Author    Beom-Shik Shin received his B.A. and M.A. in international relations from Seoul National University and his Ph.D. in political science from Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO). He is currently a professor in the department of international relations at Seoul National University and general affairs director of the Korean Association of Slavic Studies (KASS). His recent works include: 21st Century Challenges and International Relations for Eurasia (in Korean); Russia’s Choice: Transition to the Post-Soviet System and Changes in the State, Market and Society (in Korean); Russian Nonproliferation Policy and the Korean Peninsula (co-authored).       Abstract     To be a global leader once again in a rapidly changing international environment, Russia has strived to establish a complex multi-level alliance/partnership network. This paper aims to examine how Russia’s alliance/partnership strategy has developed and what can be expected. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there has been three major phases in Russia’s security strategy. First, President Yeltsin tried to preserve Moscow’s dwindling influence against the chaos due to the regime transformation. Second, under President Putin’s practical multi-vector foreign policy, the Kremlin began to regain its influence. Third, Russia tried to check America’s unilateralism by strengthening its partnership with China. However, Russia’s alliance/partnership strategy is not the same in every region. For the U.S. and Europe, or its space of justification, Moscow seeks to develop “Western + 1(Russia)” bilateral relations through gradual cooperation. In the space of influence, while trying to maintain its dominance by securing bilateral, micro-regional, and multilateral alliance/partnership relations with former Soviet states, the Kremlin is establishing a flexible quasi-alliance model focusing on strategic partnerships with Beijing. The Asia-Pacific region is the space of reward where Russia is strengthening its new assets to be a global leader. Lastly, Russia sees the rest of the world as the space of potentiality, and tries to build up future assets for its interests. Yet Moscow’s security strategy has major obstacles such as NATO’s enlargement, energy security, and its own weak soft power. To intensify its smart power, Russia needs to discover its role as a global energy middleman, and participate more actively in regional and global multilateral institutions.   The full text in Korean is available here

Author   Joon Suk Kim is Professor of International Studies at Catholic University. He received his B.A. and M.A. from Seoul National University, and his Ph.D. in Politics from the University of Chicago. His major articles include: “Reinterpretation: U.S., Germany, Netherland, and the European Union,” “The European Union and Normative Power,” and “Normative Foundation of European Identity.”         Abstract   The following paper reviews recent changes in the U.S.-Europe relationship. The paper consists of two parts. The first part examines reasons for the persistence of NATO which was widely expected to cease to exist with the end of the Cold War but continued to work as a multi-function, multi-purpose alliance. Of course, a question still remains as to what kind of role NATO can and should play in the absence of "common enemy." Giving a clear and simple answer to this question has been made all the more difficult as tension is rising among NATO allies over wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the problem of ascendant Russia. In the second part of this paper, attention is focused on U.S.-Europe relationship which is now showing signs of serious trouble. What is particularly notable in this regard is the fact that the EU is trying to establish its own domain as an independent international actor. The European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) was launched in 1999 and has been strengthened as "European" security institution directed and coordinated by European countries on the basis of European conception of security. NATO's and ESDP's functions partly overlap and this might provide a potential source of conflict between the U.S. and European countries.   The full text in Korean is available here

Author   Seongho Sheen is Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of Int’l Studies, Seoul National University, and is currently Visiting Fellow at the East West Center in Washington D.C. He was a CNAPS fellow at the Brookings Institution, an Assistant Research Professor at Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (APCSS), Honolulu, Hawaii and a research fellow at Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA), Cambridge, Massachusetts. His research interests include international security, US foreign policy, Northeast Asian politics and the Korean Peninsula. Dr. Sheen received his Ph.D. and M.A. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, and B.A. from Seoul National University.         Abstract   Given the ongoing economic crisis, Obama’s top priority would focus on domestic issues such as health care, cap and trade, and energy. Yet, Obama still faces serious foreign policy challenges including war in Afghanistan and Iraq, global war on terror, rise of China, climate change and so forth. East Asia will be a second priority for Obama administration’s foreign policy agenda with its focus on war efforts in Afghanistan and broader Middle East area. To support its war efforts, Obama wishes to see stability in East Asia. And China is defined as a key partner in managing East Asia in peaceful manner. For that, Obama administration welcomes and encourages China’ peaceful rise and positive role in East Asian affairs as well as in global politics. At the same time, Obama wants to build stronger partnership with historic allies such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia. Forging new partnership with countries like India and Indonesia will be another agenda. Obama also wants to form a more institutionalized multilateral security mechanism in addition to existing bilateral relationship. As for the Korean peninsula, Obama welcomes South Korea’s efforts to build a strategic alliance by which South Korea will play a more role in regional and global security issues. Meanwhile Obama will adopt coercive diplomacy toward North Korea with tough sanctions on nuclear brinkmanship combined with direct dialogues. While PSI and missile defense will become an area of more cooperation, FTA ratification and renewal of Atomic Energy Agreement could become a sour spot for the two allies.   The full text in Korean is available here

