Korea and Australia have crucial roles as middle-power states to address regional and global issues by forging coalitions of like-minded countries, a former Australian minister said.

Gareth Evans, now chancellor of the Australian National University, said the two could capitalize on their diplomatic status to build the mood for regional cooperation, hampered by nationalism, security competition and historical and territorial disputes.

He described a middle power as a country with sufficient credibility, status, energy and stamina in the diplomatic arena to make a difference by building coalitions of like-minded countries around it to work on issues requiring collective action.

“If we (South Korea and Australia) exercise our responsibility as good international citizens to work on issues which are public goods for the region and the globe, I think we can punch over our weight, mainly through collective action,” he told The Korea Herald on the sidelines of the Jeju Forum for Peace & Prosperity last week.

“Australia has done a lot of this sort of stuff over the years and Korea not so much. I would like to see Korea getting more involved (in middle power roles).”

The remarks by Evans, who served as foreign minister from 1988-96, came as Seoul and Canberra were preparing for their first joint meeting of foreign and defense ministers on July 4 to enhance their security cooperation and middle power diplomacy.

Apart from the middle-power status, South Korea and Australia have many other things in common, Evans noted. These include a delicate balance the two should manage in relationships with the U.S. and China. Both countries have robust security ties with the U.S. while their economic interdependence with China is ever-deepening.

“Both are going to be in an uncomfortable position if tensions accelerate between the U.S. and China. And the big task is to ensure we never have to choose,” he said.

“Combined effort with U.S. allies in the region should be aimed at trying to develop a cooperative, rather than confrontational environment between two big guys (the U.S. and China).”

Pointing out the world is at a very delicate stage in the history of great-power relationships, Evans said the U.S. needed to face the changing reality in the regional security and political landscapes.

“The U.S. allies talk to the U.S. very frankly about what its posture should be to ensure that this relationship does not end in tears and that we don’t find ourselves crying as well,” he said.

“By talking to the U.S., I mean in particular, the importance of persuading the U.S. to really be serious about recognizing the reality of China’s rise, recognizing the reality that there are going to be limits to America’s military capacity to have things its own way and its allies’ way in the future.”

With regard to Japanese politicians’ provocative remarks that showed their unwillingness to atone for their country’s wartime aggression, Evans expressed concern over young Japanese generations’ historical understanding.

“My concern is that I don’t sense that in particular, Japanese young people really get it about the need for contrition, historically speaking. I don’t think they get it in the way young Germans just get it now,” he said.

“I do think Japan needs to do more... particularly with national education and making an active attempt to change the outlook of younger generations.”

As for the prospect of inter-Korean dialogue, Evans said setting tough preconditions for the resumption of talks could be “counter-productive,” noting the Park Geun-hye government’s North Korea policy that kept dialogue chances open appeared to be in the right direction.

By Song Sang-ho (sshluck@heraldcorp.com)