South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
Congressional research reportSep 30, 2009
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and
Foreign Policy Outlook
(name redacted)
Specialist in Asian Affairs
September 30, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R40851
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
Summary
South Korea’s maturing democracy and rapid economic development have had a significant
impact on its external relations, including the strategic and economic relationship with the United
States. After decades of close strategic alignment with the United States under authoritarian
governments, the past several democratically elected leaders in Seoul have sought their own
brand of foreign policy and relations with the United States. Now the 13th largest global economy,
South Korea is a major U.S. trade partner and host to some 37,000 forward deployed U.S. troops.
President Lee Myung-bak entered office in 2008 planning to upgrade ties with the United States
and carry out other ambitious proposals, but faced multiple political challenges early in his
administration. One initial crisis was the massive anti-government protests against the April 2008
U.S.-Korea beef deal. Lee’s approval ratings fell to the 20%-30% level, although his ratings had
returned to the 40-50% range in the early fall of 2009 due to improved economic forecasts. Many
experts agree his political support remains fragile, including within his Grand National Party
(GNP), which controls South Korea’s unicameral National Assembly. Lee’s clout may be limited
by his early “lame duck” status; by law, South Korean presidents are limited to one, five-year
term. The next presidential election is scheduled for 2012, the same year as the next nationwide
National Assembly elections.
Although many argue that Lee’s early problems were of his own making, South Korea’s
politically charged and fractious democratic system presents unique challenges for its leaders.
Korean presidents operate under extremely intense media and voter scrutiny, and are occasional
targets of activist groups that use the Internet to mobilize mass demonstrations like the 2008 beef
protests. Civic demonstrations are a carryover from the pro-democracy movement that helped to
end South Korea’s authoritarian rule just two decades ago.
South Korea’s increased self-assurance has raised aspirations for greater international clout and
respect from the United States as a more equal alliance partner. Over the past decade, Washington
and Seoul have taken a number of steps to recognize South Korea’s rise. President Lee’s vision of
a “Global Korea” reflects even greater ambitions for a higher profile on the world stage, including
a more assertive role in regional diplomacy. Lee has also shifted his predecessor’s policy of
unconditional engagement of North Korea to a “reciprocal” policy toward Pyongyang. This move
has reoriented South Korean diplomacy away from pro-engagement China and closer to the U.S.
and Japanese position on pressuring the regime to give up its nuclear weapons program.
Despite an upswing in South Korean attitudes toward the United States, several outstanding
agenda items are affecting bilateral relations. These include relocating the U.S. Army base at
Yongsan to Pyongtaek; transferring wartime operational control (OPCON) from U.S. to South
Korean command; South Korea’s contribution to allied efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan; and
the pending bilateral KORUS Free Trade Agreement. Congress has a decisive role to play in
approving appropriations for the base relocation plan and the ratification of the KORUS FTA.
Lee and President Obama nevertheless signed a “Joint Vision” statement during their bilateral
summit in June 2009 that outlines a broad set of proposals for upgrading bilateral cooperation on
global issues such as climate change and non-proliferation. But domestic political factors will
likely set the parameters of Korea’s efforts to become a greater stakeholder in the international
community. A clearer understanding of these factors may help Congress and U.S. policymakers
determine realistic goals for the U.S.-South Korean relationship over the mid to long term.
Congressional Research Service
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
President Lee’s Political Standing................................................................................................2
Lee’s Handling of the South Korean Economy ......................................................................3
Lee’s Conservative GNP Remains Divided............................................................................4
Challenges from the Left.......................................................................................................5
U.S.-ROK Relations....................................................................................................................6
Improved Official Ties ..........................................................................................................6
Shifting Public Attitudes Toward the United States................................................................7
Issues in the U.S.-ROK Military Alliance ..............................................................................8
U.S. Force Deployment and Base Relocation Plans .........................................................8
Wartime Operational Control (OPCON) ..........................................................................8
Afghanistan ....................................................................................................................9
The KORUS FTA and Economic Issues ................................................................................9
Regional Diplomacy ................................................................................................................. 10
Inter-Korean Relations ........................................................................................................ 11
ROK-Japan Relations.......................................................................................................... 12
ROK-China Relations ......................................................................................................... 13
ROK-Russia Relations ........................................................................................................ 14
Options and Implications for the United States .......................................................................... 14
Figures
Figure 1. Party Strength in the National Assembly.......................................................................4
Appendixes
Appendix. South Korea’s Political System: Background, Structure and Key Institutional
Actors .................................................................................................................................... 17
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 20
Author Note.............................................................................................................................. 20
Congressional Research Service
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
Introduction1
South Korea’s shifting political landscape has had a significant impact in recent years on the
nation’s external relations, including its political and strategic relationship with the United States.
Current South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, who belongs to the right-of-center Grand
National Party (GNP), came to power in February 2008 pledging to boost domestic economic
growth, improve alliance relations with the United States, and enhance South Korea’s
international status. A former business tycoon, Lee’s promise of a “pragmatic,” business-like
approach to economic policy resonated with Korean voters hoping for more stable and sustained
economic growth. Lee also promised to end the policy of unconditional engagement of North
Korea practiced by his left-of-center predecessor, Roh Moo-hyun. The president has instead
pursued a “reciprocal” relationship with the North Korean regime. But a series of political
setbacks early in the Lee administration, including the contentious April 2008 agreement to lift a
ban on most U.S. beef imports, have hampered momentum toward some of the president’s key
policy objectives, such as efforts to enhance the bilateral alliance with the United States.
Although Lee’s approval ratings have improved in recent months due to better-than-expected
economic performance, his support rate is fragile and his plans for the bilateral alliance remain
vulnerable to the polarized domestic political climate.
Many believe that Lee’s problems stem in part from his own handling of issues, but they are also
symptomatic of the complexities of the South Korean political culture and system. South Korea’s
emergence from an authoritarian state to a democracy—in just over two decades—has unleashed
an outburst of participatory democracy that is marked by a burgeoning civil society, a generally
free and highly critical mass media, a fluid political party system, and a sophisticated use of the
Internet to galvanize and mobilize massive anti-government public demonstrations. After decades
of authoritarian rule that ended in the late 1980s, South Korean leaders are now exposed to
intense public scrutiny and are more dependent on public support to implement their policy
agendas.
Yet for all its accomplishments, South Korea’s democratic development is still considered by
many to be a work in progress. The legislative branch of government, comprising the 299member unicameral National Assembly, is structurally weak compared to the presidency and the
central bureaucracy. Limited to a single, five-year term, Korean leaders nonetheless risk
becoming lame-ducks soon after taking office. South Korean political parties form, disband, and
merge regularly, in part because they tend to be regionally-based and centered around charismatic
personalities rather than substantive issues. The fractious nature of the South Korean political
system complicates policymaking in Seoul, particularly over politically-charged issues involving
North Korea and the United States. Concerns about the current political system have spurred a
growing movement in South Korea to revise the constitution in order to allow further structural
and institutional improvements to the domestic political system. (For more on the current South
Korean political system see the Appendix.)
All of these factors exist in the backdrop of South Korea’s evolution from a developing,
authoritarian state to the world’s 13th-largest economy and rapidly maturing democracy—a
1
The lead author of this report was Weston Konishi, who filled in as an Analyst in Asian Affairs for three months in
2009.
