Comparative Study on the Distinctive Strategies and Factors of China’s Negotiation with Taiwan and South Korea’s Negotiation with North Korea: Focusing on the ECFA and GIC
{"title":"Comparative Study on the Distinctive Strategies and Factors of China’s Negotiation with Taiwan and South Korea’s Negotiation with North Korea: Focusing on the ECFA and GIC","authors":"Wonwoo Shin","doi":"10.14731/kjis.2019.12.17.3.267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study is to compare the aspects of China’s negotiation with Taiwan and South Korea’s negotiation with North Korea around the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement(ECFA) and Gaeseong Industrial Complex (GIC) negotiation cases, and to derive implications from the aspects of China’s negotiation with Taiwan on the Inter-Korean relations, in a situation of a division. Con- clusions drawn from this study are as follows. First, both China’s negotiation with Taiwan and South Korea’s negotiation with North Korea are emphasizing practical interests. Second, in terms of military security, South Korea should adjust its critical point in the engagement strategy toward North Korea to the level of China’s critical point in the engagement strategy toward Taiwan. Third, South Korea should incorporate the organization responsible for Inter-Korean negotiations into the institutional system to hold the negotiation on a regular basis and also should seek for ways to grant the Inter-Korean agreement a legal status. Fourth, South Korea should minimize the changes in its North Korea policy arising from the change in the political camp and ruling party. Fifth, continuous efforts should be made to raise awareness among the South Korean people that the Inter-Korean economic cooperation project is not a means to provide a dispensational aid, but a part of investment to pursue mutual benefits. Lastly, the US influence on the Inter-Korean economic negotiations needs to be curtailed so that the negotiations are carried out in the framework of a bilateral negotiation.","PeriodicalId":41543,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of International Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of International Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2019.12.17.3.267","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare the aspects of China’s negotiation with Taiwan and South Korea’s negotiation with North Korea around the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement(ECFA) and Gaeseong Industrial Complex (GIC) negotiation cases, and to derive implications from the aspects of China’s negotiation with Taiwan on the Inter-Korean relations, in a situation of a division. Con- clusions drawn from this study are as follows. First, both China’s negotiation with Taiwan and South Korea’s negotiation with North Korea are emphasizing practical interests. Second, in terms of military security, South Korea should adjust its critical point in the engagement strategy toward North Korea to the level of China’s critical point in the engagement strategy toward Taiwan. Third, South Korea should incorporate the organization responsible for Inter-Korean negotiations into the institutional system to hold the negotiation on a regular basis and also should seek for ways to grant the Inter-Korean agreement a legal status. Fourth, South Korea should minimize the changes in its North Korea policy arising from the change in the political camp and ruling party. Fifth, continuous efforts should be made to raise awareness among the South Korean people that the Inter-Korean economic cooperation project is not a means to provide a dispensational aid, but a part of investment to pursue mutual benefits. Lastly, the US influence on the Inter-Korean economic negotiations needs to be curtailed so that the negotiations are carried out in the framework of a bilateral negotiation.