The Lee Myung-bak administration’s recent decision to deploy a Provincial Reconstruction Team and supporting troops to Afghanistan, the relocation of the U.S. forces to Pyeongtaek, and President Obama’s visit to South Korea in November, 2009 sheds new light on the Republic Of Korea-United States (ROK-US) alliance in the post-9/11 world. With South Korea emerging as an influential player in political and economic terms at the international level, the redefinition of the ROK-US alliance remains a critical issue in the drastically changing security environment of the 21st century. The Obama administration’s growing emphasis on multilateral approaches to many global issues, including climate change and counterterrorism is in contrast to the unilateralism of the Bush administration. Although the ROK-US alliance was initially a military response to the growing threats from Soviet forces in the 1950s, the ROK-US alliance now faces a new phase of expanding its functions to address transnational and nonmilitary issues, which in turn contributes to strengthening this bilateral alliance in East Asia.

What are the implications of strengthening the ROK-US alliance in East Asia? Do the other countries in the region perceive the continued presence of the U.S. military in South Korea as threatening or conflicting with their political interests? Is there any possibility that East Asia can establish any formal institutional framework to address common political, economic, or military challenges? To discuss such pressing issues in East Asia, the East Asia Institute hosted the conference, “An ROK-US Alliance for the 21st Century”, supported by the City of Pyeongtaek on November 3, 2009. Thomas Christensen (Princeton University) and Byung-Kook Kim (Korea University) were invited to give public lectures on the ROK-US alliance. Following this, two roundtable sessions were held on the topics of “Alliance System and Comprehensive Security in East Asia,” and “Multilateralism: A Substitute or a Supplement?” The following are the summary of the presentations and discussions of all participants.

PUBLIC LECTURES

Thomas J. Christensen

Christensen began his lecture by addressing the need to bolster the ROK-US alliance amid the changes in the international security environment of the 21st century. The relocation of U.S. Forces in Korea from Yongsan, Seoul to a new military base in Pyeongtaek serves this purpose. Since the inception of the ROK-US alliance during the Korean War, this bilateral military cooperation has remained strong to counter shared threats and address common challenges. While the ROK-US alliance was strictly confined to the military threat in the 1950s, it began to broaden the scope of the alliance to include shared values such as democracy, free markets, and capitalism in the 1980s. This bilateral alliance now faces another phase in strengthening its ties for the long term, which will require a careful assessment on how to achieve this common goal.

Christensen pointed out that making the U.S. military presence less controversial and adjusting conditions for military personnel to settle in the new host city of Pyeongtaek could generate positive effects on the ROK-US alliance. He maintained that Pyeongtaek is well suited to serve the military and their families to enhance their understanding of South Korean society as well as improve combat capabilities given the long-term U.S. commitment for security in South Korea. Additionally, the partnership between the two states should demonstrate joint efforts to address the uncertainty affecting the alliance after the relocation to Pyeongtaek.

In terms of strengthening the bilateral military alliance between the ROK and the U.S., Christensen emphasized the transformation of the alliance to address common challenges facing the 21st century. The fact that the alliance was initially established during the Korean War indicates that the alliance was global in nature from its onset largely due to the perception that the Korean War was an international war involving regional communist powers. The failure of the alliance in the Korean War would have had international implications. The efforts to challenge the Soviet forces made the ROK-US alliance already global when forged during the wartime in the 1950s. This global nature of the alliance is even more relevant today in tackling new types of challenges in the 21st century.

As indicated in the notion of “Global Korea” under the Lee Myung-bak administration, South Korea will take on greater responsibilities at the international level to promote peace and stability. The South Korean government’s recent decision to rejoin the international reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan by dispatching Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) reflects its strong commitment as a traditional U.S. ally. The Six-Party Talks are also critical in resolving the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula, which has global as well as regional implications for security. Participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) by the Lee administration reflects the resolution of the governments of South Korea to solve the challenge of global proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in the long term. Recent anti-piracy efforts also indicate the global partnership of the two states in the new era. Additionally, South Korea expects to bridge the difference between the developing and developed states on the issue of global warming. Other than security issues, maintaining financial stability adds to this joint effort to strengthen the ROK-US alliance. Christensen also specifically argued that protectionism during the financial crisis would further deteriorate global economy.