Congressional Research Service
1
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
transition that has not yet reconciled traditional insecurities about South Korea’s position vis-à-vis
surrounding great powers and growing aspirations to become an advanced nation in its own
right.2 This tension has immediate consequences for South Korean foreign policy and relations
with the United States, which has been South Korea’s most important partner since helping to
found the nation in 1948. At times resentful of U.S. influence, South Korean public attitudes
toward the United States have been on an upswing of late amid ongoing bilateral efforts to work
out sensitive alliance management issues. Lee’s shift toward a conditional relationship with North
Korea also has reshaped Seoul’s regional diplomacy. In particular, the move has realigned South
Korea with the United States and Japan in their attempt to pressure Pyongyang to abandon its
nuclear weapons program, while diverging somewhat from pro-engagement China. Public
support for this approach, along with Lee’s vision of a “Global Korea”3 and efforts to strengthen
the bilateral U.S.-South Korea alliance, may be lost if the president fails to maintain his political
standing until his term ends in February 2013.
President Lee’s Political Standing
A year and a half into his five-year, single term presidency, President Lee has encountered
multiple political challenges that have damaged his popularity throughout much of his
administration. The president’s early political troubles destroyed much of his political
“honeymoon” period and made it difficult for him to navigate attacks from both his left and right
flanks. This has hampered many of Lee’s policy priorities, including the revitalization of alliance
ties with the United States. One of the initial signs of trouble in the Lee administration was the
massive anti-government protests that followed the April 2008 U.S.-Korea beef deal.4 The
protests dropped Lee’s approval ratings to the 20%-30% level, compared with the 49% of the vote
the former mayor of Seoul and Hyundai businessman captured in the five-candidate presidential
election on December 19, 2007. Many analysts believe that Lee also took a political hit as a result
of the Lee government’s initial response to external economic shocks, particularly the global
financial crisis, which contributed to a slowdown in Korea’s economic performance. Some polls
indicate that Lee’s approval ratings in the early fall of 2009 climbed back into the high 40%
range, principally due to slightly improved economic forecasts for South Korea.
2
According to a March 2008 Chosun Ilbo poll, a plurality of Koreans (43%) believe their nation will become an
“advanced country” in six to ten years. See the Mansfield Foundation Asian Opinion Poll Database at
http://mansfieldfdn.org/polls/2008/poll-08-03.htm.
3
The notion of a “Global Korea” is elucidated in Global Korea: The National Security Strategy of the Republic of
Korea, Office of the President, June 2009. According to the report, Global Korea: “ ... refers to a Korea that leaves
behind a habit of diplomacy narrowly geared to the Korean Peninsula, and adopts a more open and enterprising posture
that sees the world stage as the appropriate platform for its foreign policy and national interest” (p.12).
4
For more on the beef issue see CRS Report RL34528, U.S.-South Korea Beef Dispute: Agreement and Status, by
(name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
2
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
Analysis of the 2008 Beef Protesters
Initially, the protests that occurred in the days after the
April beef deal were relatively small, led by middle and high
school students, and reportedly focused almost solely on the
beef agreement. As the deal came under more scrutiny,
groups from across the political spectrum began arguing that
it jeopardized Korean safety, with most of the attention
focused on cows older than 30 months.5 By the beginning of
June, the protests had expanded to include tens of
thousands of Koreans. They also had developed into a broad
condemnation against the then new government of President
Lee Myung-bak. Following the announcement of the June 21
agreement, the size and intensity of the protests appeared to
ebb somewhat, and some opinion polls revealed that a
majority of Koreans felt the protests should end.6 While
participants in the large-scale protests in early June appear
to have come from a cross-section of South Korean society,
according to South Korean police many of the main
organizers hailed from the Aprogressive@ side of the political
spectrum. They tend to oppose the KORUS FTA, as well as
much of Lee=s agenda, particularly his plans to deregulate the
economy, reduce restrictions on South Korean
conglomerates (the chaebol), and make relations with North
Korea more reciprocal.7
The 2008 beef protests, which for weeks
virtually paralyzed policy-making in Seoul,
appear to have been fueled by a coalescing
of several factors, including a perception
that the beef deal symbolized Lee’s
allegedly “arrogant” decision-making style;
a feeling that the avowedly pro-American
Lee was too willing to concede to the
United States on an issue of public safety;
increased angst over South Korea’s
deteriorating economic situation, caused in
part by rising inflation and global financial
disruptions; and a desire by the main
opposition party, the Democratic Party, to
reverse electoral setbacks that had deprived
its predecessor party of the presidency (in a
December 2007 election) and control of the
National Assembly (in April 2008
parliamentary elections). The beef
agreement also tapped into many South
Koreans’ widespread resentment of what
they perceive to be an unequal relationship
with the United States.
Although the protests dwindled considerably after the announcement of a renegotiated U.S.-South
Korean deal on beef on June 21, 2008, they significantly eroded Lee’s ability to take political
risks and promote his policy agenda at the very start of his administration. Throughout 2008 and
much of 2009, Lee has had to back off many of the ambitious policy initiatives he either
campaigned on or launched after assuming office, including a plan to link Seoul to Pusan by
water by digging a “grand canal.” Perhaps most significantly for the United States, Lee’s
weakened position has meant that he has had less political capital—let alone political will—to
spend on measures to achieve his goal of upgrading the U.S.-South Korean alliance, including
overcoming opposition to relocating U.S. bases in South Korea.
Lee’s Handling of the South Korean Economy
Lee’s signature campaign pledge—promoting economic growth—has been hurt, first by soaring
energy prices in early 2008 and then by the global economic slowdown. Lee had touted a ten-year
“747 target” of raising South Korea’s annual GDP growth to 7.0%, doubling its per capita income
to $40,000, and stepping from the world’s 13th largest economy to its seventh largest. However,
South Korea’s economy has been buffeted by the global financial crisis. GDP growth plunged
into negative territory in the last quarter of 2008 and unemployment rose to nearly 4% in May
5 Chosun Ilbo, AU.S. Beef from Cattle Older than 30 Months Should Not Be Allowed on Koreans= Dining Tables,@ June
14, 2008.
6 See, for instance, Hyun-kyung Kang,@President Plays Hardball As His Rating Goes Up,@The Korea Times, June 25,
2008.
7 OSC Report, AFour ROK Civic Groups Leading Anti-Government Beef Protests Profiled,@ KPP20080605048001,
June 5, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
3
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
2009, considered high by Korean standards and nearly a percentage point increase since late
2008. Because South Korean banks—collectively among the industrialized world’s most
leveraged—are heavily reliant upon foreign borrowing for their financing needs, the squeezing of
international credit markets led to severe shortages of credit in South Korea in late 2008.8 South
Korean trade with the outside world plummeted and the South Korean won plunged in value in
the fall of 2008 and early 2009. In response to the economic dislocation, the Bank of Korea has
reduced interest rates to a record low of 2% and the Lee government has unveiled a series of
large-scale stimulus packages, negotiated a multi-billion dollar line of credit with the U.S. Federal
Reserve, and fired his oft-criticized Finance Minister. Since the spring of 2009 there have been
signs that the downturn in the Korean economy has bottomed out. Quarterly growth of 2.3% in
the second quarter of 2009 suggests that South Korea’s economy may be contracting at a slower
rate than anticipated, leading to forecasts of 2% real GDP growth for 2010.9 Improved economic
prospects may account for a 10-percentage-point increase in Lee’s recent approval ratings,
according to some polls.
