EAI Middle Power Diplomacy Initiative Special Report

Author  

Sook-Jong Lee is the President of the East Asia Institute, an independent, non-profit think tank based in Seoul. She is also a professor of public administration at Sungkyunkwan University. Cur-rently, Dr. Lee holds a number of advisory positions in the South Korean government, including the Presidential National Security Advisory Group, Presidential Committee for Unification Preparation and councils for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Unification, and the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA). Dr. Lee also participates as member of the Trilateral Commission, Council of Councils, and many other transnational networks on research and policy studies. Her research interests include multilateralism, democracy, and civil societies, focusing on South Korea, Japan, and other East Asian countries. Previously, Dr. Lee was a research fellow at the Sejong Institute, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, a professorial lecturer at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, and a visiting fellow at the German Institute for Global and Area Studies. Her recent publications include Keys to Successful Presidency in South Korea (ed. 2013), “South Korea as New Middle Power Seeking Complex Diplomacy” (2012), Korea’s Role in Global Governance for Development Cooperation (ed 2012), Public Diplomacy and Soft Power in East Asia (eds. 2011), Japan and East Asia: Regional Cooperation and Community Building (eds. 2011), and Toward Managed Globalization: The Korean Experience (eds. 2010). Dr. Lee received her B.A. from Yonsei University, and M.A. and Ph.D. in sociology from Harvard University.

Chaesung Chun is the Chair of the Asia Security Initiative Research Center at East Asia Institute. He is a professor of the department of political science and international relations at Seoul National University and director of Center for International Studies at Seoul National University. Dr. Chun is also serving as an advisory committee member for the Republic of Korea Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Unification. He received his B.A. and M.A. from Seoul National University, and Ph.D. in international relations from Northwestern University. His research in-terests include international relations, security studies, South Korean foreign policy, and East Asian security relations. His recent publications include Theory of East Asian International Relations (2011), Is Politics Moral? Reinhold Niebuhr’s Transcendental Realism (2010), and “The Rise of New Powers and the Responding Strategies of Other Countries” (2008).

HyeeJung Suh is the research fellow in the Peace and Security Research Unit at East Asia Institute. Ms. Suh previously worked as a research analyst at Samsung Economic Research Institute. She received her B.S. in International Politics from the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and M.A. in International Economic Policy from Columbia University.

Patrick Thomsen is a research fellow in the Peace and Security Unit at the East Asia Institute. He completed his Master's in International Studies at Seoul National University's Graduate School of International Studies majoring in international cooperation, and his Bachelor of Arts in political science from the University of Auckland in his country of origin, New Zealand. He has recently been awarded and accepted a top scholar fellowship to begin his doctoral studies in international relations at the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington in Seattle, beginning in the fall of 2015.

The concept of middle power or junggyun-guk rose to prominence in Seoul’s policy circles following the inauguration of the Lee Myung-bak administration in 2008, under the banner of a “Global Korea.” This approach resulted in the nation playing host to major international events such as the G20 Seoul Summit, the Fourth High-level Forum for Development Effectiveness and the 2012 Nuclear Summit. The current Park administration has also delineated middle power diplomacy as a key foreign policy pillar, linking it with its global contribution diplomacy.

Middle power diplomacy as concept is ambiguous at best. However, its effectiveness can be clearly seen in positional power, in terms of capability, geographical location and also in a norma-tive sense. The importance of Korea’s positioning as a middle power comes as the international environment has undergone major changes, where the traditional U.S.-led hierarchical power structure has given way to emerging horizontal transnational networks focused on diverse issues and diffusing power. This change in the global structure of relations has allowed middle power diplomacy to rise in prominence and has meant the middle power diplomacy lens has focused squarely on multilateralism. However, the inevitable rise of China, coupled with an assertive re-balance to Asia by the U.S., has complicated the foreign policy question for Korea and others in the region. Contextual changes may have allowed middle powers to take on greater roles, but un-certainty and complexity in power relations between the world's two major powers has forced middle power nations to examine closely how network power derived from this new environment can be used to advance its own foreign policy goals. As South Korea is a widely accepted ally of the United States, what complicates this picture even further is the fact that Seoul has shown a greater desire to strengthen ties with Washington of late, a phenomenon facilitated by deepening North Korean provocations in recent times. Although South Korea is likely to play a facilitating role in U.S.-China cooperation across a wide range of differing issues, it still remains to be seen how this will play out in the long term and in which contexts specifically. Additionally, on the global front, issue complexity has dramatically increased, as areas that were once separated, have become intertwined and interlocked via complex linkages, calling for fresh thinking in how to approach these proliferating and delicate issue areas. It is within this backdrop that the rise of middle power diplomacy as a viable foreign policy strategy has attracted much warranted scholarly and practitioner attention.

