global asia Feature Essay

global asia Vol. 7, No. 3, Fall 2012

By Philipp Olbrich
& David Shim

t
s
e
u
Q
s

a
e
r
South Ko

the FoUrth hiGh-leVel Forum on aid effectiveness took place in the south Korean harbor city of Busan from Nov. 29 to Dec. 1, 2011.
over 2,000 government, civil society and business representatives from industrial as well as
developing countries convened to discuss global
development assistance.
this was the second major international event
under president lee myung-baks government
since the G-20 summit in seoul in 2010, and it
was a further reflection of the countrys aspiration to exert global influence in various ways.
the desire for enhanced visibility was further
advanced by the Nuclear security summit in
march 2012.
100

this intense desire for influence and recognition has been expressed in the Global Korea
national security strategy, which reflects Koreas
rising wealth and influence, including as a significant international aid donor. Not only does
this document outline the risks and challenges
to national security, but it also provides a concept
for a foreign policy that envisions the responsible
expansion of south Koreas international role. in
addition to the maximization of national interests
and other aspects, the significance of an enhanced
international reputation is seen as a considerable
power factor (cheong Wa Dae 2009). this is the
background for south Koreas global ambitions in
development and security.

e
u
n
c
fl
e
n
I
l
a
b
o
l
G
r
fo
Under President Lee Myung-baks Global Korea policy,
Seoul has become more focused on how its development and
security assistance abroad help burnish South Koreas image
as a global player, write Philipp Olbrich and David Shim.
While traditional national interests still play a role, it is
South Koreas broader desire to be a world leader that
will increasingly define its missions abroad.

FroM aid rECiPiENt to doNor statE

at the end of the Korean War in 1953, the peninsulas economy was shattered. Under park chunghees military dictatorship and with assistance
from the United states and others the country
recovered rapidly. the economy flourished and
massive corporations were founded due to largescale investments in export-relevant industries in
conjunction with protectionism for the domestic
market. even though south Korea was classified
as a recipient of development assistance until the
1990s, the country began providing foreign assistance as early as 1987; however, its expenditures
for development assistance at this time amounted
to just $24 million. since then, the south Korean

aid budget has continually increased, reaching

almost $700 million under president roh moohyun in 2007 (oecD 2011a).
the frustration for south Korea was that this
substantial amount did not automatically give
rise to more active participation in international
development assistance endeavors. therefore,
president lees Global Korea strategy aims to
promote south Koreas development assistance
activities, in the course of which budget increases
were planned and the efficiency of assistance was
placed on the agenda.
in late 2009, south Korea was accepted into
the Development assistance committee (Dac)
of the organization for economic co-operation
101

global asia Feature Essay South Koreas Quest for Global Influence

global asia Vol. 7, No. 3, Fall 2012

figure 1 SOuth KOREAs Official DEVELOPMENT Assistance BY REGION (2010)

Source: OECD 2010 ODA data..

1 From 1991 to 2009 the Inter-Korean Co-operation Fund financed

projects to a total value of $7.7 billion (Kim 2010). However, since
Lees inauguration its expenditures have been substantially reduced.

2 Angola is among the 12 leading oil producers worldwide.

3 The details and schedules for the new partnership have been
postponed until negotiations in June 2012.

opment budget there, preferring to concentrate

spending in Asia, which accounts for 50 percent
of its expenditures (OECD, 2011a). From a geostrategic perspective this makes sense, since the
Asian continent is increasingly important in global politics. Within Asia, the focus is on Vietnam,
Mongolia and Indonesia. These countries receive
approximately 20 percent of Koreas development
assistance funding. These are not severely underdeveloped countries, but countries with lucrative
sales markets and substantial resources. Mongolia
is among the 10 countries with the worlds largest
reserves of mineral resources (AA 2011), and Vietnam and Indonesia produce 300,000 and 1 million barrels of crude oil a day respectively. Angola
is another example of this policy. With 5 percent
of South Korean development assistance, Angola
receives by far the largest amount of Korean ODA
in Africa. The country also produces 2 million barrels of oil per day (EIA 2011).2
The regional allocation of development assistance illustrates that both the recipient countrys
economic potential and its resources are major
factors in the granting of aid. This reciprocal policy prevails despite the DACs insistence that the
main objectives of any official development assistance should be to promote the recipient countries
economies and welfare (IMF 2003).
While the objective of development assistance
clearly follows the national interest, the regional
concentration is also a result of reforms within
South Koreas ODA policies. Following an OECD
recommendation, a previously extensive list of
recipients has been shortened. As a consequence,
26 countries have been named as the recipients
of 70 percent of Koreas direct funds. The concentration on fewer recipients is in compliance with
the aims of the 2005 Paris Declaration, in which
leading industrial nations agreed to increase the
efficiency of their assistance.

