North Korea's Perception and Policy on a Northeast Asian Order

Abstract

IntroductionAfter the Cold War, globalization, regionalization, and informatization made a rapid advancement across the world. This brought great change in Northeast Asia but, unlike elsewhere in the world, the remnants of the Cold War still linger in the region. Although a discussion about a regional cooperative community is steadily surfacing, it is still at a level of dialogue and not yet fully institutionalized. Also, the previous paradigms of the Cold War are muddled and are competing with the new alternative paradigms of globalization and regionalization of the post-Cold War era.Not only government but businesses, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and other involved actors were preoccupied with policies that were self-serving and seeking to transition from the regional cooperation of the Cold War period to a more modern and global post-Cold War era. This can be interpreted as characteristic of a transitional period of the early post-Cold War era, and initial conditions at this stage placed structural limitations on various actors. The initial conditions can be identified as historical issues in the region, a battle of hegemony between China and Japan, and the bilateral regional hegemonic strategies of the United States.Specific geopolitical and economic changes in Northeast Asian regional cooperation can be described as follows. First, in the military sector, although the national paradigm is the dominant framework, the discussion of an international paradigm has been newly emerging in recent years. In the realm of economic cooperation, increasing economic cooperation is focusing attention on the need for multilateral regional cooperation; nonetheless, bilateral cooperation is still prevalent. In the sociocultural realm, there is a growing consensus which points to the management of various North Korea issues via civil society; however, with varying civil-societal maturity amongst nations, most still take the state-centered approach when dealing with North Korea. Human rights discussions are often divided between debates on universality and cultural relativism, making human rights cooperation ever more difficult to pursue in the region. Similarly, the unique regional characteristics of Northeast Asia, along with international universalism, affect and further complicate inter-Korean relations.2Roughly put, the preexisting national paradigm and other related erative, and political elements have worked to keep the North Korean regime intact. In contrast, the alternative international paradigm and cooperative approach requires North Korea to adopt major changes, including changes to its regime.In the same context, discussions about extending and institutionalizing multilateral cooperation in dealing with all problems related to North Korea, including nuclear provocations, are gaining popularity.3 When the current Northeast Asian order is considered, there are different national interests at play. However, when it comes to the issue of North Korea, most countries agree that the problems should be resolved step by step, in a predictable and regulated manner, by inviting North Korea into the Northeast Asian community. In other words, resolving the North Korea problem through Northeast Asian regional cooperation means interaction with North Korea, which will eventually lead to stable and gradual regime change. Without North Korea's consent and active involvement, the North Korea problem will never be solved. Therefore, instead of generalizing North Korea's behavior as unique and episodic, more thorough analysis is required to understand its regime and policies. This will allow for a better analysis of its behaviors and response.This paper will adopt the comprehensive security framework from the Helsinki Process, a mechanism used during the Cold War to end the conflict and enhance and cooperation in the European region. Through this framework, North Korea's perceptions and policies on a Northeast Asian order and on regional cooperation will be analyzed through five domains: political and military, economic, humanitarian, sociocultural, and inter-Korean relations. …