U.S. POLICY TOWARD THE TWO KOREAS.   Term Paper ID:29186 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Historical and strategic dimensions.... More...

6 Pages / 1350 Words 8 sources, 17 Citations, APA Format $24.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Historical and strategic dimensions. U.S. pursuit of the "one-Korea" policy. American foreign policy toward South Korea from the end of the Korean War through 2002. Impact on Korean unification. U.S> initiatives stressing South Korean economic development, social reforms and long-range U.S. public assistance. South Korea's economic difficulties of the 1990s. New U.S. policy under Bush administration toward the Korean peninsula. Paper Introduction: U.S. Foreign Policy: The Case of South Korea United States policy toward the “Two Koreas” has many dimensions which derive from the historical complexity of the situation, its strategic nuances, and debates between supporters of a continued alliance with South Korea and supporters of a new effort to “reach out” to North Korea (Olsen, 2000). This brief essay will examine American foreign policy toward South Korea from the end of the Korean War to the present. The thesis will be advanced that the one consistent aspect of American policy that has not changed is an overt and pointed “one-Korea” policy in which American officials have made Korean unification secondary to recognition of Seoul as the legitimate government of Korea (Olsen, 2000). After the Korean War was ended by a cease-fire, the United Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Bush has identified North Korea as part of an "axis of evil"that includes Iraq and Iran (Cha, 2 2). Foreign Affairs, 81(3), 79-82+.Don't worry, for now. Johnson (Park,1999). Such a move would benefitSouth Korea and do much to ensure stability in the region. The collapse ofthe Soviet Union in the 199 s made it possible for the United States toagain focus its attention on creating positive and proactive traderelationships with countries such as South Korea and to assist suchcountries in maintaining their national sovereignty. policy toward the Koreanpeninsula. As Eberstadt (2 2) pointed out, despite South Korea's economicdifficulties in the 199 s, the country is again on track to continue itsprogress toward economic development and stabilization. has maintained in recentdecades that it may contemplate the possibility of changing its stance onthe sovereignty issue - the notion that only the ROK is a "legitimate"sovereign state - by extending full diplomatic recognition to North Korea.This would occur, according to Olsen (2 ), only in the vent that NorthKorea conforms to U.S> definitions of international norms. military aid to the country, including both direct andindirect assistance, was more than the South Korean defense budget in the196 s. Bush has announced a new U.S. U.S. The perception on the part of the United States was thatNorth Korea's poor economic situation and its inability to maintain an armsrace with the ROK made it possible for the U.S. The U.S.-South Korea alliance: Free-riding or bargaining? (1999). military strategy. Since the late 198 s, however, South Korea has decreasedits defense spending in parallel to the United States (Lee & Heo, 2 1). Far Eastern Economic Review, 156(3), 12-13+.Cha, V.D. The thesis will beadvanced that the one consistent aspect of American policy that has notchanged is an overt and pointed "one-Korea" policy in which Americanofficials have made Korean unification secondary to recognition of Seoul asthe legitimate government of Korea (Olsen, 2 ). A critical element in American policy toward the ROK has been theassumption on the part of the U.S. World Affairs, 162(4), 15 -156.Park, T.G. of much of the country's defense burden(Lee & Heo, 2 1). Today, as the United States finds itself engaged in a war on terror,President George W. Throughout the period from the end of the Korean War to the present,Fowler (1999) contends that American policies have been heavily influencedby events occurring in South Korea itself. Today, Americancommitment to South Korea continues to be strong. (2 2). The major transformation of American policy with respect to SouthKorea occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union. During this period, Fowler (1999) states that American foreign policyworked to achieve stability in South Korea and to move the country awayfrom military control and into the hands of a democratically electedgovernment. In the196 s, this amounted to no more than 4 percent of ROK gross nationalproduct (GNP). to reduce its militarypresence. The key change was the substitution of economic development aid for directgrants, a process that began in the late 195 s under Dwight D. This change was further stimulated bypolitical, economic and personnel changes in South Korea in the late 195 s. Under Bush, it is possible that the Clintonadministration's policy of enlargement and engagement will be modified andthat the United States will demand that North Korea submit to verifiablecontrols on missile production and exports. assistance and a substantial flow of capital from theWest, the ROK has joined OECD and has created a genuine democracy with asound constitutional base. This brief essay will examine American foreign policy toward SouthKorea from the end of the Korean War to the present. Later, in the 197 s, American policy shifts caused the ROK tosubstantially