so-called South-South co-operation. In Busan, a

global partnership for the effective implementation of development assistance was initiated with
the aim of extending transparency, accountability
and verifiability.3 Emerging powers such as Brazil,
India and China were also signatories to the final
Busan document. However, the rules were made
voluntary for those three countries (OECD 2011b).
This non-binding clause means that stricter controls and increased transparency for the rising
amounts of development assistance provided by
emerging countries remain to be firmly enacted.
For example, the Chinese government has been
accused of undermining traditional development
assistance practices by using aid to exclusively
pursue its own interests with little oversight. In
contrast, South Korea will be judged on the results
of the summit, which require stronger efforts at
effectiveness and accountability rather than just
an increase in ODA expenditures.
In addition to the regional concentration, the
large discrepancy between bilateral and multilateral assistance can be explained against the
background of South Koreas global ambitions.
Multilateral aid has the advantage of the greater
economy of scale that occurs when many countries pool aid funds into a single account, which is
then under the central management of organizations such as the World Bank. The expertise of an
organization that can distribute the funds as efficiently as possible is utilized. But when ODA is distributed by a single international organization, the
visibility of the individual donor nation is reduced.
As this contradicts the aims of the Global Korea
strategy, it comes as no surprise that only 24 percent of Koreas ODA is distributed multilaterally.
The aim of increasing the budget for disaster relief
to 6 percent of all development assistance is governed by a similar motivation. In addition to the
humanitarian value, prompt and extensive assistance also increases the countrys visibility.

Sub-Saharan Africa

South and
Central Asia

$117m
$284m

$65m

Unspecified
Developing
Countries

$64m
$49m
$38m
$269m

North, Central
and South
America

Middle East and

North Africa

Europe

Other Asia
and Oceania

and Development (OECD), and thus joined the

company of established industrial nations such
as the US, Germany and Japan. This was the first
time that a former recipient country had joined
the prestigious circle of provider nations. At the
DAC, which provides 90 percent of global development assistance funding, donor nations co-ordinate their approaches to development assistance
in order to enhance the efficiency of their policies. Expenditures for what the committee terms
Official Development Assistance (ODA) have
increased by 65 percent, from approximately
$700 million to $1.2 billion, since Lees inauguration in 2008.
Additionally, South Korea provides substantial
funding for humanitarian help for North Korea,
which is not categorized as ODA.1 According to
South Koreas constitution, the entire Korean
Peninsula is state territory. Thus, Seoul views this
as a purely Korean issue.
South Koreas ODA of approximately $1.2
billion is 0.12 percent of the countrys gross
national income. The DAC average of 0.32 percent is higher, but clearly fails to reach the bodys
self-proclaimed target of 0.7 percent (OECD
2011a). The overall balance within the committee is very uneven: Sweden allocates approximately 0.97 percent of its gross national income,
Germany 0.38 percent and Italy merely 0.15 per102

cent. South Korea aims to reach 0.15 percent by

2012 and intends to increase this figure to 0.25
percent in three years, a goal which is achievable considering the increase so far, assuming a
favorable economic climate. However, in absolute figures, South Korea is at a comparatively
low level. While Italys percentage is similar to
South Koreas, its expenditure for development
assistance comes to $3.1 billion, two and a half
times as much as South Koreas.
South Korea has committed to adapting its
international commitment to its growing economic possibilities, pointing to its own experiences as a recipient of development assistance
and the countrys rapid economic recovery. At
the same time, the government expects that the
increase in foreign assistance will yield returns
for example, a preference for South Korean corporations when contracts are being awarded, or
privileged access to the natural resources of recipient countries (Cheong Wa Dae 2009). An examination of ODA allocation and several partnership
agreements make this approach apparent.
The regional allocation of funds is a decisive
aspect of development assistance. Thirty percent
of DAC development assistance funds are allocated
to sub-Saharan Africa, as this is where the majority
of less developed countries are located. However,
South Korea spends only 13 percent of its devel-