Lee’s Conservative GNP Remains Divided
The South Korean president’s wavering popularity has not helped to unite his deeply divided
party. Last year, his Grand National Party (GNP) merged with a smaller conservative group to
increase its parliamentary majority in the unicameral National Assembly. Before the merger, the
GNP had a razor-thin majority of 152 out of a total 292 seats following a worse-than-expected
performance in parliamentary elections in April 2008. Coming less than two months after Lee’s
inauguration, these results were widely interpreted as an early sign of Lee’s shaky political
fortunes. The GNP currently has 167 seats in the National Assembly. (See Figure 1 below.)
Figure 1. Party Strength in the National Assembly
As of September 23, 2009
Source: Figures courtesy of the Embassy of the Republic of Korea, Washington, D.C.
8
In October 2008, U.S. Federal Reserve and the Bank of Korea negotiated a $30 billion currency swap to help South
Korea overcome its shortage of U.S. dollars.
9
See “South Korea economy: Improving Prospects,” The Economist Intelligence Unit, August 12, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
4
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
Notes: Last election held in April 2008; Next election to be held in April 2012.
However, the conservatives’ numerical strength masks significant divisions and highlights Lee’s
weakened position. The merger brought into the GNP a faction loyal to Park Geun-hye, the
popular daughter of Korea’s former military ruler Park Chung-hee, whom Lee only narrowly
defeated in the GNP’s presidential primary in 2007. Lee had tried to marginalize Park’s influence,
an effort he had to abandon with the merger. Also, Lee’s relationship with the Liberty Forward
Party has been contentious, as its leader ran a bitter campaign against Lee in the presidential
election. The Park camp and the LFP generally are more conservative than Lee, so he has been
under pressure from his conservative flank. If Lee is unable to reconcile with Park, she and her 50
supporters in the GNP could defect from the party and significantly undermine the president’s
support in the National Assembly. In August 2009, Lee appointed Park to be special envoy to
Europe in an apparent effort to mend fences with his political rival. The gesture, combined with
Park’s inability in June 2009 to succeed in her public effort to defeat a media reform bill the Lee
government was pushing, appears to have reduced intra-party tensions for the time-being,
although significant divisions within the GNP persist.
Challenges from the Left
The beef controversy marked just the beginning of Lee’s domestic political problems. In May of
this year, former South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun committed suicide after his family was
investigated by prosecutors for possible corruption charges. Roh himself was not the initial target
of the investigation but many South Koreans believed that the investigation was politically
motivated. A nationwide tribute to Roh on May 29 brought out 5 million mourners, many of
whom blamed Lee for his predecessor’s suicide. Since then, Lee has been criticized for appearing
aloof amid what many Koreans believe to be a national tragedy.
Adding to Lee’s problems is mounting public concern that he is undermining freedom of speech
in an attempt to shield his administration from intense media scrutiny. In July, the ruling GNP
pushed through a controversial amendment to a broadcasting law that allows major businesses
and newspapers to own stakes in South Korea’s television network companies, which many
consider to favor left-of-center policies. The main opposition Democratic Party (DP) fiercely
opposed the amendment, including an attempt to physically prevent a vote from occurring on the
floor of the National Assembly. In response to the bill’s passage, the DP leader launched a hunger
strike and dozens of its legislators tendered their resignations. The DP has argued that the bill
would give conservative supporters of Lee (many of whom own the nation’s largest corporations
and newspapers) a monopoly on news coverage.
Despite the DP’s dramatic opposition to the communications bill, the party has of late failed to
coalesce into a unified political force. The political left in South Korea has been in the
parliamentary minority at least since 2005. Since then, no clear leader appears to have emerged to
rally the liberals into a unified political force. The death of former president Kim Dae-jung in
August 2009 leaves the Left without a progressive leader in the southwestern Cholla region, one
of South Korea’s three major political regions (the others being Chung-chong in the center and
Kyongsang in the southeast). Without a clear successor to unite the progressive factions, it
appears unlikely that the Left will mobilize a challenge to Lee in the foreseeable future. The left
wing faces structural obstacles as well. Under South Korea’s parliamentary system opposition
parties have relatively little influence in shaping legislation, further marginalizing the liberals in
the current Assembly.
Congressional Research Service
5
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
U.S.-ROK Relations10
Improved Official Ties
Since the fall of 2008, relations between the United States and South Korea (known officially as
the Republic of Korea, or ROK) arguably have been at their best state in nearly a decade. This is
largely due to three main factors: President Lee’s emphasis on enhancing cooperation with
Washington at the official level; a recent improvement—however tenuous—in favorable attitudes
toward the United States among South Koreans; and Lee’s hard-line stance toward North Korea.
Among President Lee’s initial goals as he entered into office was to shore up relations with the
United States, which despite many bilateral accomplishments often were strained under former
President Roh Moo-hyun. Lee also adopted a more hard-line policy toward North Korea by
insisting on greater reciprocity in North-South relations and by linking South Korean
inducements to progress on denuclearization. The increase in North Korea’s belligerent actions in
2008 and 2009 have helped to harmonize the U.S. and South Korean policies toward Pyongyang
and have intensified U.S.-ROK strategic and tactical coordination. The closeness of the
relationship was symbolized by the June 16, 2009 summit between Presidents Obama and Lee
that most analysts consider to have been highly successful. At the summit, the two sides signed a
“Joint Vision” statement that foresees the transformation of the alliance’s purpose, from one of
primarily defending against a North Korean attack to a regional and even global alliance, in
which Washington and Seoul cooperate on myriad issues, including climate change, energy
security, terrorism, development, human rights promotion, as well as peacekeeping and the
stabilization of post-conflict situations.11
However, even as this broader vision is pursued and the alliance’s fundamentals appear to be
solid, a number of items may cause disagreements or even more serious tensions between the
United States and South Korea. On North Korea, Seoul and Washington have had different
priorities in the past, with South Koreans generally putting more emphasis on stability than on
countering nuclear proliferation, the top U.S. priority. Throughout the spring and summer of
2009, unity in the face of North Korea’s belligerence masked these differences, but they could resurface if North Korea softens its stance over a sustained period. Lee’s political vulnerabilities
could make it politically difficult for Lee to push unpopular initiatives that the United States may
desire, particularly in working out the structural and budgetary details of the alliance’s
transformation. A major area of contention between the two governments could be over the
Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). Enacting the agreement is one of Lee’s major
foreign and domestic policy goals. The Obama Administration, however, has signaled that it does
not plan to take action on the KORUS FTA in the foreseeable future and until ways are found to
redress “imbalances,” particularly in the auto sector.12 It is widely believed that the agreement as
it currently stands does not have sufficient support in Congress to be passed. 13
10
For more, see CRS Report RL33567, Korea-U.S. Relations: Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
11
White House Press Release, “Joint Vision For The Alliance Of The United States Of America And The Republic Of
Korea,” June 16, 2009. The joint statement also reiterates the U.S. commitment to provide extended nuclear deterrence
to South Korea.
12
In 2008, over 600,000 Korean motor vehicles (many of which were manufactured in U.S. plants) were sold in the
United States in 2008, compared with exports of around 13,700 U.S. vehicles in South Korea.