Author   Dong Sun Lee is Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science and International Relations, Korea University. His research interests include East Asian security and international relations theory. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago and conducted research for the East-West Center prior to his current position. His select publications include Power Shifts, Strategy, and War: Declining States and International Conflict (Routledge, 2008) and numerous articles in Asian Security, Australian Journal of International Affairs, Journal of East Asian Studies, and Korean Journal of Defense Analysis. He also contributed to edited volumes such as The Long Shadow: Nuclear Weapons and Security in 21st Century Asia (Stanford University Press, 2008) and The International Encyclopedia of Peace (Oxford University Press, 2009). His current research focuses on North Korea and alliances of the Asia-Pacific region. He can be reached at [email protected].         Abstract   This paper aims to illuminate key characteristics of the Obama administration’s emerging security strategy. It argues that the new administration will likely adopt a strategy of restraint and balance. Use of force, albeit not excluded in principle, will be a last resort, while the promotion of democratic governance and value-based alliance will be sought with greater caution. In addition to these realist postures, the Obama administration also will utilize liberalist instruments including international institutions and economic assistance. Despite his strong preference for change, President Barack Obama will not be able to transform U.S. security policy drastically, due to severe structural constraints (such as the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the financial crisis) as well as his advocacy of bipartisanship.   The full text in Korean is available here

Author   Sang-yun Ma is Assistant Professor and Dean of the International Exchange Department at Catholic University in Korea. He received his B.A. and M.A. from the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Seoul National University, and received his Ph.D. from Oxford University in England for his research on the US intervention in South Korea’s democratization in the 1960s. His recent research examines US alliance relations during the Bush-Blair period in comparative perspectives. His recent published papers include: From ‘March North’ to Nation-building: Interplay of U.S. Policy and South Korean Politics during the Early 1960s; Conflict between Korea and the U.S. in the Détente Period: Nixon, Carter, and Park Jung-hee (in Korean, co-author); English School’s International Society Theory (in Korean); and Alliance for Self-Reliance: ROK-US Security Relations, 1968-71.         Abstract   The primary purpose of this paper is to examine an alliance policy of the United States under the Obama administration and its future prospects in the 21st century with a historical overview of how U.S. foreign policy and alliance strategy have changed. The historical assessment of continuity and change in U.S. foreign policy, particularly its alliance strategy, provides a window to analyze U.S. diplomacy with a focus on alliance policy in the long term. Employing the two significant variables affecting U.S. alliance strategy, which are the U.S. perceptions of external threats and of relative power, this paper presents a review of traditions in U.S. foreign policy followed by a historical review of U.S. alliance strategy in four periods - the First and Second World Wars, the Cold War, the post-Cold War period in the 1990s, and the ongoing global war on terrorism. The U.S. perception of external threats has undergone major changes for the last few decades, ranging from the spread of totalitarianism and communism as a primary threat in the mid 20th century and incidents of terrorism as imminent threats in the post 9/11 world. Accordingly, the U.S. has been pursuing transformational alliances in a new security environment to collectively respond to transnational threats such as terrorism and nuclear proliferation. In addition, the relative decline of the United States in recent years amid the rise of newly emerging powers, the global financial crisis, and deteriorating stability in Afghanistan and Iraq generated a growing emphasis on the balance between leadership and partnership with other allies by strengthening multilateral cooperation and smart power.   The full text in Korean is available here

Author   Sang Hyun Lee received his Ph.D. from the Department of Political Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is currently a Director of the Security Studies Program at the Sejong Institute. He served as a research fellow at the Korean Institute for International Studies and the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis. His primary research interests are international politics, Korea-U.S. relations, and North Korean issues, and his recent works include: National Security Strategy of the Lee Myung-bak Government: The Vision of ‘Global Korea’ and its Challenges (2009); The Obama Administration’s Perspective on Foreign Security and North Korea Policy (in Korean, 2009); Diplomatic Environment and the Korean Peninsula (in Korean, co-written, 2009); ROK-U.S. Alliance in Transition: 2003~2008 (in Korean, co-written, 2009), East Asian Community: Myth and Reality (in Korean, co-written, 2008); Information Order and East Asia: Transformation of World Politics in the Information Age (in Korean, co-written, 2008); North Korean Issue and Peace System of the Korean Peninsula (in Korean, co-written, 2008); and Transformation of ROK-U.S. Alliance (in Korean, co-written, 2008).         Abstract   From its inception, the Obama administration has confronted a new security environment of the 21st century. Most strikingly, the United States is witnessing its relative decline of power, whereas newly emerging states, such as China and India, are rapidly rising in the international community. The remarkable growth of global economy and globalization invited new diversified actors to assume more influence in decision-making process in political, economic, and military realms at the global level. With the emergence of transnational and multifaceted challenges such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and environment, which are shaping a new threat perception in the 21st century, the Obama administration now faces the world where the United States can no longer act unilaterally to pursue global peace and stability. Accordingly, the new administration places a high priority on dialogues, multilateral cooperation in security issues, and global partnerships in responding to these transnational threats, deviating from the Bush administration’s unilateral approaches in foreign policy. In the changed security environment of the 21st century marked by the rise of the emerging powers and transitional challenges, the Obama administration is trying to restore American global leadership by successfully addressing its foreign policy agendas, which include 1) economic diplomacy in combating the global financial crisis, 2) global war on terrorism with regional focuses on Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, 3) nonproliferation of nuclear weapons with the logic of zero, 4) reassessment of alliance policy to strengthen the existing ties as well as to generate new strategic partnerships, particularly with a rising China, 5) energy and environmental concerns, with particular attention to global climate change, and 6) international development.   The full text in Korean is available here