Stricter Aid Controls

Further guidelines were agreed at the fourth The Rise of Security Issues
High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan The fact that issues of international security are
in late 2011, which also brought private organi- increasingly seen as part of South Koreas foreign
zations and emerging industrial nations into policy is another indication of the countrys glothe discussions for the purpose of strengthening bal ambitions. An example is the Nuclear Security
103

global asia Feature Essay South Koreas Quest for Global Influence

Summit in March 2012, where over 50 heads of

state and international organizations gathered in
Seoul to discuss urgent issues regarding the safety
of nuclear material including measures against
the threat of nuclear terrorism and the prevention of illegal trading of nuclear materials.
The Seoul Communiqu, which came out of the
summit, lays down the commitments discussed
at the nuclear security meeting held in Washington two years earlier. In particular, the role of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in
co-ordinating nuclear safety efforts was strengthened. Against the backdrop of the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, the participants also acknowledged the important connection between nuclear
security and nuclear safety for the first time. The
signatories urged every state to facilitate multilateral co-operation involving the UN and the IAEA
in the fight against illicit trafficking of radioactive material (Nuclear Security Summit 2012).
But even though the outcome met with general
approval by many governments, the agreements
remain vague and do not implement the binding
international standards and monitoring needed
to fully secure nuclear material.
President Lee also used this gathering to
broaden South Koreas bilateral ties by holding
talks with leaders and representatives of 25 states
on the sidelines of the meeting. Focusing on economic co-operation, for example, in his talks with
leaders of India, Turkey, Vietnam and the United
Arab Emirates Lee promoted commercial agreements that push forward South Korea as a major
exporter of nuclear power technologies.
The foreign deployment of the South Korean
military is another example of the countrys global ambitions. A growing interest in international
security and economic stability is not surprising given that South Koreas economy is largely
based on exports. Between 2003 and 2008 South
Korea deployed the third-largest contingent,
after the US and Great Britain, during the war
In Iraq. Until the expiration of the UN-mandate
for the Iraq mission in late 2008, South Korean
engineers and medical staff contributed to civil
reconstruction. Rebuilding devastated areas and
providing humanitarian assistance are the cen104

tral elements of any mission when South Korea

deploys its military abroad. These are also the priority for missions that are not under a direct UN
mandate for example, the mission in Afghanistan. In this way, the military presence supports
the South Korean diplomatic agenda and highlights the countrys global profile.
During the 1950s, of course, the UN oversaw
the allied presence during the Korean War, and
the country has long been willing to deploy forces
abroad. Approximately 300,000 Korean soldiers
fought with the US in the Vietnam War. In the
early 1990s, South Korea was part of the coalition
that ended the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. Since
its admission to the UN in 1991, South Korea
has been contributing soldiers for peacekeeping
operations. In earlier years, deployments were
strongly influenced by the payback syndrome,
according to which South Korea was indebted
to the international community for the support
it received in the Korean War (Sesay 2002, 203).
More recently, and especially under Lee, Koreas
own interests have increasingly become the focus
of foreign deployments.
Around 650 South Koreans are currently participating in nine peacekeeping operations. The UN
Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), with 354 soldiers, and the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), with a contingent of
240 troops, constitute the two largest operations.
The remaining missions involve single or small
groups of South Korean officers, police officers or
experts with predominantly consultant or supervisory functions. When selecting the respective
mission for South Korean participation, a focus
is placed on non-military activities. In addition to
the supervision of the border region in South Lebanon, the South Korean military is also involved in
the reconstruction of the country, which includes
medical assistance, computer training, lessons
in the Korean writing system and taekwondo, as
well as the provision of support for local educational facilities. Furthermore, public relations
work is conducted or exchanges and collaborations with military units from foreign countries
are promoted as elements of military diplomacy
(MND 2010). The focus of the Haiti mission is on