13
For more on the KORUS FTA, see CRS Report RL34330, The Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement
(KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications, coordinated by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
6
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
Shifting Public Attitudes Toward the United States
The recent upturn in South Korean public perceptions of the United States has helped to improve
the overall atmosphere in bilateral relations of late. Public opinion toward the United States, and
in particular anti-Americanism, have long colored U.S.-ROK relations. Anti-American sentiments
pervaded segments of South Korean society during the 1970s and 1980s, when pro-democracy
protesters blamed the United States for backing Seoul’s authoritarian regimes. After the end of
military rule, anti-American sentiments were largely confined to highly ideological groups,
particularly student organizations, that generally operated on the political margins in Korea. In the
late 1990s, however, criticism of U.S. policies moved into the mainstream, a shift that also has
made anti-Americanism less ideological and more issue-specific. The criticisms range widely and
include accusations that the U.S. government is hampering rapprochement between North and
South Korea, that U.S. forces in South Korea are not sufficiently accountable for crimes they
commit in South Korea, and that governments in Seoul too often cater to U.S. interests. This latter
issue, experts argue, was the main point of contention that sparked the mass protests against U.S.
beef imports last year.
Since the end of the beef protests, there has been a marked improvement in public attitudes
toward the United States, providing President Lee with an opportunity to pursue closer ties with
Washington under a somewhat less polarized atmosphere than existed last year. According to a
recent global opinion survey, the United States currently has a 78% favorability rating in South
Korea—the highest of any surveyed nation in Asia—owing in part to increased confidence in
President Obama’s leadership and his “multilateral” approach to foreign policy.14 Likewise,
appreciation for the importance of the U.S.-ROK alliance, although generally high, has climbed
to 87%15 in correlation with rising threat perceptions of North Korea.16 Another trend is that
South Koreans increasingly view the United States (62%) as the most “beneficial political and
diplomatic partner” in comparison to other key regional powers such as China (19%) and Japan
(10%).17 Despite these statistics, South Korean public opinion can change rapidly and the
currently favorable outlook toward the United States is likely to be temporal. For the time being,
however, the relatively positive public outlook toward the United States has helped to diminish
the politically charged atmosphere that has often overshadowed U.S.-ROK relations.
14
See “Confidence in Obama Lifts U.S. Image Around the World,” The Pew Global Attitudes Project, July 23, 2009,
http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/264.pdf. According to the survey 81% of South Koreans polled have confidence in
President Obama (compared with 30% who had confidence in former President Bush in the 2009 survey), while 71%
approve of his international policies.
15
See “South Koreans Reassured on Alliance,” Office of Opinion Research, U.S. Department of State, August 17,
2009.
16
The Seoul-based East Asia Institute (EAI) notes that: “The leading characteristic in the U.S.-Korea alliance is that as
the security situation becomes more uncertain, Koreans’ support for the alliance increases.” According to polls
conducted by the EAI, South Korean support for the U.S.-ROK alliance registered dramatic increases after the North
Korean nuclear tests in 2006 and earlier this year. See http://www.eai.or.kr/type/panelView.asp?catcode=1411100000&
category=21&code=eng_report&idx=223.
17
“South Koreans Resist China’s Orbit,” Office of Opinion Research, U.S. Department of State, August 28, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
7
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
Issues in the U.S.-ROK Military Alliance
U.S. Force Deployment and Base Relocation Plans
The stationing of U.S. forward deployed forces in South Korea is a particularly sensitive issue for
the Korean public and has become an issue that Pentagon planners have increasingly had to
contend with in their calculations of U.S. force levels on the Peninsula. In 2002, two Korean
schoolgirls were accidentally killed by a U.S. military vehicle, leading to large-scale public
protests against the U.S. troop presence, which is concentrated in densely populated civilian
areas. The protests compelled then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to consider a
reduction of the U.S. troop level in Korea from 37,000 to 25,000 by September 2008. However,
current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced in June 2008 that the drawdown would halt
at 28,500 troops for the foreseeable future.18 The Rumsfeld plan also called for the withdrawal of
one of the two combat brigades of the Second Infantry Division and sending them to Iraq (carried
out in 2004), the pull back of the remainder of the Second Division from the demilitarized zone
(DMZ) separating North and South Korea, and relocation of the Second Division and the 9,000
U.S. military personnel stationed at the Yongsan base in Seoul to a new base complex at
Pyongtaek, 75 miles south of the DMZ. The relocations were scheduled for 2008, but they have
been postponed to 2013 and possibly 2014 or beyond. U.S. and South Korean officials explain the
delays as due to financial costs and delays in the construction of new facilities at Pyongtaek.
Another complicating factor is the announcement by Secretary Gates that family members of U.S.
military personnel will be allowed to live in South Korea, which is estimated eventually to add
35,000 to 40,000 to the American military community in South Korea.
In December 2008, the Pentagon and the South Korean Defense Ministry reached agreement on
South Korea’s share of the cost of stationing U.S. troops in South Korea. South Korea will pay
760 billion won (about U.S. $570 million) for the stationing of 28,500 American troops in 2009.
Its financial support is to increase each year on the basis of the inflation rate until the agreement
expires in 2013.
Wartime Operational Control (OPCON)
Another key issue is implementation of a bilateral agreement to transfer wartime operational
control (commonly referred to as OPCON) of military forces from U.S. to South Korean
command—part of a South Korean proposal to abolish the U.S.-ROK Combined Forces
Command and create separate U.S. and South Korean military commands. The agreement calls
for the separate commands to be in place by 2012. The South Korean public has been divided on
the plan since it was proposed in 2006, with sizeable percentages of Koreans concerned about the
impact the move might have on the U.S.-ROK alliance. The public seems to have grown more
comfortable with the OPCON transfer of late. According to polls, 50% of the public believe the
OPCON transfer should be carried out as planned by 2012, while 35% believe it should be
delayed indefinitely. 19 South Korean President Lee, who took office after the agreement was
18
The 28,500 consists of about 20,000 U.S. Army personnel, mainly of the Second Infantry Division and military
command personnel at the Yongsan garrison in Seoul. It also consists of about 9,000 U.S. Air Force personnel at two
U.S. air bases that house three squadrons of F-16 aircraft.
19
“ROK Public: Small Steps toward an Enhanced Alliance,” Office of Opinion Research, U.S. Department of State,
May 6, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
8
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
concluded, has held out the possibility of seeking a re-negotiation of the agreement before 2012.
The Pentagon continues to support the plan, but a number of American experts believe that a renegotiation could take place.
Afghanistan
In 2007, South Korea withdrew 200 non-combat military personnel from Afghanistan, and the
government has not responded to the appeals of U.S. commanders for U.S. allies to send ground
combat troops to Afghanistan to help deal with the resurgent Taliban. According to South Korean
officials, President Obama asked President Lee to send ROK troops to Afghanistan during their
summit meeting in June 2009. Press organs have reported that the Pentagon has urged South
Korea to send military engineering units.20 South Korea withdrew its 520 troops from Iraq at the
end of 2008. The South Korean government agreed in 2009 to construct facilities at a U.S.
military base in Afghanistan and provide ambulances and police patrol motorcycles, at a cost of
$200 million. President Lee said on June 20, 2009, that his government would consider deploying
“peace-keeping troops” to Afghanistan. According to recent polls, just 30% of South Koreans
who were surveyed support deploying Korean troops to Afghanistan, while nearly 80% prefer
providing medical and humanitarian aid to help in reconstruction efforts.21
The KORUS FTA and Economic Issues
The dominant economic issue on the bilateral agenda is the fate of the KORUS FTA, which the
Bush and Roh Moo-hyun governments signed in June 2007.22 If approved, the KORUS FTA
would be the largest FTA that South Korea has signed to date and would be the second largest in
which the United States participates (next to North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA).
