South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy

“Middle Power” diplomacy is a hot-button issue in South Korean society, generating a extensive discussion on how best to realize South Korea’s dream of becoming a middle power that is widely recognized and respected within the international community. The debate has generated a spate of academic works offering comparative studies between South Korea and other recognized middle powers like Canada and Australia. But besides the focus on specific countries, a broader perspective is needed to analyze South Korea’s middle power dream: an understanding of global and regional circumstances and how they relate to middle power diplomacy.

First, at the global level, the admittedly bumpy processes of globalization, particularly economic globalization, mostly serves to reinforce the dominant role of current rulemakers in world affairs. Traditional great powers in the West and their multinational corporations are leading the way, although it’s true that newly emerged economies like South Korea after the “Han River miracle” and China after its opening-up in the late 1970s have benefited from the opportunities brought by the international division of labor. Globalization, however, has not quite bought extra diplomatic space for middle powers.

Second, at the regional level, the extremely complicated geopolitical situation in East Asia and the haunting historical disputes among regional states mean that South Korea’s middle power dream does not come easily. Obviously, South Korea’s ambition of truly becoming a middle power starts with being recognized and, more importantly, being respected as a genuine middle-tier or even strong power in the region. Only then can Seoul win global recognition as a middle power. Although South Korea has been working hard since Roh Moo-hyun’s administration to position itself as a middle power in East Asia, success has not come easily.

Given the geopolitical complexity in the region and the protracted historical disputes among member states, South Korea’s best course for middle power diplomacy is to use “modular” diplomacy, to borrow terminology from industrial manufacturing or software design. Modular diplomacy, though closely related to the general international order and balance of power that has persisted since the Cold War, is also uniquely flexible. Under this interpretation, modular diplomacy means allowing regional states to assemble or associate together according to different standards, agreements, policies, and also national strategies based on separate (but potentially overlapping) consensuses.

The move toward modular diplomacy gets its impetus from the far-reaching consequences of globalization, but also from the specific constraints of this era. We are seeing a structural change brought on by the relative decline of the United States and the rapid emergence of China. For South Korea, the transition from a previously stable (perhaps even constraining) hierarchical structure to a relatively adjustable and modular structure has brought about a substantial degree of flexibility, making it feasible for Seoul to diversify its national diplomacy.

South Korea is not alone in pursuing flexible, modular diplomacy. States in East Asia, including South Korea, are all seeking sub-regional cooperation based on agreements at the bilateral or multilateral level. The network of relationships between Northeast Asian countries and the Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN) is a good example. Currently, China, South Korea, and Japan have all established close ties with ASEAN; they each have their own “10+1” mechanism for interacting with ASEAN, as well as the “10+3” grouping that includes all 13 states. You also have the bilateral pairings of state-to-state relations, as well as the China-South Korea-Japan trilateral, which recently resumed top-level summits. Each of these relationships or groupings can be understood as a “module” that operates in concert with, but also independently from, the others.

South Korea’s diplomacy has also been “modular” with regard to its strategies toward the great powers in the region: the United States and China. Traditionally, for political and security concerns, Seoul has looked to Washington for help. The military alliance between South Korea and the United States remains the most important mechanism to protect and maintain South Korea’s national security. Yet South Korea has built such profound economic ties with China that it can hardly free itself from its dependency on China’s fast-growing economy and its vast domestic market. For many South Koreans, economic ties with China are no less important than the military alliance with the United States. Geopolitical limits have given South Korea some difficult choices to make when balancing the “modules” of relations with Washington and Beijing.

But modular diplomacy is more than making the best of a difficult situation – it may be the key to achieving South Korea’s middle power dream. The definition and understanding of “middle power” should not be limited to measurables like territory, population, and military force. In fact, being a “middle power” in practice indicates that a country has pivotal significance to other great powers. For example, South Korea certainly needs to keep its close military ties with the United States for security reasons, but South Korea is just as obviously an important part in the U.S. Asia-Pacific strategy.

Meanwhile, South Korea has maintained and will continue to keep its close and active economic ties with China. That trade relationship is important not only for South Korea, but for China as well. Seoul already punches above its weight when it comes to economic relations with China. For example, in 2014, the volume of South Korea-China trade reached $290 billion, very close to the $310 billion in trade done between China and Japan – even though South Korea’s GDP is only one-fifth the size of Japan’s.

If South Korea continues to adopt a modular approach to diplomacy – forging relationships with other states based on unique constraints and consensuses, rather than being tied to a strict hierarchy – it can leverage its importance to both China and the United States. Although Seoul’s geopolitical dilemma is real, the complex and difficult situation also offers important pivotal advantages which Korean policymakers to capitalize upon.