global asia Vol. 7, No. 3, Fall 2012

While the attempt to globalize Koreas foreign

and security policies is not new, greater importance
is now vested in the countrys global status. In
addition to traditional power factors such as the
military and the economic strength of the state,
reputation is now seen as a core factor in gaining
influence, exerting power and solidifying claims
to a leading international position.
medical support and reconstruction; the same important trade route, the operational area is so
applies to the regional reconstruction team oper- extensive that only collaboration among several
ating under ISAF command in Afghanistan. An nations can make success likely. By deploying a
operation off the coast of Somalia is an exception destroyer, South Korea is involved in these interto the usual humanitarian mission objectives. In national collaborative efforts.
the context of the multinational operation EndurParticipation in peacekeeping operations also
ing Freedom, South Korea has deployed a naval constitutes an effective means of making concrete
destroyer to guarantee safe passage for merchant contributions to international security and increasships and to conduct anti-piracy missions.
ing global visibility. As a consequence, South Korea
The South Korean government maintains a is making efforts to increase the extent of its par3,000-strong standby force for foreign missions, a ticipation in multinational foreign missions, prothird of which is ready for immediate deployment. vided that they are supported by the international
At the end of 2009, the South Korean parliament community. Additionally, the division of tasks in
passed a law with a relatively cautious definition foreign missions and in development assistance
of peacekeeping operations. It only covers mis- in general generates many opportunities for colsions that, for example, contribute to the super- laboration with other countries. This steady intervision of ceasefires, the staging of elections and action with other industrial and developing counreconstruction or humanitarian help, and which tries contributes to a rise in visibility and credihave been mandated by the UN. The law does not bility that is meant to add to the perception of a
provide for participation in the independent mis- reliable and globally active South Korea.
sions of NATO, the EU or other multilateral organizations, which are subject to a separate decision- South Koreas Quest for
making process. But as humanitarian missions International Status
supported by the UN are South Koreas main focus, It is important to understand South Koreas hisit will ultimately facilitate the governmental deci- torical background to understand the motives for
sion process for the deployment of troops.
its international commitments. The government
In contrast to poorer countries, which earn cites South Koreas moral obligation and responsignificant income by deploying troops for UN sibility as a former developing country and site
missions, the payments provided by the UN for of a UN mission, and emphasizes international
deployed soldiers are of marginal relevance to solidarity as a logical consequence of both its past
South Korea. Rather, national interests are of and the increasing interdependency of todays
predominant importance. In Somalia, where world. However, at the same time, development
the objective is the immediate protection of an assistance and security are also core elements in
105

global asia Feature Essay South Koreas Quest for Global Influence

extending the countrys role in international relations (Cheong Wa Dae, 2009). The Global Korea
concept defines international commitment in
areas that are consistent with global ambitions.
While the attempt to globalize Koreas foreign and
security policies is not new one example is the
internationalization, or segyehwa, policy of former
president Kim Young-sam (1993-1998) greater
importance is now vested in the countrys global
status. In addition to traditional power factors
such as the military and the economic strength of
the state, reputation is now seen as a core factor in
gaining influence, exerting power and solidifying
claims to a leading international position.
It is this background in particular against
which Koreas activities in development and security should be assessed. Hence the Global Korea
strategy declares: Our contributions abroad and
international peace-keeping activities should not
be pursued merely as instruments of assistance.
They should rather be approached from a comprehensive perspective of improving Koreas international standing and potential to serve overseas (Cheong Wa Dae 2009, 27). Increasing the
countrys reputation does not constitute an end
in itself but rather, from the perspective of the
government in Seoul, it contributes to cultivating
international relations according to its own ideas.
Active participation in solving global problems
serves not only to improve South Koreas image,
but also to exert influence on the international
system (Cheong Wa Dae 2009, 13). From this,
South Korea derives its claim to a leading global
role in the creation of the current world order, a
comparatively new assertion in the countrys foreign and security policy discourse.
Increased international development and
security assistance serve to build a reputation for
trustworthiness and reliability. As long as there
is no supranational system for supervising and
sanctioning adherence to promises (for example,
pledges of assistance) or even legal norms (such
as the prohibition of violence), these two activities are decisive factors for a state intending to
implement its interests.
While these political areas are an expression of
greater self-assertion, there are further areas that
106

also receive strategic attention: influencing the

international economic order through the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the
G-20 process and focusing on global climate and
environment policies by means of economic initiatives such as the Korean governments green
growth model (Shim 2010). Furthermore, other
actors also now demand policies with a stronger
global perspective. The US no longer views the
central foundation of South Koreas security
policy, the military alliance between Seoul and
Washington, as a regional security alliance, but
rather as a global alliance to jointly master the
challenges of international politics for example, in areas of security (terrorism) and development (emergency assistance). UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has asked his country to play
a larger international role and has, for example,
sought the deployment of peacekeeping troops to
the newly founded state of South Sudan.
While South Korea has seen an increase in its
significance in international politics, it is also clear
that the country is in the early stages of becoming
a global actor. However, considering the states
many achievements industrialization, modernization and democratization since its inception
in 1945, a further ascent cannot be ruled out.

