Stanford University’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC) and The Korea Society established the New Beginnings policy study group three years ago to enhance the United States’ important alliance with the Republic of Korea. Differences of approach toward North Korea had created significant tensions between the two governments in preceding years.

The New Beginnings group, comprised of former senior U.S. policy makers and experts on U.S.-Korean relations, believed that the inauguration of a new government in South Korea in early 2008 and the election of a new U.S. president later that year could lay the basis for a fresh start in the bilateral relationship. Both individually and collectively, members engaged intensively with American and South Korean policy makers, and together they have issued annual reports and recommendations to the U.S. administration regarding bilateral developments and ways to strengthen the alliance.

Members of the group believe that U.S.-South Korean official and people-to-people relations today are broader, deeper, and stronger than ever due to the leadership of the two governments. They welcome the prospect that the U.S. Congress may approve the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement on the eve of President Lee Myung-bak’s upcoming state visit to the United States. Implementation of the agreement will significantly expand economic ties between the two countries, increase jobs, and reinforce strategic ties.

New Beginnings members remain concerned that North Korea may engage in further military and nuclear provocations, and they support continued close U.S.-South Korean coordination on diplomatic and military means to deter North Korea and to limit and eventually end its nuclear programs. Members also support continued implementation of existing plans to rationalize and realign United States Forces Korea (USFK), allow USFK personnel to be accompanied to Korea by their family members, and transfer wartime operational control over South Korean forces to South Korean authorities in 2015. With presidential elections scheduled in both the United States and South Korea in late 2012, members believe that the United States should focus on implementing existing policies rather than undertake major new initiatives regarding the alliance or North Korea policy.

Key recommendations of the 2011 annual report:

The members of the New Beginnings policy study group on U.S.-Korean relations offer the following major recommendations to the Obama administration:

• Increase cooperation with South Korea to correct weaknesses in deterrence; engage in further joint planning on responses to North Korean provocations

• Support the strengthening of South Korea’s response to North Korean missile programs, consistent with the credibility of the Missile Technology Control Regime

• Use the Extended Deterrence Policy Committee to underline to the South Korean government the effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear umbrella

• Continue implementation of existing plans to realign USFK, allow accompanied tours, and transfer wartime operational control over South Korean forces to South Korean authority as scheduled in 2015

• Continue efforts, in close coordination with South Korea, to engage North Korea diplomatically to limit, reduce, and end North Korea’s nuclear programs

• Provide any U.S. food aid to North Korea on a humanitarian basis, depending on needs there, competing needs elsewhere, and acceptable monitoring arrangements

• Seek to resume the search in North Korea for the remains of Americans missing-in action from the Korean War

• Encourage early South Korean legislative approval of the Free Trade Agreement.

The full-text of the 2011 report and all previous recommendations are available for download on the Shorenstein APARC website.

Why do some countries in the developing world achieve growth with equity, while others do not? If democracy is the supposed panacea for the developing world, why have Southeast Asian democracies had such uneven results? In exploring these questions, political scientist Erik Martinez Kuhonta argues that the realization of equitable development hinges heavily on strong institutions, particularly institutionalized political parties and cohesive interventionist states, and on moderate policy and ideology.

"This boldly comparative book will be widely read, widely assigned, and widely debated in the field. There are few comparable works out there. Kuhonta's book should be required reading for those interested in development, political institutions, state building, social welfare policies, and Southeast Asia."

—Allen Hicken, University of Michigan

The Institutional Imperative is framed as a structured and focused comparative-historical analysis of the politics of inequality in Malaysia and Thailand, but also includes comparisons with the Philippines and Vietnam. It shows how Malaysia and Vietnam have had the requisite institutional capacity and power to advance equitable development, while Thailand and the Philippines, because of weaker institutions, have not achieved the same levels of success. At its core, the book makes a forceful claim for the need for institutional power and institutional capacity to alleviate structural inequalities.

This book is part of a the Studies of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center series at Stanford University Press.

This article examines the foreign policy views of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), from the party’s founding through its first year in power.

Main Argument

In 2009 the DPJ came to power in Japan, ending a half-century of conservative rule, with the hope of reshaping the post–Cold War order by rebalancing Japanese policy with a greater emphasis on Asia, inspired by a “new Asianism.” Instead, the party’s first year in office was marked by foreign policy tensions— first with the U.S. over bases in Okinawa, followed by clashes with China in the Senkaku Islands. The DPJ has moved painfully along the learning curve from opposition politics to the realities of governance. On both sides of the Pacific, policymakers now believe the rocky transition has led to a restoration of the postwar consensus, particularly regarding the U.S.-Japan security relationship. But it would be wrong to conclude that DPJ policies, shaped during the party’s formative years by key leaders who remain largely in place, have been simply thrown aside. The new Asianism, which should not be understood as a “pro- China” shift but rather as an effort to manage the rise of China, remains a core identity of the DPJ.

Policy Implications

• There is a real danger that relations between Japan and the U.S. could slide again into a morass. Avoiding that outcome requires a more serious effort to understand the underlying foreign policy identity of the DPJ and dispel illusions about the nature of change in Japan.
• Rather than seeing the new Asianism as only a threat, policymakers should view it as an opportunity to jointly, and in concert with South Korea, reshape the security order in Northeast Asia.
• The DPJ’s interest in an East Asian community potentially challenges China for leadership of future regional structures. The party’s focus on Asia, including ties with countries such as India, Vietnam, South Korea, and Australia, could create a security structure in Asia that can cope with the rise of China’s power.
• The mechanism and basis for dialogue is weaker than ever in the U.S.- Japan alliance. The relationships built up over decades of rule by the Liberal Democratic Party need to be revitalized to adapt to a new era in Japanese politics.

Article Highlights

• Although Chinese academics and military officers praised some aspects of the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, they continue to view US nuclear policy with suspicion.
• The factors responsible for negative Chinese reactions include bad timing, concerns about China's deterrent capability, a lack of consultation, and cultural differences.
• Improved dialogue between the US and China on security issues can help reduce the potential for misperception and mistrust.