• Title/Summary/Keyword: East Asian Paradox

Search Result 2, Processing Time 0.019 seconds

A Study on the necessity and Effect of constructive minilateralism and subregionalism in Northeast Asia: Focused on Korean perspective (关于东北亚地区内 "建设性的微边主义, 小区域主义" 制度 建设的必要性和效果的研究 -以韩国的视角为中心 -)

  • Kim, Jaekwan
    • Analyses & Alternatives
    • /
    • v.4 no.1
    • /
    • pp.63-87
    • /
    • 2020
  • This article not only theoretically explores the necessity and effect of constructive minilateralism and subregionalism in Northeast Asia, but also delves into a series of practical solutions from viewpoint of seeking common ground while reserving differences in this region. The main contents are as follows: First, the various obstacles that hinder the formation of regionalism, subregionalism and minilateralism in the Northeast Asia are discussed. That is to say, geopolitical realism, My Country First ideology, exclusive nationalism in the socio-historical context, and North Korea's latest provocations, etc. Second, this article explores the philosophy and basic principles of realizing Northeast Asia regionalism and minilateralism. Third, in the 21st century, Northeast Asia becomes the center of the world. It examines the core points, controversial focus and platform for building sub regionalism in the region. Finally, based on the institutional platform such as minilateralism and sub regionalism, the various ideas and practical plans of cross-border cooperation among major countries in Northeast Asia were discussed. Because there are a lot of obstacles, so first of all it is more appropriate to promote economic or functional minilateralism or sub regionalism than multilateral cooperation. In order to promote the formation of regionalism and minilateralism in Northeast Asia, the issues to be considered are as follows: First, for the sake of leading regional solidarity and minilateral economic cooperation, it is advisable for China, as a regional economic power, to implement a stable and responsible diplomacy. Secondly, regional solidarity based on credible politics and security should be promoted for a long time beyond the level of economic cooperation. Third, the primary prerequisite for the realization of Northeast Asian regionalism is that in the process of denuclearization of North Korea, the stability and peace mechanism of the Korean Peninsula should be established. Fourth, with the continued hegemonic competition between the United States and China in Northeast Asia, under the circumstance that countries in the region are pushed into so-called "East Asian Paradox", it is profoundly important for them to consider transition from the hostile relationship as the "Thucydides trap" to the order of "coexistence" in which competition and cooperation run side by side, and the two countries should explore a conversion plan for the foreign policy line. This mutual cooperation and peaceful coexistence of the US-China relationship will create a friendly atmosphere for the formation of regionalism in Northeast Asia. In the future, the cooperation of minilateralism in Northeast Asia will break the existing conflict between the maritime forces and the continental forces in order to promote peace. And along with the philosophy that "peace is economy", recent policies of common prosperity as the framework, such as China's "Belt and Road Initiative", North Korea's "Special Zone and Development Zone Policy", Russia's "New Eastern Policy", Japan's participation in the Belt and Road Initiative and South Korea's The "Korean Peninsula New Economy Map" are organically linked and it should promote the so-called "networked regionalism".

  • PDF

The Political Economy of Southeast Asia 2017 (동남아의 정치경제 2017)

  • PARK, Sa-Myung
    • The Southeast Asian review
    • /
    • v.28 no.1
    • /
    • pp.1-20
    • /
    • 2018
  • Southeast Asia witnessed a paradox of political stagnation and economic development in 2017. The 'dual order' of security dependence on America and economic dependence on China was sustained in East Asia. In this regard, Southeast Asia of two faces was quite similar to broader East Asia. On one hand, the old socialist group with totalitarian nostalgia lurked in the buffer zone between totalitarianism and authoritarianism, while the original capitalist group under democratic disguise roamed in the gray zone between authoritarianism and democracy. On the other, the old socialist group with the legacy of the planned economy succumbed to the temptation of the Beijing Consensus on state capitalism, while the original capitalist group with the myth of the market economy was exposed to the pressure of the Washington Consensus on liberal capitalism. The ASEAN Community representing the regional integration of Southeast Asia was caught in the strategic predicament of a looming 'new cold war' between the continental and maritime powers.