South Korea is the seventh-largest trading partner of the United States, and the United States is
South Korea’s third largest trading partner (after China and Japan). Various studies conclude that
the agreement would increase bilateral trade and investment flows.23 The Lee and Roh
governments have argued that the KORUS FTA will help transform the South Korean economy
by making it more open, transparent, and competitive. Although the South Korean public was
initially apprehensive about the KORUS FTA, polls indicate that the agreement has over time
gained broad public support.24 Additionally, many of the agreement’s proponents have touted the
KORUS FTA’s strategic implications, arguing that it will help deepen the U.S.-South Korean
alliance, and will boost the U.S. presence in East Asia, where most countries—including China—
are negotiating numerous free trade agreements.
20
“U.S. denies Asking for Korean Troops in Afghanistan,” Chosun Ilbo Daily (internet), May 14, 2009. “U.S. Calls on
S. Korea to Deploy Troops to Afghanistan,” Yonhap News Agency, June 20, 2009.
21
“ROK Public: Small Steps toward an Enhanced Alliance,” Office of Opinion Research, U.S. Department of State,
May 6, 2009.
22
For more on the KORUS FTA see CRS Report RL34330, The Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement
(KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications, coordinated by (name redacted).
23
See, for instance, United States International Trade Commission (USITC). U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement:
Potential Economy-wide and Selected Sectoral Effects. Investigation No. TA-2104-24. USITC Publication 3949.
September 2007.
24
An April 2009 U.S. State Department survey, for instance, found that 59% of Koreans favor ratification of the
KORUS FTA, up from 47% a year earlier. See “South Korean Public Wants Free Trade Deal with U.S.,” Office of
Opinion Research, U.S. Department of State, April 30, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
9
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
The agreement will not enter into force unless Congress approves implementation legislation. The
Obama Administration has not indicated if or when it will send the draft implementing bill to
Congress. The Administration has stated that it is developing “benchmarks for progress” on
resolving “concerns” it has with the KORUS FTA, particularly over market access for U.S. car
exports. While U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk has called attention to the economic
opportunities that the KORUS FTA presents, he also has said that if the Administration’s concerns
are not resolved, “we’ll be prepared to step away.... ” When Presidents Obama and Lee met on
June 16, 2009, in Washington, D.C., the two presidents remained publically noncommittal toward
establishing a timeframe for acting to approve the agreement, although Lee has on his own
repeatedly stressed the importance of ratifying the agreement.
In South Korea the politics of the KORUS FTA likely will make it difficult for the Lee
government to appear to accede to new U.S. demands. This is particularly due to memories of the
2008 beef protests. The South Korean National Assembly has yet to vote on the KORUS FTA—
though it has been approved by the Foreign Affairs, Trade and Unification Committee—and is
debating whether or not to do so before the U.S. Congress acts. It is expected that the Assembly
would pass the agreement, at least in its current version. Many experts warn that South Korea
would suffer a deep sense of humiliation if the U.S. Congress were to reject the KORUS FTA
after its potential ratification in the National Assembly—an outcome that could have broader
political and possibly even strategic consequences for the U.S.-ROK relationship. South Korea
has signed and is negotiating a number of other FTAs, including one with the European Union
that was signed in July 2009.
Regional Diplomacy
South Korea’s diplomatic approach toward neighboring Northeast Asian nations has changed
significantly since President Lee succeeded Roh Moo-hyun in 2008. This is, in part, a corollary of
the shift both in Seoul’s policy toward North Korea and the United States after the change of
administrations in South Korea in 2008. The Roh administration’s generally unconditional
engagement of Pyongyang often put it at odds with the harder line advocated by Japan and the
United States, while aligning South Korea more closely with pro-engagement China in the SixParty Talks aimed at resolving the North Korea nuclear crisis. Roh described South Korea as a
“strategic balancer” between what he saw as the pro-engagement camp (China and Russia) and
the hard-line camp (the United States and Japan) that sought to pressure Pyongyang into
dismantling its nuclear weapons program. The balancer role seemed to diminish the solidarity of
the U.S.-ROK alliance which, along with Roh’s calls for greater independence from Washington,
severely strained Seoul’s ties with the Bush Administration. Over time, as South Korean threat
perceptions of North Korea increased throughout the decade, so did South Koreans’ public
approval ratings of the United States, weakening support for key aspects of Roh’s overall foreign
policy.
President Lee entered office in 2008 pledging to restore alliance relations with the United States
and demanding a “reciprocal” relationship with Pyongyang. His tougher stance toward the regime
repositions South Korea in the U.S.-led camp, as Seoul seeks to enhance coordination with Tokyo
and Washington in presenting a unified front against North Korean provocations.
Although this shift in policy has strained inter-Korean relations, it has arguably led to a net, if
modest, improvement in South Korea’s overall diplomatic outlook in the region. Lee’s focus on
an alliance-oriented approach to North Korea has, at least, eased tensions with Washington and
Congressional Research Service
10
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
provided a pretext for closer political and strategic cooperation with Japan. The closer
coordination between Seoul, Tokyo and Washington has not noticeably damaged South Korean
diplomatic ties with China. Lee’s active diplomatic outreach since coming to office may have
helped to ease potential concerns in Beijing about South Korea’s strategic direction. Indeed,
Beijing has not taken explicit steps to discourage Lee from repositioning his nation outside the
pro-engagement camp. Over the past year, a flurry of diplomatic activity between Seoul and
Beijing leaves little doubt that smooth relations with China remain a priority for South Korea,
despite rising competition between the two countries over export markets and natural resources.
Seoul has also enhanced its leadership role in multilateral institutions and regional fora as it seeks
to carve out a higher profile in a region dominated by China, Japan and the United States. In
September 2009, Lee announced that South Korea would chair and host the November 2010 G-20
meeting, a gathering that will showcase South Korea’s leadership in the global financial crisis. In
May/June 2009, President Lee hosted a summit with the ten-member nations of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).25 In addition to signing an investment-protection treaty as
part of the concluding terms of a free trade agreement (FTA) with ASEAN, South Korea offered
to enhance development assistance, cooperation on clean energy initiatives, training and
education, and other measures to deepen ties with the region. Analysts believe these steps are, in
part, aimed at expanding and deepening South Korea’s ties with key export markets and is a sign
of increasingly assertive regional leadership from Seoul.
Inter-Korean Relations
Since entering office, Lee has made major changes to Seoul’s policy toward North Korea. After
ten years of Seoul’s policy of largely unconditioned reconciliation with North Korea—often
dubbed the “sunshine policy”—the Lee government entered office insisting on more reciprocity
from and conditionality toward Pyongyang. Most importantly, initiating new large-scale interKorean projects, agreed to before Lee took office, would be reviewed and linked to progress in
denuclearizing North Korea. Lee’s administration also offered to continue humanitarian
assistance—provided North Korea first requests such aid—and indicated that existing interKorean projects would be continued. Lee has been openly critical of human rights conditions in
North Korea, reversing his predecessor’s policy. Lee also has issued various iterations of his
“3,000 Policy” pledge during the 2007 presidential campaign to help raise North Korea’s per
capita income to $3,000 over the next ten years.26 These initiatives appear to complement the
“comprehensive” package the Obama Administration has indicated would be forthcoming if
North Korea took positive steps on the nuclear front.
North Korea reacted to Lee’s policies by unleashing a wave of invective against Lee, adopting a
more hostile stance toward official inter-Korean activities, and tightening restrictions on the
North-South Kaesong Industrial Complex, which operates in North Korea. The result was the
cessation or severe curtailment of most of the inter-Korean meetings, hotlines, tours, exchanges,
and other programs that had been established over the past decade. 27 Following the North’s May
25
ASEAN member states include Brunei Darussalam, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Singapore, Myanmar, Philippines,
Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia.
