Building a Peaceful Asian Neighborhood

Post-World War II history is, of course, the history of the Cold War. In Europe, the Cold War ended in the 1990s with the German reunification and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The West—the European Union and NATO—had essentially won the contest. In the Pacific region, however, the setting is quite different. At the end of the Second World War, there were three divided countries in Asia: China, Korea, and Vietnam. And the solution to the division in all three cases took military forms. In 1949 in China, the communists won the internal conflict militarily, thereby unifying China, although the Taiwan question remains. In Vietnam, again, the communist forces united the country by a military victory in 1975. In Korea, even though we had a very severe war for three years, 1950-53, we reached a rather inconclusive end and the division still continues. So what we have in Asia is a very different setting. The outcomes of these conflicts have left different types of political systems in the region. We have to live together in a neighborhood where we clearly recognize our internal differences, yet try to maintain peace in the region. So the task in the Pacific region is quite different from the Atlantic situation. Korea is still divided. Therefore, it is on the Korean peninsula that the final chapter of the Cold War has yet to be written.

In one of the meetings, Dr. Kissinger mentioned the fact that Asia has elements of a nineteenth century balance-of-power or concert-of-powers system. I agree. Of course, the setting is different. It is the twenty-first century. Nevertheless, perhaps what we need is a new sort of convocation of power, not for domination, but for peace and common prosperity in the region. With globalization, the people of Asia share common aspirations. We certainly would like to grow and improve our standard of living to match the other advanced regions of the world. We certainly don’t want to repeat some of the mistakes we have committed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, making us fall behind them. So we feel that we have to make a clear decision as to how we are going to build a neighborhood that will enable us to keep prosperity and peace in the twenty-first century.

As you know, in the history books Korea is known as the hermit kingdom. We have isolated ourselves to maintain our identity and security. Now we have made a clear choice. We have made a 180-degree turn. We no longer want to be known as the hermit kingdom. We want to be an active vanguard of globalization, a model of an open and democratic society. The reason is simple. We now believe that this is the only way we can be safe and at the same time prosperous. In short, the best road to security is through globalization and building a strong regional and global neighborhood and we would like to see every party surrounding Korea constructively involved.

Korea and the Maintenance of Balance and Peace in East Asia
Geopolitics is still the most important factor in thinking about security in our region. Korea has only big neighbors. In fact, we don’t have many neighbors. I was in Berlin just a few days ago and they mentioned the fact that Germany has ten countries as neighbors sharing their borders, most of them smaller parties. The situation is quite different for Korea. We have only three immediate neighbors—China, Russia, Japan—and all three are overwhelmingly bigger than we are. That’s why we need some sort of constructive balance of power in the region to maintain the peace. Yesterday, Gen. Scowcroft mentioned the fact that the United States maintains a balance of power in the region. I agree, but history has taught us that even a power like the United States cannot really succeed in maintaining a balance of power in the region as an outside power without help from the inside. Korea aspires to be that inside balancer and will try its best to maintain a balance of power and a convocation of power, which will help peace in the region.

We are a relatively small party in our neighborhood. A united Korea would have seventy million people. If we were in Europe, the united Germany would be the only country bigger than a united Korea. A united Korea would be bigger than either France or the United Kingdom. But, of course, big and small are relative terms. What is seventy million people when your immediate neighbor has 1.3 billion? In our case, our small relative size is in fact an advantage. We pose no threat to any neighbors and all our neighbors know this, which is why we feel we could play a very useful role as an inside balancer. To play that role we should be very efficient and resolute, although we are small. Those are the long-term visions we have for maintaining balance and peace in the region.

For the next few years we have to concentrate on the problem of division on the peninsula. North Korea has begun a process of major adjustment, but how successful the North Korean experiment will be no one is sure. It has built up a very special system—one leader, one party, complete disciplining of the population, and almost complete isolation. And it faces a very severe economic crisis. Its leadership would now like to make a major shift and try to catch up with overall trends in the neighborhood and in the world. Could such a system successfully change? Or do the system’s constraints make it impossible to achieve? We have no definite answer. We are trying our best to utilize the new opportunities between us for peace and the eventual unification of the Korean peninsula.

As I have already mentioned, no one worries about a united Korea. A united Korea will not pose any threat to anybody. In fact, I have reason to believe that recent developments regarding Korea provide a window of opportunity for wider cooperation among the countries in the region and outside powers. For example, U.S.-China relations may enter into a more constructive period if they are engaged in resolving the Korean question. There is speculation that, in the coming months and years, the tension between the United States and China will rise and a strategic competition will take place in the region. I believe that this should not and need not be the case. The United States and China can cooperate in building a neighborhood from which everybody can draw a great deal of benefit. At the moment, we have reason to believe that both the United States and China are eager to see a peaceful and constructive resolution of the Korean question.

We need to pull together our energy and our wisdom to bring an ideal solution to the Korean question and that, in turn, will open up a new possibility for building a peaceful neighborhood in Asia. There are already very promising signs in terms of regional and global cooperation—ASEAN Plus Three, which has now emerged as a very constructive forum for building a neighborhood, APEC, discussions about an Asian Monetary Fund, and, of course, ASEM, which is not getting a great deal of attention because it was more symbol than substance. But I think bringing the European Union and ASEAN Plus Three together every other year to discuss our common issues will gain greater importance.

No one needs to worry about an Asian bloc. There isn’t any bloc in Asia and there won’t be. While we try to construct a peaceful neighborhood in Asia, each country in Asia also has very special relationships with outside friends and allies. For example, we Koreans believe that our strong alliance with the United States is the essential foundation upon which all our dreams and visions can be realized. There is a very well-functioning mechanism among the United States, Japan, and South Korea to deal with regional security problems. But again, these should not be in conflict with our concerted effort to build a peaceful neighborhood in the region. In short, our work in our neighborhood will constructively link itself to the global movement, in particular to the consolidation of the WTO. We look forward to China joining the WTO this year. I think this will help the general atmosphere in which a well-functioning framework for regional security can be found in the coming decade.

* * *

All in all, we believe that greater participation by everyone in an expanded market will enhance the chance for security in our region and, indeed, in the world. Therefore, as I said, we have to make a decision and I hope the political leadership everywhere, and certainly the countries represented in this Commission, will take more decisive steps in the coming months and years.