International relations theory often overlooks the emotional, cultural, historical, and practice dimensions that influence decision-making.
Dominant states never reinvent diplomacy, they just adapt it to secure their interests - and most states are already adapting to China.
The U.S. election campaign brought out three facts about foreign policy: (1) the public no longer supports longheld traditions - republican or democrat; (2) isolationism, albeit a nuanced 21st century form, has returned; and (3) public understanding and appreciation of foreign policy is at an all time low.
If there’s one thing South Korea has been able to count on (or not shake off) for decades, it’s the United States. The alliance between the two countries weathered wars, economic crises, and the perpetual threat posed by North Korea.
We’ve all been there: trapped in a conversation with someone who thinks they’ve cracked the geopolitical code, loudly proclaiming why South Korea must or must not develop nuclear weapons.
South Korea follows the U.S. tradition with each presidential administration appointing its own ambassadors to key posts. This means that political allies, donors, or campaign supporters will take key ambassadorial roles.
A recent investigation by a popular media program has revisited U.S. surveillance on South Korea, and sparked significant public concern about U.S. intentions, challenging Yoon Administration efforts to strengthen the relationship.
Could the Korea - U.S. alliance end? It seems impossible. Every U.S. official and every U.S. politician says it’s impossible. Strangely, you hear differently here in Seoul. In fact, very differently.
In recent history, two global powers—first the United States in Iraq and later Russia in Ukraine—initiated conflicts that were widely regarded as controversial, if not outright illegal, by much of the international community.
While foreign policy and diplomacy are often used interchangeably (particularly in America), they refer to distinct processes.