Lastly, Christensen strongly emphasized the importance of engaging China in the region. He noted that the continued U.S. presence in East Asia is critical to facilitate engagement with China. The U.S. should actively seek to cooperate with China as a part of its strategy. To pursue this goal of engaging China, the U.S. needs to take a moderate approach toward the region undercutting the hawkish arguments. Creating the perception that the U.S. is challenging China and competing with China for the dominant position in the region is strategically negative for the U.S. Also, the U.S. must cooperate with China on various regional issues like nuclear proliferation to increase stability and reduce political uncertainty. Christensen reiterated the importance of inviting China to assume larger role in the international community. In his view, the bilateral U.S.-led alliances in East Asia are not in conflict with multilateral ties or engagement with China. Bilateral and multilateral approaches are mutually reinforcing.

ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION

Session 1: Alliance System and Comprehensive Security in East Asia

U.S. Perspective: Victor Cha

U.S. Alliances and Regional Security Architecture

The ROK-US alliance has been characterized as a military relationship forged in wartime during the early 1950s. The dramatically changing landscape of the international community in the 21st century, however, requires the redefinition of the alliance between these two states. The ROK-US alliance is no longer fixed in the premise of security against external military threats. The nature of the alliance is not limited to a region in the 21st century; the alliance is now largely perceived as global in nature in the sense that the U.S. and ROK cooperate in different parts of the world sharing common values. This has been reinvigorated under the Obama administration in contrast to the Bush administration. We are witnessing the growing aspects of free trade and democracy in the ROK-US alliance in the 21st century as South Korea emerges as an influential player at the global level hosting the G-20 summit in 2010.

Victor Cha started his presentation by challenging the popular wisdom that the U.S. was unsuccessful in architectural thinking for Asia through its alliance system. He explained that regional security architecture is emerging and evolving and the U.S. alliances are strong, deep, and central in the region. However, Cha pointed out the problem with the inevitability of a security dilemma arising from the U.S. regional security architecture in Asia. U.S.-led bilateralism and multilateralism can be seen as containing China, which is at the center of the discussion at the international level. At the same time, the U.S. is often excluded from Asian-led multilateralism. The perception is that newly emerging multilateral cooperation among Asian states affects the existing power structure in the region, which adversely affects the states excluded, thus creating a zero-sum game. However, Cha maintained that non-zero sum outcomes are possible by ameliorating the security dilemma. The U.S. alliances should actively engage China rather than contain the new global power and the U.S., Japan, and China should find ways to cooperate despite the hostile historical background.

In consistent with theoretical and empirical assumptions on regional security architecture, Cha noted that no single umbrella institution could work in East Asia. What works in the region in terms of security is an institution formed around specific functions, as opposed to a process, in order to provide public goods to the region such as clean energy and development strategy. Also, Cha emphasized that multilateralism and bilateralism are not diametrically opposing concepts, they are mutually reinforcing concepts. For example, multilateral disaster relief efforts came from deep bilateral relations.

Also, Cha pointed out the basis of evolving architecture in the region. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and US-ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN) engagement reflects the U.S. interests to maintain constructive relationships with Asian countries through multilateral institutions. Networking or patchworking of U.S. allies is another strategy to develop regional security alliances, which uses bilateral ties to build multilateral relations or formal institutions in order to create norms and habits of cooperation in Asia. Cha specifically mentioned Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group (TCOG), Trilateral Security Dialogue (TSD), U.S.-Japan-China relations, Quad, Six-Party Talks, Northeast Asia Peace and Security Mechanism (NEAPSM), and Asia Pacific Democracy Partnership (APDP) to demonstrate the U.S. efforts to connect dispersed allies in order to promote regional security and stability.

Cha concluded his presentation by suggesting areas for future cooperation. He emphasized the importance of trilateral dialogue in resolving regional problems. The US-Japan-China dialogue at the policy planning level provides an important base for regional security. The policy coordination of the U.S., China, and South Korea is also critical in dealing with North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and potential regime instability in Pyongyang. Regarding the APDP, it is easier to discuss rule of law rather than religious freedom at the regional level...(Continued)

Prepared by the East Asia Institute. The East Asia Institute takes no institutional position on policy issues and has no affiliation with the Korean government. All statements of fact and expressions of opinion contained in its publications are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.