26
Christian Oliver, “Seoul Plans $40bn Aid Fund for N Korea,” Financial Times, July 20, 2009.
27
Some figures quantify the downturn in relations: official bilateral dialogues were down from 55 in 2007 to 6 in 2008;
South Korea’s governmental humanitarian assistance declined from 3.5 million won ($215 million) to 0.4 million won
($25 million); and government-run reunions of family members fell from over 3,600 to zero. After years of double(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
11
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
25, 2009 nuclear test, South Korea formally joined the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a
U.S.-led coalition group formed in 2003 aimed at stopping countries from proliferating weapons
of mass destruction. Since Pyongyang’s failed satellite launch on April 5, 2009, which used
ballistic missile-related technology, Seoul has prohibited virtually all visits by South Koreans to
North Korea, aside from trips made in conjunction with the Kaesong Industrial Complex.
Since August 2009, there have been some indications of a slight thaw in inter-Korean relations. It
is still uncertain whether North Korea’s overtures are part of a gradual trend toward improved
North-South relations or are merely temporary aberrations in the bilateral dynamic. Analysts
point out that President Lee has tried to quell speculation of a possible North-South summit or
any other “thaw” in relations between the two countries.28
Public opinion polls of South Koreans have tended to show mixed feelings on relations with
North Korea. While a majority appear to favor Seoul adopting more reciprocity in inter-Korean
relations than was true during the heyday of the “sunshine policy” of Lee’s predecessors Kim
Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun, most also appear to favor maintaining some form of diplomatic
and economic engagement with North Korea. 29 This ambivalence sets boundaries beyond which
South Korean policy-makers are often loathe to cross. In the short term, public and elite opinion
on North Korea policy appear to be affected by three main variables: the sense of threat from
North Korea, the extent to which the United States is perceived to be ignoring Seoul in
Washington-Pyongyang relations, and the perception that China is expanding its influence in
North Korea at South Korea’s expense.
ROK-Japan Relations
Ties between South Korea and Japan have improved markedly over the last year, although the
pattern of bilateral behavior in the past shows that such trends can be short-lived. 30 As South
Korea and Japan are key U.S. allies in Northeast Asia, the health of their bilateral relationship is
of direct importance to U.S. strategic interests in the region. Only a few years ago historical and
territorial disputes threatened to spark a “diplomatic war” between the two countries. Major
differences over these issues remain, particularly over the long disputed Dokdo/Takeshima
islands. 31 However, Seoul and Tokyo have recently chosen to focus on coordinating a united front
against ongoing North Korean provocations rather than on lingering disagreements. In addition to
diplomatic cooperation, Lee and former Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso pledged to re-launch
negotiations on a proposed bilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA) during their bilateral summit
(...continued)
digit growth, inter-Korean trade registered a mere 1.2% increase from 2007 to 2008. Figures are from Ministry of
Unification, “Inter-Korean Relations in 2008,” February 2009. North-South Korean trade was just over $1.8 billion in
2008.
28
See “South Korea Signals Unchanged DPRK Strategy Amid Media Speculation,” Open Source Center, August 27,
2009.
29
According to an April 2009 State Department survey, 60% of South Koreans are critical of Lee’s handling of North
Korea affairs, while 32% support his measures. See “South Koreans React with Concern to DPRK,” Office of Opinion
Research, U.S. Department of State, April 27, 2009.
30
Both former presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun promised forward-leaning ties with Japan early in their
administrations, but were eventually drawn into bilateral disputes over history and territorial issues.
31
South Korea maintains administrative control over what it calls the Dokdo islands, although Japan claims
sovereignty over the territory, which it calls the Takeshima islands.
Congressional Research Service
12
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
meeting in Tokyo on June 28. Both sides have also signed a new agreement that would enhance
military cooperation through increased defense exchanges, joint search-and-rescue operations,
reciprocal port visits, and other confidence-building measures. The South Korean public,
however, remains deeply wary of Japanese strategic intentions despite closer official ties between
the two countries. Historical issues are likely to reemerge in 2010—the 100th anniversary of
Japan’s annexation of Korea. This event may put to test newly elected Japanese Prime Minister
Yukio Hatoyama’s pledge to reconcile historical grievances with South Korea as well as Lee’s
promise of a “forward-looking” relationship with Japan. Hatoyama is reportedly planning to visit
Seoul in early October to discuss bilateral issues with his counterpart, including a potential
goodwill visit to South Korea by Japanese Emperor Akihito. The Japanese prime minister’s
pledge not to visit the controversial Yasukuni Shrine has been positively received in South Korea.
ROK-China Relations
South Korea’s relations with China reflect the complex nature of the bilateral relationship as both
economies become increasingly interdependent and as both nations seek a generally cooperative
relationship despite their increasingly competitive rivalry in the global economy. Sino-Korea
relations perhaps reached a high-point earlier this decade, as the Roh administration saw eye-toeye with Beijing’s engagement of North Korea. This was accompanied by unusually high public
favorability toward China, whose rising global status was widely viewed in Korea as a
commercial opportunity rather than a strategic concern. China has, in fact, replaced the United
States as South Korea’s leading trade partner, accounting for roughly 22% of its exports and 18%
of its imports in 2008.32
South Koreans’ somewhat sanguine perceptions of China started to change in 2004, when Beijing
claimed that the ancient Korean kingdom of Koguryo was in fact a suzerain state of China. This
sparked a nationalist backlash that shattered the idealized image of China shared by many South
Koreans. 33 Since then, the perception of China’s rise as primarily an opportunity for expanded
trade has changed to a more cautious outlook and growing awareness of economic competition
between the two countries, particularly over energy resources, while still recognizing the
commercial potential of Korean investments in China.34 Furthermore, China’s increased
economic penetration into North Korea has raised South Korean concerns that Seoul might “lose”
North Korea to China.
President Lee’s diplomatic approach toward Beijing has been something of a balancing act. On
one hand, Lee has sought a stable and cooperative strategic relationship with China, even as he
has distanced South Korea from Beijing’s engagement policy toward North Korea. In June 2008,
South Korea and China agreed to a “strategic cooperative partnership” that is aimed at enhancing
bilateral cooperation across a range of sectors, including diplomatic, economic and security
issues.35 Although falling short of a formal alliance, the partnership may be one way for Seoul to
32
See http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2800.htm.
33
According to U.S. State Department polls, the Korean public’s favorability ratings toward China slipped from 70% in
2004 to 45% in 2009. See “South Koreans Resist China’s Orbit,” Office of Opinion Research, U.S. Department of
State, August 28, 2009.
34
As of August 2009, 66% of Koreans believe China is likely to be an economic competitor rather than partner (31%)
in the future, according to State Department surveys. In the political/security sphere, 69% of Koreans believe China is
more likely to be a “competitor and rival” than an “ally and partner” of Korea in the future. Ibid.
35
See “China-ROK Joint Statement” at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t469103.htm.
Congressional Research Service
13
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
allay Chinese concerns of strengthened alliance relations between South Korea and the United
States.36 On the other hand, Lee has been wary of the increasingly direct competition between
Korean and Chinese firms over global export markets, foreign oil reserves, and sources of food
imports.37 A key challenge for Lee and his successors will likely be to strike the right balance
between economic competition and political and strategic cooperation with China over the longterm.
