International Journal of Systems Engineering
Volume 3, Issue 1, June 2019, Pages: 1-8
Received: Mar. 21, 2019;
Accepted: Apr. 29, 2019;
Published: May 27, 2019
Views 242 Downloads 46
Jeongmin Woo, Department of Research Planning, The Bareunmirae Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea
This paper aims to propose a constructive direction for diplomatic policy through a critical review of the Moon Jae-in adminstration’s ‘balanced diplomacy’. In order to accomplish this, major leadership theory was used as the methodology to analyze the current government’s diplomatic power in the areas of the North Korean nuclear issue, ROK-U.S. ROK-China relations, and ASEAN diplomacy. The current government must consider the North Korean nuclear issue from two perspectives. North Korea, that possesses nuclear weapons, is not in a position to maintain a stable institutional relationship with South Korea. Moreover, the utmost priority of policy towards North Korea is the Korean people. There must not be any ‘cracks’ within Korean society regarding methods of dealing with the North Korean nuclear issue. Secondly, the ROK-U.S. relations must work towards institutionally securing a nuclear umbrella. This must be fulfilled by ensuring practical security through documenting an ‘automatic intervention’ clause in the ROK-U.S. Mutual Defense Agreement. Thirdly, South Korea can show its presence to China in the ROK-China relations only when it is in a strong alliance with the U.S. Fourthly, diplomatic expansion into Southeast Asia can actually be a cause for losing diplomatic balance in Northeast Asia due to it being an escape from the reality of U.S.-China relations. In conclusion, the Moon government’s diplomatic leadership can be categorized as a ‘Transformational leadership’ that acquires political support by casting a vision for government administration and creating motivation. Three positions must be set in order to practice changeover diplomacy: (1) Acknowledging the reality of inter-Korean relations and building constructive relations with North Korea, (2) establishing an innovative ROK-U.S. security position and foundation for ‘self-strengthening security’, and (3) emerging as a confident and flexible diplomacy.
A Critical Review of Balanced Diplomacy as a Leadership of Administrative Leader, International Journal of Systems Engineering.
Vol. 3, No. 1,
2019, pp. 1-8.
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Jeonghun Min, “Trump’s ‘America First’ Foreign Policy and ROK-US Security Relations”. The Korean Journal of Area Studies Vol. 35 No. 4 (2017). pp. 17.
Burns, James MacGregor. Transforming Leadership (New York: Grove Press, 2003); Lasswell, Harold D. Power and Personality (New York: Viking Press, 1962); Barber, James D. The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House (New York: Pearson, 2008) pp. 1-8.
Neustadt, Richard. Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership From Roosevelt To Reagan (Simon & Schuster Pub Adult Group, 1991); Greenstein, Fred I. The Presidential Difference (New York: The Free Press, 2000).
Sung-Deuk Hahm, “The Significance of Prospective Personal Attributes in the Study of Korean Presidents’ Leadership”, Journal of Governmental Studies 13 (4) (2007). p. 49.
Lasswell Harold D. Power and Personality (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1976). pp. 108-112.
Tucker, Robert C. Politics as Leadership (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1981); Jin Choi, President Leadership (Paju: Nanam Publishing, 2003). pp. 80-81.
Hook, Sidney. The Hero in History: Study in Limitation and Possibility (New York: Cosimo Classics, 2008).
Kyu-Ryun Kim, et al. Harmonious Diplomacy Towards the United States and China (Korea Institute for National Unification, 2014). pp. 5-6.
Ministry of Unification, “Agreement on 4 principles of the Korean peninsula peace process. (2017. 12. 14).
Ibid. Ministry of Unification (2017).
Kun Hyung Kang, “The North Korea Policy of Moon Jae-In, the Trump Government and ROK-US Relations”. New Asia Vol. 25 No. 4 (2018) pp. 141-144.
Joo-sam Kim, “The Mutual Assistance System and Cooperation between South Korea, the U.S. and China for the North Korean Nuclear Issue and Unification of the Korean Peninsula” Korea and Global Affairs (2017).
Ki-Young Sung, “Moon Jae-In Administration’s New Southern Policy and North Korean nuclear diplomacy towards ASEAN”. Korea Institute for National Unification Online Series CO 17-31 (2017. 11. 24) Referenced.
Jeongmin Woo, Analysis of US-China Relations on the Korean Peninsula Military Puzzle: Under Circumstances of NK’s Nuclear, THAAD, US-ROK Alliance. Journal of Information and Security 17 (3) (2017). p. 90.
Young Namkoong. Political Economy of the Divided Korean Peninsula: The Puzzle of the Triangle - Seoul, Pyongyang and Washington (Seoul: Oruem Publishing, 2010).
Ibid. Kyu-Ryun Kim (2014).
Ibid. Jeongmin Woo (2017).
Ibid. Ki-Young Sung (2017) Referenced.
Jae-Hyun Lee, “ROK-ASEAN-Australia triangle cooperation: criticisms of traditional geopolitics on New Southern Policy and diplomacy diversification” Presentation at 2017 Annual Conference of KAIS (2017. 12. 8).
Ibid. Jae-Hyun Lee (2017).
SangJun Kim, “Korea’s Two-State System: Peace and Coexistence of One Nation-Two States, A Path toward the Peaceful Reunification of Korea” Korean Journal of Sociology 52 (4) (2018) p. 39-75.