Korean crisis and regional proceses in northeast Asia

2Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The article reviews some consequences of the creation of missile and nuclear weapons in the DPRK and growing activity of Pyongyang diplomacy in Northeast Asia (NEA). It investigates the factors that contributed to the changing of domestic situation in North Korea and stimulated a dialogue with foreign countries. It also looks at the modification of Seoul’s policy towards Pyongyang, analyses new priorities of South Korean leadership in developing inter-Korean relations. Seoul tries to adopt new model of bilateral and international cooperation on the Korean peninsula. Although the South Korean government intends to undertake notable steps to resume North-South exchanges, the political environment on the Korean peninsula and in NEA is not positive. The article examines inter alia the evolution of diplomatic activity of the United States, China, Russia and Japan on the Korean peninsula and in NEA. Korean nuclear crisis is not local, but influences regional and global trends. New factors of growing regional diplomatic activity are characterized. In this context, the article finally explores the impact of globalism and nationalism on modern foreign policy in NEA, mainly that of the USA and China, because these two powers play the leading role in negotiations between the DPRK and outside world. It will be necessary for all regional powers to demonstrate their will to find out any kind of final decision which would take into account the interests of two Korean states as well as of all countries involved in negotiations. Meanwhile, a positive transition of the DPRK towards market-oriented and more open society is a decisive factor for prospects of improvement in security, political and economic situation on the Korean peninsula and in NEA.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fedorovsky, A. N. (2020). Korean crisis and regional proceses in northeast Asia. World Economy and International Relations, 64(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-1-46-55

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free