ROK-Russia Relations
Another regional power that South Korea must contend with is Russia. Although two decades
have passed since the normalization of ROK-Russia relations, economic and political ties
between the two nations are still relatively underdeveloped. Russian and South Korean officials
have worked in tandem in the context of the Six-Party Talks over North Korea, but bilateral
cooperation even in that framework has been relatively limited. President Lee, however, has
attempted to deepen ties with Moscow as part of his strategy of expanding Seoul’s resource
diplomacy. In September 2008, Lee made his first visit to Moscow to meet with Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. The bilateral meetings produced
a set of ambitious proposals for joint Russian-South Korean commercial and energy projects,
including a plan to construct a gas pipeline linking the two countries across the Korean Peninsula.
The pipeline could ostensibly cross North Korean territory, an idea that has yet to be signed on to
by Pyongyang. Presumably, though, some of the gas could be diverted to the North as an
inducement to the regime for its cooperation in the project. Many analysts believe that the
significant obstacles facing the gas pipeline project leave it unlikely to proceed in the foreseeable
future. Nevertheless, the proposal demonstrates South Korea’s increasingly ambitious efforts to
secure energy resources beyond its borders.
Options and Implications for the United States
In many respects, U.S.-ROK relations are more stable today than they have been in years, yet
experts warn that this stability is precarious at best and will need careful diplomacy to be
sustained beyond the immediate future. For the United States, which has had a long and
complicated history of involvement in Korea, policies toward either end of the Korean Peninsula
tend to reverberate powerfully in South Korean sociopolitical spheres. As the United States
pursues its own interests and priorities in Korea and the East Asian region, it will inevitably set
off negative reactions in South Korea from time to time. Many believe that, without
compromising key U.S. objectives, the United States can achieve more with South Korea if it is
mindful of South Korean sensitivities that could morph into latent anti-Americanism.
Of perhaps paramount importance is for U.S. policymakers to fully appreciate South Korea’s
ongoing transition, from a once client-like relationship with the United States to an increasingly
important international power in its own right. This transition is not complete, either in terms of
36
Scott Snyder, “Lee Myung-bak’s Foreign Policy: A 250-Day Assessment,” Korean Journal of Defense Analysis,
March 2009. Snyder writes: “For China, the main point [of the strategic cooperative partnership] is that a political
embrace is necessary and desirable to pull South Korea closer, especially in light of the prospect of a strengthened
South Korean relationship with the United States” (p.13).
37
Ibid. For more on Sino-Korean relations see Scott Snyder, “China’s Rise and the Two Koreas: Politics, Economics,
Security,” Lynne Rienner Publications, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
14
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
Korea’s democratic development or in the collective psyche of the nation. But it is clear, as
experts point out, that South Korea increasingly desires greater respect from Washington as it
continues along this process. Indeed, in at least a tacit acknowledgement of South Korea’s
increased clout, the Bush Administration took a number of steps—such as negotiating the
KORUS FTA, admitting South Korea into the U.S. Visa Waiver Program, and agreeing to move
U.S. troops from the Yongsan base in Seoul—that were sought by South Korea.
Over the near term, there are several areas that may test U.S. forbearance in the eyes of the South
Korean public and policy elite. One fundamental concern is perceived U.S. involvement in South
Korean domestic affairs. The election of President Lee in December 2007 brought to power an
administration that promised closer ties with the United States than its predecessor. While there
are certain advantages to this change, the outcome of the beef protests in 2008 highlights the
political perils of a South Korean leader appearing to be too closely aligned with Washington.
Experts stress that the perception of undue U.S. involvement in South Korean politics, or
seemingly overt support for one political leader over another, can lead to a public backlash that
ultimately harms bilateral relations. Given the relatively similar outlook shared by Korean
conservatives and the U.S. government, some experts suggest that Washington should enhance
efforts to cultivate ties with opposition lawmakers—thus lending greater credibility to the United
States as a fair and impartial supporter of South Korean democracy.
North Korea policy is another inherently sensitive issue that requires careful implementation by
Washington. So far, both the Lee and Obama administrations have closely coordinated their
approach toward Pyongyang—presenting a united front, along with Japan, against continued
North Korean provocations. Yet signs that the Obama administration may be willing to negotiate
bilaterally with North Korea to bring the regime back to the Six-Party Talks have raised some
concern in Seoul that the close coordination with Washington may be in jeopardy. As the Obama
Administration seeks to find a diplomatic solution to the North Korea crisis, experts advise that it
will be critical for Washington to continue to consult closely with Seoul on any developments that
may arise during bilateral talks with North Korea. This would likely go a long way toward
demonstrating U.S. recognition of South Korea’s stake in the stability of the Korean Peninsula.
Another delicate bilateral issue relates to the implementation of planned changes to the U.S.-ROK
alliance, including measures to realign U.S. military bases in Korea and to transfer wartime
operational command (OPCON) from U.S. to South Korean forces. Both measures, which are
aimed at giving the United States military a less dominant presence and role in South Korea,
touch on anxieties within the Korean national security establishment about the sustainability of
the U.S. strategic commitment. Yet it is likely that the U.S. military will move forward on these
measures as scheduled, partly because North Korea’s conventional military forces continue to
deteriorate. As it proceeds with the implementation phase, some analysts believe the United
States must take care to coordinate these changes in close cooperation with Korean policymakers
and in a timetable and manner that is acceptable to Seoul. Failure to do so, analysts believe, could
lead to a crisis in the bilateral alliance relationship. Other analysts argue that the timetable for
transfer should be pushed to a later date, in part because they believe South Korea is not yet
militarily ready and in part because the change is opposed by many South Korean conservatives.
An issue that is of particular concern to Congress is the fate of the U.S.-ROK Free Trade
Agreement (KORUS FTA), which both governments signed in June 2007. Should the KORUS
FTA fail to be ratified by Congress, the implications for the U.S.-ROK relationship and for the
political situation in Seoul could be significant. The potential rejection or prolonged delay of the
KORUS agreement, as it currently exists, would likely require skillful diplomacy by U.S.
Congressional Research Service
15
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
officials to avoid significant political repercussions in South Korea. The damage could be
magnified if, as expected, the Administration were to highlight or even exaggerate the KORUS
FTA’s strategic rather than economic value. While raising the stakes may increase the agreement’s
chances of passage in Congress, it also increases the symbolic costs to the alliance—particularly
in South Korea—if the agreement is not ratified. Alternatively, the current agreement could be
renegotiated or amended to give it a better chance of ratification by Congress. Experts warn that
modifying the KORUS agreement would involve restarting a complex and delicate negotiating
process with Seoul that could further deplete President Lee’s political capital at home. The Lee
Administration therefore may ask for some form of quid pro quo to provide political cover for
any modification that appears to be a concession to the United States.
Despite lingering challenges in U.S.-ROK relations the trajectory of bilateral ties appears
generally promising over the long-run. South Korea’s growing stature on the world stage creates
increased opportunities for the bilateral relationship to evolve beyond its traditional scope of
counterbalancing North Korea. Indeed, President Lee’s plan to enhance his nation’s international
profile along the lines of a “Global Korea” complements the “Joint Vision” that he signed with
President Obama in June 2009—an agreement that provides a conceptual roadmap for upgrading
bilateral cooperation to the global level.38 Assuming that the challenges outlined above are
adequately addressed, the next test in the U.S.-ROK relationship will be implementing aspects of
the Joint Vision and determining further areas for bilateral cooperation on the world stage.
38
Many experts note that discussion of an expanded alliance does not necessarily suggest that South Korea will be
expected to play a larger role in contributing to the U.S.-led effort to fight Islamic terrorism.