The first section of this paper homes in specifically on the definition of a middle power. It finds that there are multiple conceptions of how a middle power can be conceived, although there appears to be consensus on certain typical features of a middle power. For instance, the term ‘brokerage diplomacy,’ or acting as a bridge between two great nations, appears often in the findings of the research panel. Another overarching identity of middle powers is “co-architect.” Middle powers help great powers incorporate the voices of middle and small powers in designing the international architecture. However, a bridging or co-architect role itself is not sufficient in being able to define a middle power. Middle powers derive their status from being a part of a network. Therefore, for a nation to claim the identity of a middle power makes no sense outside of this determined networked framework. Exploring this area of network connectedness is emerging as perhaps the most exciting development in middle power diplomacy. A middle power’s role is complex and dynamic. Outside of this bridging role, each middle power needs to determine issues that are pertinent to their interests, and use the positional power that being a part of this network provides them in pursuing that objective.

The following section focuses on the task of facilitating the formation of a middle power net-work. The first portion outlines the case for a middle power network. It is clear that a need for a middle power network is rooted firmly in the changing nature of the security environment. In-creasingly global norms toward collective solutions to regional and localized problems - rising multilateralism, has found itself under increasing pressure in East Asia, as the rise of China and the renewed vigor of the U.S. focus in the Asia-Pacific region is increasing the likelihood of emerging issue cleavages leading to an increased risk of conflict. Therefore a middle power network framed within this multilateral framework is necessary in helping countries in the region to alleviate potential concerns for both of the hegemonic nations focused on the area. The need for a middle power network is not disputed; rather, what is of great concern is what shape or arrangement a middle power network may take. The MPDI research panel looked extensively at loose frameworks such as MIKTA and more formalized groupings like the BRICS and concluded that a network like MIKTA is indeed something that is needed in the Asia-Pacific region.

The third section of this report deals with the task of exploring issues for a middle power network that enhances U.S.-China cooperation. This concern covers a wide array of critical issue areas such as cyber security, the environment, regional trade and security architectural frameworks, and maritime disputes. The ability to synthesize the interests of the world's two great hegemonic nations is also vital in helping to find a collective solution to the nuclear problem with global consequences on the Korean peninsula. Being able to elicit the support of multiple nations in denuclearizing North Korea is a central strategy related to middle power diplomacy that South Korea must seek to exploit further.

The final part of this report pools together a whole host of policy recommendations from all the sources of the MPDI research activities. The policy recommendations will look to specific ideas and recommendations for policy practitioners that have been arranged thematically into specific issue areas. This section specifically uses the case of South Korea’s middle power diplomacy in various issues with possible suggestions to other middle powers in their attempts to project their roles on the international stage. Recommendations are also made at the local, country-specific level, at a wider, regional perspective and finally from an ever larger, global scope, in which key findings will help to shape the discourse around middle power diplomacy on a wide range of complicated global issues that will require greater use of middle power diplomacy as a foreign policy approach.

This paper draws its source material entirely from the work of the MPDI research network, which consists of an extensive working papers series, issue briefings, ambassador roundtables, policy recommendation papers, and the proceedings from the Middle Power Diplomacy Forum held in Seoul in the final quarter of 2014.

Identifying Middle Powers: Conceptualizing Middle Power Diplomacy

Research on ‘middle power’ took off with the end of the Cold War in 1989. Works by Stokke (Sokke, 1989), Pratt (Pratt, 1990), and Cooper and his colleagues (Higgott and Cooper, 1990; Cooper, Higgott, and Nossal, 1993; Cooper, 1997) laid the foundation for the study of middle power diplomacy. Cooper, Higgott, and Nossal’s research, in particular, made significant contributions to delineating the concept of ‘middle power’ through a detailed analysis of the diplomatic behavioral patterns of middle powers. According to them, middle powers tend to engage in ‘mid-dlepowermanship.’ It is defined as “[the] tendency to pursue multilateral solutions to international problems, [the] tendency to embrace compromise positions in international disputes, and [the] tendency to embrace notions of “good international citizenship” to guide its diplomacy (Cooper, Higgott, and Nossal, 1993: p.19).” Middle powers thus engage in unique behavioral patterns that make them catalysts, facilitators, and managers. Catalysts trigger and promote special global issues while facilitators build coalitions based on cooperation, and managers develop and advance international institutions and norms. Cooper, Higgott, and Nossal posit that these three types of middle power behavioral patterns are linked to niche diplomacy, which involves “concentrating resources in specific areas best able to generate returns worth having (Cooper, Higgott, and Nossal, 1993: pp.25-26)...(Continued)