KJC Korea
Journal Central

The reflection on Universality reveals the new desire for diversity. Despite the boundary of the nation state decreasing, the ethnic concept is still valid. Today, the debate about integration in a multi-cultural society will demand, not ethnic homogeneity, but the integration of solidarity is based on diversity and heterogeneity. And this phenomenon affects the perception of people about Korean unification. The change of the international situation, of the people’s awareness for unification and of the social structure is toward a Multi-Cultural society, because the integration policy in their lives became more important. As the apathy of the young generation on the part does not affect his life, and the sensitivity of the young generation on the part of safety and stability in their lives, they do not care about ideological issues. The new unification policy is not the way of overcoming the conflict of ideology but the way of communication and acceptance in the life. Therefore, the Korean unification policy should be offered the new way of integration in the multi-cultural society.

This study aims to derive policy directions in fostering the unification of the Korean Peninsula by comparative method of the relations between the unification and the external environment in the Three Kingdom period and the post-Three Kingdom period. One of the key factors which made Silla and Goryeo achieve unification is to pursue the Good Neighbor policy as well as build a favorable environment. The main parts of the Good Neighbor policy differed on the characteristics of the international system. Silla practiced the Good Neighbor policy towards the Tang Dynasty under the Tang Dynasty-centered unipolar system. This policy made Silla promote the military alliance with the Tang Dynasty and it led Silla to unify the Korean Peninsula. In contrast, under a multipolar system, Goryeo reunified the Korean Peninsula focusing on practicing the Good Neighbor policy toward countries within the Korean Peninsula. Recently, mutual cooperation and conflicts are coexisting in Northeast Asia, changing from the US-centered unipolar world order to a multipolar order. This study suggests that Korea needs to create an amicable international environment through promoting economic cooperation with China and Russia, while simultaneously maintaining the Korea-US alliance. And the Korean government especially has to practice a ‘trust-first’ policy for making significant progress on South-North Korean relations.

The first ROK army dispatch abroad executed 50 years ago in Vietnam. This was the turning point, not only the history of Korean army’s overseas footprint, but also in South Korea’s dynamic history of economic development. The policy of a certain country is not formatted or developed only according to a regime’s intention. Decision-making is built up through various elements that are caused by domestic and international factors. In this context, the ROK army dispatch to Vietnam is thought of as the result of a complete mixture of the Park Jung Hee administration’s judgements on its interests domestically and national interests internationally in the lens of the US-ROK relationship and alliance. The current situation is not that different from 50 years ago for South Korea. North Korea’s military threat still exists, the US and China’s relationship is unstable, and South Korea is still quite dependent on US for security. In this circumstance, South Korea could soon face a ‘crucial’ choice as it did in the Vietnam War era. Therefore, the ROK army dispatch to Vietnam 50 years ago and the South Korean government’s choice should be a good lesson on making a wise choice whether positively or negatively.

The terrorist explosion at Aung San Cemetery in Myanmar, which occurred on October 9, 1983, reflected the divided Korean peninsula in the Cold War. In this paper, the content of Aung San events, causes, and the situation at the time in Northeast Asia, and the actual impact of North Korea was analyzed. The most relevant analysis suggested that the cause of the Aung San event was the elimination by North Korea of the Chun Doo-hwan regime. The 1981-1985 period in the Northeast showed a large flow of reconciliation and peace. Therefore evaluation of the Aung San event as an inevitable event is not appropriate. After the Aung San event, it is difficult to find evidence that North Korean foreign relations and foreign trade, had any benefit from the military part of North Korea. The Aung San case as a case study suggests that existing understanding should be slightly modified to show that in the early 1980s, specifically to the dynamic situation in Northeast Asia, further understanding has been achieved.