Congressional Research Service
16
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
Appendix. South Korea’s Political System:
Background, Structure and Key Institutional Actors
Background
For most of the first four decades after the country was founded in 1948, South Korea was ruled
by authoritarian governments. Ever since the mid-1980s, when widespread anti-government
protests forced the country’s military rulers to enact sweeping democratic reforms, democratic
institutions and traditions have deepened in South Korea. In 1997, long-time dissident and
opposition politician Kim Dae-jung (commonly referred to as “DJ”) was elected to the
presidency, the first time an opposition party had prevailed in a South Korean presidential
election. In December 2002, Kim was succeeded by a member of his left-of-center party, Roh
Moo-hyun, a self-educated former human rights lawyer who emerged from relative obscurity to
defeat establishment candidates in both the primary and general elections. Roh campaigned on a
platform of reform—reform of Korean politics, economic policymaking, and U.S.-ROK relations.
Lee Myung-bak’s victory in the December 2007 election restored conservatives to the presidency.
A striking feature of the election was how poorly the left-of-center candidates performed, after a
decade in power, receiving only around 30% of the vote.
A Structurally Weak Legislative Branch
Nominally, power in South Korea is shared by the president, who is elected to one five-year term,
and the 299-member unicameral National Assembly. Of these, 245 members represent singlemember constituencies. The remaining 54 are selected on the basis of proportional voting.
National Assembly members are elected to four-year terms. The next national legislative elections
will be held in April 2012, which is also the year of South Korea’s next presidential election
(scheduled for December).
Since the Assembly’s powers were enhanced in the 1987 constitution, it has at times altered the
political climate by providing opposition parties with a forum to freely criticize, inspect, and
embarrass the executive branch. Indeed, one of the Assembly’s major accomplishments since
1987 has been to institutionalize its oversight of the executive; executive branch officials
regularly appear before committees, helping to make South Korean policy-making more
transparent than before. Also, from time to time, opposition parties have used Assembly
proceedings to successfully stymie presidential initiatives, usually by boycotting legislative
sessions. In 2004, the conservative-dominated National Assembly voted to impeach thenPresident Roh Moo-hyun, a vote that was overturned by South Korea’s Constitutional Court.
In reality, however, the president and the state bureaucracy continue to be the dominant forces in
South Korean policymaking, as formal and informal limitations prevent the National Assembly
from initiating major pieces of legislation. For instance, by law the Assembly can only cut funds
from the president’s budget, not propose any increases or alter the executive’s budgetary
allocations. South Korean legislators suffer from numerous other limitations. The typical Seoul
legislative office, for instance, is staffed by only three salaried, full-time workers. Even the prime
minister, who has little power, is nominated by the president. The fact that parties in the Assembly
repeatedly have resorted to the brinkmanship tactic of the boycott reflects the legislative branch’s
Congressional Research Service
17
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
weakness. The most recent boycott occurred in June 2008, when the opposition Democratic Party
refused to participate in the new Assembly’s session.
Institution-Building by the National Assembly
In recent years, the National Assembly has sought to increase its resources through the creation of
a National Assembly Budget Office (modeled on the U.S. Congressional Budget Office) and the
National Assembly Research Service (modeled on the U.S. Congressional Research Service, and
the Government Accountability Office).
The Assembly’s Other Powers
A bill in the National Assembly may be introduced by members or by the executive branch. If
passed, a bill is sent to the executive for presidential promulgation within 15 days. The president
may veto the bill and send it back to the National Assembly for reconsideration. If the assembly
overrides the veto with the concurrence of two-thirds or more of members present, the bill will
become law. With respect to the judiciary, the consent of the National Assembly is also required
for the presidential appointment of all Supreme Court justices. Also required is the ratification by
the Assembly of treaties and agreements as well as international acts or conventions to which
South Korea is a signatory. The declaration of war, the dispatch of troops abroad, or the stationing
of foreign troops in South Korean territory requires the consent of the Assembly as well.
Political Parties
South Korean political parties form, disband, and merge regularly, in part because they tend to be
regionally-based and centered around charismatic personalities rather than substantive issues. It is
not uncommon for members of the National Assembly to jump from one party to another.
Presently, there are three major political parties in South Korea: President Lee Myung-bak’s
conservative GNP; the opposition center-left Democratic Party; and the hard right Liberal
Forward Party, which is primarily a platform for former GNP heavyweight Lee Hoi-chang.39 Both
the GNP and the Democratic Party are riven by competing factions and ideological differences
over major issues, particularly over the appropriate policies to take toward North Korea and the
United States.
Regionalism
South Korean politics is highly regionalized. The GNP’s base is in the southeastern and
industrialized Kyongsang (also known as Yongnam) region, where Lee won over 60% of the vote
in the 2007 election. (If LFP party head Lee Hoi-chang’s total is added to Lee’s, the conservative
candidates won around 80% of the Yongnam vote) The DP’s base lies in the southwestern and
more rural Cholla region (also known as Honam), where its candidate Chung Dong-young won
nearly 80% of the vote. Before Kim Dae-jung’s victory in the 1997 presidential election, South
Korea’s military governments gave preferential treatment to the Kyongsang region, leading
Cholla residents to accuse the government of discrimination. The greater Seoul area, which is the
home of nearly half of the South Korean electorate, has emerged as the crucial swing vote in
39
Lee was the runner-up in both the 1997 and 2002 elections, losing both by less than 3 percentage points of the vote.
Congressional Research Service
18
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
presidential elections. There has been discussion of combating regionalism by adopting multipleseat constituencies in the National Assembly.
NGOs
Since the end of military rule, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have increased
dramatically in South Korea, particularly in the past ten years. The groups exist on both the local
and national levels, range widely in size, and focus on a wide array of issues, including the
environment, government and corporate corruption, disability rights, women’s rights, crimes
committed by U.S. forces in Korea, revising the U.S.-ROK Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA),
and returning land used by U.S. forces. In contrast to the student-led, class-based groups of the
1980s that spent much of their time organizing militant anti-government and anti-U.S. protests, an
increasing number of NGOs have hired permanent staff, held fundraisers, and opened research
offices. As they have begun to professionalize their operations, they have had a greater impact on
South Korean domestic and foreign policy.
South Korean NGOs have been particularly adept at forming loose, temporary coalitions with one
another to organize large-scale protests on a particular issue. Many of the most successful
examples of citizen activism in South Korea involved the formation of umbrella organizations
that pool the resources of member groups. The country’s rapid adoption of the Internet—South
Korea has one of the world’s highest rates of Internet usage—has facilitated such networking by
enabling groups to quickly establish linkages, coordinate activities, and spread the word about
protest activities. The spring 2008 beef protests and anti-American protests in 2002 are two
illustrations of this point.
Decentralization
The influence of Korean civil society groups has been possible in part because of the growing
decentralization of power in South Korea. In the early and mid-1990s, new laws were passed
creating local assemblies and establishing popular election of local officials for the first time
since the 1950s. Increased local autonomy has encouraged political consciousness and activism,
as South Koreans have come to expect local and national elected leaders to be more responsive
and accountable to their constituents. Despite these changes, Seoul remains the locus of political
power in South Korea, in part because local governments have little authority to impose their own
taxes. Former President Roh attempted further decentralize political power by giving more
autonomy to the provinces and by transferring certain executive offices to locations outside of
Seoul.
Congressional Research Service
19
South Korea: Its Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Outlook
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Specialist in Asian Affairs
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Author Note
Weston Konishi, the lead author of this report, is no longer with CRS.
Congressional Research Service
20
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.