Author   Nam Sik In is Assistant Professor at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security in the Republic of Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He received his B.A. and M.A. in Politics from the Department of Political Science at Yonsei University, and his Ph.D. in Middle East Politics from the University of Durham, U.K. He served as an EBS correspondent for the U.K., and was a visiting research fellow at Cairo Al-Ahram Newspaper’s Centre for Political Science and Strategic Studies. His major works include Understanding International Conflict (in Korean, 2000) and Perspective and Implication for the Establishment of Democratic Government in Iraq (in Korean, 2004), and his research covers the Middle Eastern politics and terrorism. His recent works are Appearance of Voluntary Network Terrorism and its Implications (in Korean, 2009) and Pakistan and the U.S.’s Dilemma (in Korean, 2008).         Abstract   The main purpose of this paper is to examine a changing political environment of the Middle East with a historical overview of alliance networks in the Middle East since the Cold War. As the concept of Middle Eastern alliances go beyond traditional military concerns and economic interests to include shared cultural, racial, and religious identity as reflected in the doctrine of oneness, the four different layers of identity – tribal identity (assabiyyah), national identity (wataniyyah), Arab nationalism (qawmiyyah), and religious/Islamic identity (ummah) – have been critical determining the Middle Eastern alliance system throughout history. During the Cold War period, national identity was a dominant variable facilitating the establishment of multilateral organizations to contain the Soviet influence in the region, which was later developed to Arab nationalism, and ultimately an alliance based on ummah in the post-Cold War period. With the revival of Islam and the politicization of Islam in the Middle East in the post-9/11 world, which is characterized by the dominance of alliances based on ummah, the Obama administration takes a fundamentally different approach toward the region, abandoning the Bush Doctrine in dealing these Islamic alliances. In contrast to the Bush administration, the new administration primarily focuses on multilateralism and soft power (or smart power) within the framework of international institutions on many pressing issues such as Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its sour relations with Israel. In addition, dynamics of domestic politics in the United States put more pressure to maintain close ties with Israel, its critical ally at all times in the region, despite a growing criticism of its cognitive alliance with Israel.   The full text in Korean is available here

Author   Yul Sohn is Assistant Professor of Yonsei University’s Graduate School of International Studies. He received his Ph.D. in Politics from the University of Chicago, and served as professor at Chung-ang University, foreign scholar at the University of Tokyo's Institute of Social Science, and visiting professor at Waseda University. His research interests are Japanese politics and foreign policy, international political economy, and East Asian regionalism, and his recent academic publications include: East Asia in the 21st Century: Competing International Society (2009); Politics of Soft Power: Changing Japanese Identity (2009); Japan’s East Asian Community (2009); and Japan Between Alliance and Community (2009).         Abstract   This paper explores how Japan has rebalanced its alliance with the United States during the past decade. It began with the emerging strategic environment of East Asia that highlights China's rise. Then, it introduces three strategic views that emerged in the policy circle as an alternative to the existing foreign policy posture: alliance, autonomy, and balance. Ultimately this paper will demonstrate that neither view is appropriate in dealing with the new challenges. Ultimately, it suggests that Japan should adopt two approaches. First, Japan will need a renewed understanding of the US-Japan alliance transformation. Japanese leaders should recognize that what is needed is not tightening up but transforming the alliance structure into a complex one. Japan can play a valuable role in nonmilitary affairs such as development assistance, environmental protection, transnational crimes, and humanitarian assistance. This soft approach will enhance Japan’s power more effectively than a hard alliance will do.   Second, Japan needs a more open and flexible alliance structure. For Asia is rapidly transforming into an increasingly networked region through new cultural links, new business deals, and new bilateral and multilateral diplomatic efforts. They must develop a networked alliance that is scalable: an alliance that recruits new members and link sideways to other forms of groups (i.e., regionalism). Japan should find a way to connect both the United State and Asia.     The full text in Korean is available here