There are little studies to analyze public attitudes on immigration attitudes in East Asia from a comparative perspective despite the fact that East Asia has been an emerging immigration destination. This study provides a comparative analysis of immigration attitudes in three East Asian countries including Korea, China, and Japan, using cross-national survey data collected by the Pew Global Attitude Project in 2002 and 2007. This study finds that people’s attitudes on immigration and immigrants in three East Asian countries have been driven by their sociotropic concerns of either cultural or economic impacts of immigration and immigrants on their nations as a whole. This finding is consistent with sociotropic explanations of immigration attitudes. Furthermore, this study finds that while East Asian people perceive the immigration issue in terms of cultural threats, they perceive immigrants in terms of economic benefits of immigrants. This finding suggests that people might have ambivalent attitudes between their cultural concerns about immigration and their expectations of immigrants’ economic contributions to their nations. This finding challenges a pervasive assumption that immigration attitudes are closely linked to immigrants attitudes. Therefore, a further study needs to investigate such ambivalent attitudes toward immigration and immigrants, developing a more refined analytical distinction between immigration attitudes and immigrants attitudes.

A post-hegemonic multipolar world provides opportunities for Europe to enhance its normative leadership, while also providing a challenge to improve its military capability. Normative leadership may be effective vis-à-vis political actors that share similar characteristics; however, with the limitation of lacking coerciveness, it is difficult to be effective vis-à-vis actors that have contradicting interests. Without backing by America’s military power, it will need not only normative leadership but also leadership that carries some traits of coercive and political power to fill the vacuum left by the withdrawal of American power. The EU’s increasing role is expected to promote regionalism in East Asia similar to the ASEAN and the ASEAN Regional Forum, which can promote military and economic cooperation. With little military cooperation and geographical hurdles to exerting direct influence in this region, inter-regional cooperation by promoting regionalism is the most promising path for the EU to make influence in East Asia.

Russian diplomat Ministers to the Great Han Empire supported disband of Independence Club. But the U.S. Ministers to the Great Han Empire expressed sympathy with Independence Club. The U.S. Ministers to the Great Han Empire Allen rated high that Independence Club Western Reform. Allen recognized that Independence Club high quality political body and he rated political power of Independence Club. Allen Independence Club inspired suffrage. Allen expected that Independence Club reached the goal by agreement with emperor. Therefore Allen expressed negative angle to defiance of Independence Club against royal authority. King Kojong mobilized for disband of the nation assembly. Allen objected use of force against the whole nation assembly. It was for protection of American citizen that Allen objected use of force against the whole nation assembly. Allen regarded Cho Pyung Sik, leader of the pro-Russian group as notorious man. Allen checked strongly that American missionary and korean Protestants joined the whole nation assembly. U.S. Government gave instruction for disband of Independence Club to Allen in December 21. He supported disbanof Club. King Kojong took advice of Allen usually. Therefore hardline stance of Allen toward Independence Club affected King Kojong.

Environmental problems are not limited in the territory of a certain country. The pollutant, which is generated in one point of a certain country, gradually spreads to its surroundings and has an effect on neighboring countries jumping over boundaries. Acid rain, yellow dust and the Yellow Sea pollution make up the transboundary pollutions in Northeast Asia. In particular, fine dust as a transboundary pollution which has been continuously generated in China, is becoming a new conflict factor. However, this transboundary pollution is also functioning as an agenda which is promoting regional cooperation between neighboring countries. China, which has taken a passive stance in constructing the environmental regime, is turning to a positive stance. Because it wants to cope with international pressure to play the role of “responsible big power”, to escape from a dishonor of regional polluter, and to find a way towards sustainable development through promoting green industries. Nevertheless, it still adheres to a negative stance on a binding agreement, because of “scientific uncertainty”. In this regard, this paper discusses the necessity of constructing a complex cooperative network between various regional actors and “epistemic communities” which is a matter of building an environmental regime in Northeast Asia to solve fine dust problem.