Philipp Olbrich is a graduate student of

Political Science and East Asian Economy
and Society at the University of Vienna.
David Shim is a postdoctoral research fellow
at the Institute of Asian Studies at the
German Institute of Global and Area Studies
(GIGA), Hamburg, Germany.
This article is a revised version of a policy
paper, South Korea as Global Actor:
International Contributions to Development
and Security, published in GIGA Focus Global
International Edition in February 2012.

global asia Vol. 7, No. 3, Fall 2012

References
Auswrtiges Amt (Federal Foreign Ministry of Germany), 2011.
Mongolia. www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/Laender/
Laenderinfos/01-Nodes/Mongolei_node.html.
Cheong Wa Dae, 2009. Global Korea: The National Security
Strategy of the Republic of Korea. Seoul.
Clinton, Hillary, 2011. Americas Pacific Century.
www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/americas_pacific_
century?page=full.
EIA (US Energy Information Administration), 2011. International
Petroleum Monthly. www.eia.gov/ipm/supply.html.
IMF (International Monetary Fund), 2011. World Economic
Outlook: Slowing Growth, Rising Risks. Washington, DC:
International Monetary Fund.
____, 2003. External Debt Statistics: Guide for Compilers and Users.
Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
Kim, Se-jeong, 2010. ODA to North Korea noble but infeasible.
www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/10/
116_75388.html.
MND (Republic of Korea Ministry of National Defense), 2011, 2010
Defense White Paper. Seoul: Ministry of National Defense.
Nuclear Security Summit, 2011. Seoul Communique. Accessed

E-access
with every
subscription!

April 6. www.un.org/disarmament/content/spotlight/docs/Seoul_
Communique.pdf.
OECD, 2008. Development Co-operation of the Republic of Korea,
DAC Special Review. Paris.
____, 2011a. Reference DAC Statistical Tables. www.oecd.org/
dac/stats/reftables.
____, 2011b. Busan Partnership for Effective Development CoOperation. www.aidef-fectiveness.org/busanhlf4/images/stories/
hlf4/OUTCOME_DOCUMENT-FINAL_EN.pdf.
Park, Si-soo, 2011. Seoul beefs up ties with Mekong region.
www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/10/113_97447.
html.
Sesay, Amadu, 2002. In the Global Arena: Korea, the United
Nations, and Peace-keeping Operations. In Korea and
Globalization, Politics, Economics and Culture, edited by James
Lewis and Amadu Sesay, 197-230. London: Routledge Curzon.
Shim, David, 2010. Green Growth: South Koreas Panacea? In
Korea 2010 Politics, Economy and Society, edited by Rdiger
Frank, James E. Hoare, Patrick Kllner and Susan Pares, 165-188.
Leiden: Brill.
The White House, 2012. Sustaining US Leadership: Priorities for
21st-Century Defense. www.defense.gov/news/ Defense_
Strategic_Guidance.pdf.

Journal of East Asian Studies

Edited by Stephan Haggard
A SSOCIATE E DITORS : Y UN - HAN C HU , B YUNG -K OOK K IM ,
X IAOBO L U , A NDREW M AC I NTYRE , AND Y OSHIHIDE S OEYA

Top-Notch Coverage of East Asia!

Experts from around the globe come together in this
important peer-reviewed forum to present compelling
social science research on the entire East Asia region.
Topics covered include democratic governance, military
security, political culture, economic cooperation, human rights, and
environmental concerns. Thought-provoking book reviews enhance each issue.

Consistently provides timely and scholarly articles on the

most important issues in East Asia. It is a fine resource for both

research and teaching. T HOMAS J. C HRISTENSEN

1800 30TH ST.

SUITE 314
BOULDER, Co
80301
TEL:
303-444-6684
FAX:
303-444-0824

Published for the East Asia Institute

Vol. 12, 2012 (3 issues) ISSN: 1598-2408
Institutions $132 (Base Rate) Individuals $56 Students $32
For subscriptions outside the US, please add $18 for postage.
Download a free sample issue at www.rienner.com/jeassample.pdf
Order online at www.rienner.com/JEAS.

107