increase its spending on defense. Eberstadt (2 2) noted that over the last half-century, East Asia hasbeen a virtual kaleidoscope of political and economic change, with thesecurity face-ff in Korea one of the few constants. Win, hold, confuse: South Koreans worried by new U.S. Kennedy, and in conjunction with the 1961establishment of a military junta in South Korea, the opportunity torestructure American policy emerged. Political Science Quarterly, 114(2), 265-267.Lee, J.S., & Heo, U. This is due in largemeasure to North Korea's nuclear and terrorist activities which areperceived by both South Korea and the United States as representing aregional threat of some substance. Martial lawwas declared in 198 after demonstrators were killed and it was not until1987 that the country's leader Chun Doo Hwan agreed to step down and allowdemocratic elections. In 199 , The Economist (Don't worry, for now, 199 ) reported thatAmerican policies changed in part because of America's own defensecutbacks. (1993). Foreign Policy: The Case of South Korea United States policy toward the "Two Koreas" has many dimensionswhich derive from the historical complexity of the situation, its strategicnuances, and debates between supporters of a continued alliance with SouthKorea and supporters of a new effort to "reach out" to North Korea (Olsen,2 ). U.S. The Economist, 314(764 ), 33-34.Eberstadt, N. Enormous and heavilyarmed Korean armies still face each other across a "demilitarized zone(DMZ)" and the United states continues top provide the essential element ofdeterrence in the Korean equation through its Mutual Defense Treaty withthe ROK. From the perspective of the SouthKoreans, this policy perspective has been greeted with enthusiasm and asense that there may be new American economic and military aid flowing tothe South Koreans. Our other Korea problem. For the better part of a decade and a half, fromthe end of the Korean War to 1961, it as this ideological posture whichunderpinned all American policy impacting upon South Korea - includingmassive military aid and support in order to ensure that potentialhostilities with North Korea would not erupt. (2 1 ). opposed South Korean currency expansion, whichwas considered the be the cornerstone of stability. U.S. Korea's place in the axis. Early in the post-Korean War period, the Eisenhower Administrationemphasized domestic stability by encouraging a stable economy and reducinginflation. This briefreview has identified the central components of American policy towardSouth Korea. (2 2). ReferencesAwanohara, S., & Hoon, S.J. In 1969, the ROK agreedwith President Jimmy Carter to raise its defense burden to 6 percent of GNPin return for cancellation of Carter's plan to withdraw all U.S. The National Interest, Fall, 11 -118.Fowler, J. For example, during 1979 and198 , that country experienced a failed transition to democracy after theassassination of authoritarian leader Park Chung Hee in 1979. After the inaugurationof the Republic of Korea (ROK) in 1948, the U.S. Change in U.S. Under President George Bush, the United States produced a planto significantly decrease the number of American military forces present inSouth Korea. Eisenhowerand which continued under Presidents Kennedy and Lyndon B. has maintained a formal security treaty relationship with thecountry. troopsfrom the country. Asian Survey, 41(5), 822-846.Olsen, E.A. (199 ). (1999). A defining characteristic of suchpolicies was the belief, frequently expressed by Washington, that the onlytrue and legitimate government in Korea was located in Seoul; this policypositioned the "other" Korea, North Korea, as an illegitimate entity inwhich an unauthorized government controlled territory that "belonged" toSouth Korea (Park, 1999). public assistance. Over the entire period from the end of the Korean War to the present,the U.S. policy toward South Korea in the early 196 s. worried about a possiblechallenge to the regime of Sigmund Rhee from external forces as well asdomestic economic instability (Park, 1999). Korean Studies, Annual, 94-1 8+. In the beginning of the alliance period between the twonations, South Korea maintained a relatively low defense budget. The ultimate success of such a policy is seen by Olsen (2 )as based upon a high degree of consistency on the part of the UnitedStates. With the establishment underKennedy of USAID, an organization designed to implement and assess foreignaid to countries such as South Korea, the shift in policy emphasized socialreforms that would democratize institutions, land policy, tax reform, andsocial progress. (2 ). During the administrationof President John F. However, as Olsen (2 ) noted, the U.S. After the Korean War was ended by a cease-fire, the United Statesintroduced a number of foreign policy initiatives for South Korea thatfocused on stabilization programs, military support, and transfer offoreign private capital (Park, 1999). In 1961, Park (1999) states that the foregoing policies were replacedby American initiatives stressing South Korean economic development, socialreforms, and long-range U.S. Hence, between 199 and 1993, U.S. forces in South Korea werereduced by 16 percent (Awanohara & Hoon, 1993). With U.S. The United States and South Korean democratization. security policy and the two Koreas. In accord with the prevailing economic thinking behind foreignaid in the 195 s, the U.S. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.