This article is to review the research trend in South Korea and reorder the historiography on the organization and activities of the Soviet military advisory Group who had been dispached to the DPRK. Little is known about the Soviet military advisory Group because there is a limit to the research by the disclosure of a comprehensive report on the organization itself. The Soviets has been sending military advisers as a means of foreign military cooperation. After the liberation of North Korea, the Soviet military advisory Group worked on the construction of the North Korean military, reinforcement, military cadres training and didn't spare support for the Korean-war 1950-1953 from the planning stage. This is going to be another case of the Soviet Union intervening in the Korean War. Thus, research on the organization reality itself and activities of the Soviet military advisory Group to North Korea is still at a standstill. Razuvaev’s document shows that 33 Officer charged to each North Korean corps with the duty of 'Officer describing combat activities'. It means possible presence of a comprehensive assessment of the initial military advisers. If this original material is excavated, it is expected to open the horizons of a comprehensive study on the organization and activity substance of the Soviet military advisory Group.

This paper studies diplomatic activities and views of Russian diplomat Karl Ivanovich Waeber during the early stages of his service in Korea based on archival and published sources. It shows his personal contribution to the establishment of the Russo-Korean relations, strengthening of Russia’s position in Korea, expansion of Russo-Korean contacts during the preparation and signing of the Russo-Korean treaty of 1884. Retrieved from the records obtained from the Russian archives, this paper describes in detail the history of Russian-Korean negotiations upon the conclusion of the treaty, the main provisions of the signed treaty and the difficulties faced by K.I. Waeber when deciding on the rights of Koreans who migrated to Russia before the signing of the first Russian-Korean Treaty June 25, 1884 and took Russian citizenship. It provides us with unique information about the development of Russo-Korean relations and Russian policy in Korea at the end of the XIXth century.

This paper discusses aspects of Soviet-Korean relations in the 1920s–1930s. Despite the absence of official diplomatic relations between the USSR and Korea due to colonial status of the latter, as well as the obstacles created by the Japanese authorities, the contacts between two countries developed on various levels, including trade. The situation in Korea was widely discussed in Soviet press. From the Soviet side these contacts were primarily manifested by sympathy and solidarity with the anti-colonial struggle of the Korean people and multi-dimensioned Soviet assistance to the Korean liberation movement. The paper casts light upon the Soviet contacts with Korean freedom fighters like Korean Provisional Government, Chondogyo, and the Communists. It also discusses Soviet assistance to Korean guerilla groups-hard pressed by the Japanese, they could retreat to the Soviet territory finding shelter and necessary assistance and then, refreshed and rearmed, return to their anti-colonial struggle. The Soviet Far East was indeed a rear base for Korean liberation movement. But Stalinist repression and deportation of Koreans from the Far East could not but tell negatively on the links between the Soviet and Korean people.

Russia’s pragmatic and calculating approach towards the Republic of Korea and the DPRK as well as towards the Korean Peninsula in general is an integral part of the strategic course and reflects its fundamental interests and constant goal during at least last 60 years. Beginning from 1991 Moscow regards both Korean states as partners. Their relationships have independent value to Moscow and rest on principles of good neighborly interaction and cooperation. Moscow enjoys mature multilateral comprehensive cooperation with Seoul. Suffice it to underline the achieved level of bilateral trade volume of $ 32,5 billion, amount of South Korea investments about $ 2,6 billion in 2013 and two countries citizens visa-free travel status. Russia maintains a firm and genuine stand in favor of nuclear-free status of the Korean Peninsula and proceeds from understanding that the North Korean possession of nuclear weapons stands in fundamental contradiction to its national security interests as well as goals of sustaining the global nonproliferation regime. At the same time, Russia’s first priority is and will be the goal of maintaining peace, security, and stability on the Korean peninsula. Moscow believes that due to sharing a common border with North Korea, any Korean armed conflict will unavoidably inflict heavy damage to the military-and-political, economic, environmental, humanitarian, demographic, etc. security of Russia. In this way, in a hypothetical situation whereupon Russian leadership was facing a dilemma whether to support military action against North Korea aimed at elimination of its nuclear weapons or act towards preserving peace on the Korean peninsula, Moscow will opt for the second path. In other words, Russia is firmly committed to the nuclear disarmament of North Korea but exclusively by peaceful diplomatic means. Russia’s approach towards the Korea reunification perspective can be described by the same characteristics -Moscow strongly support Korea people will and aspiration aimed at the unification but only on the peaceful and voluntary basis.