The American security alliances with Japan and South Korea have been a major concern of
China’s foreign and defense policies. China’s position toward the alliances is determined by
its foreign policy and security theories, doctrines, and principles; by its approach to a re-
gional security mechanism in the Asia-Pacific region; by its bilateral relations with countries
in Northeast Asia; and by incidental issues such as territorial disputes in Asia in which it is
involved.

Published as part of the "America's Alliances with Japan and Korea in a Changing Northeast Asia" Research Project.

Published as part of the "America's Alliances with Japan and Korea in a Changing Northeast Asia" Research Project.

Published as part of the "America's Alliances with Japan and Korea in a Changing Northeast Asia" Research Project.

Published as part of the "America's Alliances with Japan and Korea in a Changing Northeast Asia" Research Project.

Published as part of the "America's Alliances with Japan and Korea in a Changing Northeast Asia" Research Project.

Published as part of the "America's Alliances with Japan and Korea in a Changing Northeast Asia" Research Project.

The Korean-American alliance has kept the peace on the Korean peninsula for forty-five years since its inception in 1953. Now that a gradual process for Korean unification has gotten under way as indicated by the beginning of the Four-Party Talks and North-South dialogues, it is important to reexamine the origins and evolution of this alliance in order that its future challenges in the changing strategic environment in the Asia Pacific region can be met.

In addressing this issue, we must examine the alliance’s origins in the Cold War and the Korean War, for the alliance was established to deter another war after the Korean War was halted in an armistice. In tracing its evolution, we must explain how the shifting strategic environment and the allies’ responses have affected its transformation by analyzing the impact of such important events as the Vietnam War, the Sino-Soviet dispute and the Nixon Doctrine, the Reagan and Bush years, the end of the Cold War and North Korea’s nuclear challenge, the prospects for unification, and regional rivalry between major powers. Finally, we should speculate on the future of the Korean-American alliance after the unification of Korea. It is difficult to ascertain the Korean perspective on these questions. Hence it should be made clear at the outset that what follows is only one Korean perspective as I see it in light of the available material.

Published as part of the "America's Alliances with Japan and Korea in a Changing Northeast Asia" Research Project.

Published as part of the "America's Alliances with Japan and Korea in a Changing Northeast Asia" Research Project.

Just like many other crises, the Korean currency crisis came suddenly. In mid-November 1997, headlines in the Korean press consisted mostly of presidential election stories. At that time the presidential race was very close; the Grand National Party candidate, Lee HoiChang, was making a dramatic comeback, while the National Congress for New Politics candidate, Kim Dae-jung, was making his best effort to maintain his narrow lead. Thus, when President Kim Young Sam announced on November 19 his decision to fire key economic policy-makers on the grounds of mismanaging the economy, most Koreans were surprised at the news and questioned the president’s motivation. Two days later they were completely shocked to learn that the Korean government was asking the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for emergency standby loans because the Korean foreign reserve level was very low at $7.3 billion and most foreign financial institutions were unwilling to roll over their short-term loans to Korea.

Alliances are organizations between or among independent entities that concert to produce “collective goods” for the mutual benefit of alliance members. The statement applies whether the alliances are between or among countries, corporations, universities, research centers, or other institutions. Of course, the nature of the collective goods, as well as the membership in the collectivity, differs across these cases. That the goods (or benefits) are“collective” means that their availability to one alliance member (or their production by any member) implies their availability to the other members of the alliance.

Because the beneficiaries of collective goods cannot readily be excluded from access to
them, the so-called “free rider” problem arises. As a result, “Let George do it” becomes the
prevalent incentive structure. The more George does, the less is the burden (i.e., “cost”) on
other alliance members, while the benefits are collectively available to all members.

Several corollaries follow with respect to the formation, functioning, and prospects of
alliances in general, and those in Northeast Asia in particular:

First, while the benefits of an alliance are available to all its members, their respective
valuations of these collective benefits may differ. It is also worth noting that non-alliance members—for example, China—may appraise the putative alliance products as representing
not benefits, but “dis-benefits” (threats or risks) for themselves.

Second, devising an appropriate formula for sharing the costs of producing the collective
alliance benefits is complicated by the aforementioned differences in valuations among
alliance members, as well as differences in their capacity and willingness to pay.

This paper addresses the general question of the collective burdens (costs) and benefits of
the U.S. alliances with Japan and Korea, as well as the respective capacities and willingness
of the alliance members to bear these burdens. The economics of these issues are inextricably linked with their politics, and so crisscrossing between these two domains occurs frequently in the paper.

The paper is divided into five sections. Section 2 addresses the economic capacities of the
alliance members to bear alliance costs. Section 3 deals with the costs—both economic and
non-economic—of each of the alliances. Section 4 assesses the security and other benefits of the alliances. Section 5 considers the politically dominated “willingness” of the alliance
members to bear alliance burdens. And Section 6 provides a concluding assessment of the
balance between the burdens and benefits of the two alliances, the interdependencies
between the two alliances, and ways of enhancing the alliances while mitigating the
drawbacks associated with what we refer to as the “China–Japan conundrum.”

Published as part of the "America's Alliances with Japan and Korea in a Changing Northeast Asia" Research Project.