South Korea and Japan currently do not have any trade agreements in place and many observers attribute this to the political and ideological disputes between the two countries over territories, historical events, and security concerns. However, there have been attempts to foster economic cooperation such as the South Korea-Japan Free Trade Agreement “Joint Study Group Project” in October 2003, and the South Korea-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement in April 2008 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan). Since then, these attempts have gone through a turbulent journey with negotiations halting and resuming with no fruition of a signed agreement.
Grieco states that the key interest of states is not about individual well-being, but survival and security at their core interest. A problem that will inhibit cooperation between states is the uncertainty of one state about another state’s future intention. As such, states pay close attention to how cooperation might affective their relative capabilities in the future, and the possibility of a more power potential adversary (Grieco, 1988). South Korea and Japan currently have a strong economic interdependence as we have addressed earlier in their trading relationship, it is highly unlikely that the two countries will have
…show more content…
When all things considered, coupled with the current trade partnership and trading volume between South Korea and Japan, and assuming logically that two rational parties will only enter into an FTA for a win-win situation, it is no question that it is only a matter of time the two countries will come to terms that economic incentives of completing an FTA will outweigh the political rifts between
Lizeth Galindo May 27, 2015 APWH/Period 2 Japan vs. United States How was the relationship of Japan and United States after Pearl Harbor? The whole world was thrown into wars in the late 1930’s. Countries fought one another with devastating consequences. Thousands of lives were ended in a matter of seconds and numerous generations were scarred for an eternity.
Following the Korean War and the rebuilding of their societies, both North Korea and South Korea’s economies have depreciated and fluctuated. With their different economic systems, one using the military and the other using trade, they both have received different results.
The term “Manifest Destiny” was, in part, an expression of a genuine ideal on the part of Americans. Yet it was also a justification to a push and to assume territory. The idea of Manifest Destiny was sparked by revolutionary American writings that encouraged appropriation of Canada. These writings rationalized that the Louisiana Purchase and the Untied States’ annexation of Texas ordained American complete domination of the North American continent. More broadly stated, Manifest destiny was a conviction that God intended North America to be under the control Americans. It’s an assertion of Anglo-Saxon supremacy.
The United States (US) is constantly looking for ways to improve relations with other countries and to follow their National Security Strategy (NSS). To aid the US in analyzing different countries, the PMESII-PT is used as a formula to keep everyone on the same page. The PMESII-PT contains eight different variables which help the United States analyze how different countries can affect their National Security Strategy. These variables include: political, military, economic, social, information, infrastructure, physical terrain, and time. These variables can be used to help better understand the situation and most important aspects of any country. Japan is a major country that can have a large impact on US relations and build on the current NSS. Throughout this paper, the PMESII-PT variables are examined to help educate and show how Japan can affect the United States’ NSS. After reading this paper, one can gain knowledge on how Japan can have a large influence on US interests in the Pacific/ Asian Command (PACOM) region.
The author argued due to the bipolar US-Soviet relations, Japanese- Russian relations were “merely a subset of U.S-Soviet and U.S-Russian relations.” (Kimura)(pg.142) Also the author points out even though times have changed since the cold war and the fall of USSR, neither country gives each high priority towards trading and foreign policy. He even goes on to argue that both countries could totally ignore each other and get along just fine. (Kimura) ( pg 142)
The two countries still haven't come to any agreements to this day. Although they haven't made any agreements, recently the current president of South Korea became the first president ever to cross from South Korea to North Korea. He walked into North Korea shook the North Korean's president's hand, then walked back. This was all on live television, he wanted the North Koreans to know that he wasn't afraid to meet them. This could be a sign that they will make peace someday, or he was just trying make a nice
North Korea is a communist country located west of the pacific ocean, bordering China, Russia, and South Korea. Kim Jong-un is the prime leader in North Korea and successor of the ‘Kim’ Dynasty. He strives to hold a disciplined country, and come across as a strong nation internationally. The ‘Kim’ Dynasty has been able to keep their iron fist in north korea since 1948. To remain in control, North Korea severely limits and restricts expression, movement, and information denying it’s citizens the basic freedoms of modern civilization and forcing them to live as slaves to the regime.
In Asia, North Korea continues to test nuclear weapons, and the oppressive regime is threatening to the security in the continent, and especially to our allies in South Korea. Currently there are “more than a million service members on either side of the demilitarized zone on the Korean Peninsula” [25]. Therefore “vigilance and readiness” are a top priority in the region. China’s recent actions in their modernization and buildup of the county’s military show China’s assertion of their growing economic power. China,
In August 1945, two young aides at the State Department divided the Korean peninsula in half along the 38th parallel. The Russians occupied the area north of the line and the United States occupied the area to its south.
Japanese industry and infrastructure, which were virtually destroyed during World War II, were systematically rebuilt to transform the country into a global economic leader by the mid-1960s. Post-World War II, the seven-year U.S. occupation of Japan proved to be a blessing in disguise as the Japanese received $2 billion in aid from the U.S. in the form of food, fertilizers, petroleum products and industrial materials.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership has been in the works between the EU and Japan since 2013 for a free trade agreement and Non-Tariff Measures in order to ease the burdens of existing trade barriers with Japan. Urgency recently developed when the Trump, the President of the United States of America, left the partnership affecting the other 11 members of the trading bloc. (EU-Japan Center for Industrial Cooperation , 2017)
An enduring dispute over Dokdo Island has proven difficult to resolve. Japan and Korea have been having an argument over the island for sovereignty ever since 1910 (South). This island has three names, Dokdo, Takeshima, and Liancourt. Dokdo, a solitary island, is a Korean name for this island. Takeshima, a Bamboo Island, is what Japanese call it. Both Japan and South Korea uses historical facts to support their claims for the island (Profile). To what extent is the dispute between Korea and Japan an issue about resources versus history?
“The deal, which was praised by both Democrats and Republicans, would allow the U.S. to keep its 2.5 percent tariff on South Korean cars for five years instead of lifting the tariff sooner, as the Koreans initially wanted. And each U.S. automaker could export 25,000 cars to the Asian country.”(Sean Lengell article)
Supporting the Joel Beinin and Lisa Hajjar, the thesis of Wild Thorns addresses the dilemma of accepting and rejecting the Israeli regime which causes division within the Palestine community (9). In fact, Khalifah, the author of the novella, uses the characters, Usama, Zuhdi, and Adil (Usama’s cousin) to support this thesis. In each instance, she tells how the path that the character chooses either supported their acceptance or rejection of the regime. Specifically, she shows how Usama and Zuhdi’s rejection (fighting against the Israeli regime) contrasts Adil’s acceptance of the Israeli regime (taking care of the dead Israeli Soldier’s wife), thus creating a division. Using the three characters to represent the Palestine community, Khalifah’s purpose is to illustrate the division within the Palestine community (divided community: one side rejects while the other accepts the Israeli regime). In essence, the thesis and of Wild Thorns can be seen through the fate which resulted in the decision of Usama, Zuhdi, and Adil.
Foa, E. B., Huppert, J. D., Leiberg, S., Langer, R., Kichic, R., Hajcak, G., Salkovskis, P. M. (2002). The obsessive–compulsive inventory: development and validation of a short version. Psychol Assess, 14, 485–496.