Contenu du sommaire : Chroniques

Because it lacks both their power and prestige, one often imagines Korea as a subsidiary of China or an ersatz Japan. However, it has a rich and complex history that goes back thousands of years, without which Northeast Asia would probably not be what it is today, and which in many ways helps us understand why there are now two diametrically opposed Koreas, North Korea that as a perfect archetype of absolutism, and South Korea that has embraced democracy.

Squeezed between the Chinese and Japanese empires, the small Korean peninsula has rarely mastered its own destiny. As the last scar of the Cold War on earth, the 38th parallel reminds us that, to this day, it remains an important geo-strategical stake for the major powers. Unlike China, which has affirmed its power by assimilating foreign cultures, Korean nationalism, forged by resistance to the enemy as well as by a fierce determination to remain independent, still dominates hearts and minds in the North as well as in the South. It is also central to the historic rapprochement experienced today by the enemy brothers.

This article analyses the formation and evolution of different trends of nationalism in South Korea and North Korea, two nation states that grew out of the division of a single people. Until the early 1990s, under the “Division System” in the Korean peninsula, South Korea has witnessed a competition between the state nationalism of the ruling authorities and the popular nationalism of the pro-democracy forces. However, since the democratization of South Korea, the influence of these two nationalisms has been significantly weakened. Despite the apparent differences observed in the two Koreas' nationalisms, the article concludes that the principle of the national cause, i.e. self-determination and national unification, remains the dominant logic in inter-Korean relations.

Poker game or fools' game? We seem to be at a loss for words to qualify the speedy sequence of contacts which led to the June 2018 Kim-Trump summit in Singapore and the resumption of active negotiations at Pyongyang under the leadership of the American Secretary of State. The strategic stakes of both protagonists—Kim Jong-un's probable concern to avoid a total control from China and Donald Trump's concern to limit a future engagement of the United States in a conflict in the Korean peninsula—represent the main, and maybe the only reasons to hope for real progress.

The article offers an analysis of South Korean democracy by following its trajectory from 1987 to 2017, i.e. from the change of regime leading to the establishment of the Sixth Republic to the destitution of the president leading to the election of Moon Jae-in. It discusses three dimensions of the political system as it has emerged during the last thirty years: the foundations of the constitutional order, the partisan divide and the legacy of the developmental role of the state.

The North Korean economy has faced many difficulties in the 1980s and 1990s. Despite its ideological model, which advocates self-sufficiency, it is based on economic cooperation with neighbouring states such as China and South Korea. For the time being, the model of economic development applied for the last twenty years strikingly resembles the economic strategies of these neighbours. Kim Jong-un is facing a new challenge: either move away from and reject the current economic model, or push his country into a deeper crisis.

North Korea's nuclear policy which, in the early 1990s, was part of a regional proliferation crisis, has become a global strategic crisis a quarter century later. Confronted with Pyongyang's fierce determination, the diplomatic efforts deployed since 1993 have not succeeded in stopping the nuclearization of the security policy of the country that now possesses nuclear weapons and offers little room for manoeuvring. Following the 12 June 2018 Singapore summit between president Trump and leader Kim, North Korea's nuclear policy raises the following question: under what conditions can the world live with an additional nuclear state in Northeast Asia?

After a short historical overview necessary to understand foreign influence on the peninsula, the article offers a non-exhaustive panorama of the main stakes connected with the search for autonomy by both Koreas, even though these stakes depend closely on their respective backups. It shows that the call for a greater autonomy in inter-Korean relations is not new—neither in Seoul nor in Pyongyang—and it surveys the role played by China and the United States, as key allies, as well as by Japan and Russia, as useful neighbours.

The article analyses some of the structural elements that have influenced the emergence, development and success of what is called the “Korean Wave” (Hallyu) in the field of cinema. Among those elements, one finds an hybrid operating mode consisting in a strong state intervention (through legislation, subsidies, supporting institutions) that works in synergy with large private firms, together with the active and deliberate combination of various factors set up by a number of different actors, which have allowed the development of a Korean-style soft power, even though this “wave” appears to be multifaceted.

The Korean diasporic phenomenon is characterized today by a dynamic of migratory flows, as exemplified by the constant increase in the number of Koreans abroad and, relatedly, the growing investment of the North Korean and South Korean States in the management policy of those overseas nationals. To stress the specificity of the Korean case in a globalized world, the article discusses the fundamental questions raised by the Korean diaspora, namely the geopolitical situation of the Korean peninsula, the logic of North/South confrontation it entails, and the way this logic operates in diasporic conditions.