic missile test launches. President Moon Jae-in, who was inaugurated on May 9, 2017, was greeted with 15 rounds of ballistic missile test launches including the first successful launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on November 29 and one H-bomb test by North Korea on September 3, 2017. Equally worrisome was that US President Donald Trump’s administration threatened to use military options to compel Pyongyang to denuclearize. Preventive war, preemptive attacks, and even “bloody nose” tactics were commonly invoked in the US.

A great reversal took place in January 2018. The Pyeongchang Winter Olympics, which were to be held in February 2018, played a critical role in reversing the trend. The North dispatched a delegation to the Games, and Seoul was able to open channels of communication with Pyongyang. Consequently, a series of summits was held starting with the North-South Korean Panmunjom summit on April 27. This was followed by an ad hoc informal summit talk between Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong Un in Panmunjom on May 26, a Trump-Kim summit on June 12 in Singapore, and a Moon-Kim summit in Pyongyang during September 18–20. These summit talks greatly contributed to facilitating negotiations over the North Korean nuclear issue (Moon 2018a, 2018b). However, as the Trump-Kim Hanoi summit on February 27–28, 2019, failed to produce any agreement on the nuclear issue, prospects for denuclearization and peace have again become questionable (Moon 2019).

Peace and security on the Korean peninsula have undergone a perilous process. South Korea still faces looming conventional and nuclear threats from the North. The ROK-US alliance is cohesive, but with the inauguration of President Trump, its future is also being questioned. Intensifying hegemonic rivalry between Beijing and Washington is making the strategic landscape of the Korean peninsula more uncertain and precarious. This raises several interesting questions regarding national security and foreign policy in South Korea:

• What has been the historical pattern of South Korea’s foreign and national security policy? What is the structure and process of its foreign and national security policy-making? Who are major actors and how do they interact?
• What have been the major characteristics of South Korea’s defense and unification policy? To what extent has national intelligence been effective in supporting foreign and national security policy?
• How has South Korea been handling North Korea? What is South Korea’s policy on the North Korean nuclear problem? To what extent has South Korea been effective in managing the big powers surrounding the Korean peninsula? Many have supported the idea of South Korea’s emergence as middle power, but is this desirable or even feasible? What kinds of middle power diplomacy has South Korea undertaken?

Shifting from developmental administration to post developmental administration in South Korea

South Korea is known as a successful and exemplary case of developmental administration (Moon 2016). This a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Notes on contributors
• 1. Introduction
• Part I: Korean politics
• Part II: Korean foreign policies and national security
• Part III: Korean public administration and governance
• Part IV: Korean public policies
• Index