This thesis objects to examine the implementation process of ‘Comprehensive Agreement regarding Economic, Technical Assistance between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Untied States of America’, which was signed on...
This thesis objects to examine the implementation process of ‘Comprehensive Agreement regarding Economic, Technical Assistance between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Untied States of America’, which was signed on February 8th and ratified on February 28th in the year of 1961. Also, it tries to explain this process using an appropriate analytical frame in Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA).
The agreement is the very first example that foreign policy initiated by the administrative branch of Korea has been constrained by her legislative branch (國會: National Assembly), since the inauguration of the Republic of Korea in August 15th, 1948. Yet it has largely been overlooked in the preceding studies on political science, international relations and modern history of Korea.
Observing the mechanism among domestic socio-political actors during the ratification process of the agreement, I conclude that it needs to be apprehended in the complex context of unique socio-political structure of contemporary Korea, rather than via inter-branch relationship or impact of public opinion on foreign policy making procedure. Therefore, this thesis introduces ‘ruling coalition`s response against opposition sectors’ model coined by Valerie M. Hudson, Susan M. Sims and John C. Thomas, to construe the ratification process.
In this regards, I refer to ① diplomatic documents released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Korea, ② congressional records of the House of Representatives (民議院) and House of Councillors (參議院) of the 5th National Assembly, and ③ articles in three foremost Korean newspapers including Choson-Ilbo (朝鮮日報), to investigate the overall process by which the agreement was signed and ratified. Following this, the characteristics of ruling coalition―namely Democratic Party (民主黨) and Premier Chang Myeon (張勉)’s Cabinet― and opposition sectors―① conservative opposition parties and media ② progressive opposition parties and students― are examined, based on articles of those media and declassified intelligence reports written by the Untied States authorities. Finally, the logic by which these characteristics constructed the ruling coalition`s response is analyzed according to the model of Hudson et al.
Initially, ruling Democratic party and Cabinet tried to ratify the agreement without any modification or accompanying conditions. They utilize twofold response tactics against two different opposition sectors; ‘persuasion’, ‘bluff and diversion’ on conservative opposition parties and media; ‘harassment’, ‘denouncing’ on progressive opposition parties and students. Yet the latter sector`s antagonism grew rather fiercer, albeit the former sector`s repugnance became somehow alleviated. In conclusion, ruling coalition reluctantly chose ‘minor concession’ of passing ‘resolution demanding respect for the national sovereignty of Republic of Korea’, to obviate possible collapse of Chang Cabinet.
This thesis fills a vacuum of political and diplomatic history of Korea by covering one of the unexplored cases in the Second Republic (第二共和國). Also, it provides a counterexample on the structural approach of international relations, which tends to presuppose ‘states’ as unitary actors. The unexpected antagonism against the agreement, which intrinsically dealt with technical and procedural matters, cannot be properly understood without considering the distinctive socio-political atmosphere of contemporary Korea after April Revolution in 1960. It reminds us that state-specific features should be counted even in the cases of lesser states, which are impossible to grasp exhaustively through the eyes of international ‘structure’ or ‘environment’. The so-called ‘Second Image’ of international relations is far more flexible and dynamic than a solid ‘billiard ball’ or ‘blackbox’.
As we are clearly witnessing, the interaction between ‘in and out’ of states becomes more and more divergent in modern democracy, where the principle of power separation and social pluralism are unprecedently highlighted. Despite its numerous flaws or blemishes, I humbly expect that the main argument and analytic frame of this thesis can contribute to not only the studies of political and diplomatic history of Korea, but also general FPA`s development, and hopefully, be helpful for the fields of Realpolitik nowadays.