President Park Geun-hye’s recent state visit to Canada and speech to the U.N. General Assembly offer a chance to think about South Korean foreign policy from a broader perspective. What are the goals of South Korean foreign policy? And where does it stand as 2014 comes to a close?

All nations have a foreign policy because nations, even island nations, have neighbors. Equal relations between nations are rare because national power is not equal. Nations that rank high in national power pursue their national interests with confidence and are often perceived as hegemonic, whereas nations that rank low in national power often find that they have to adjust to circumstances beyond their control.

Among the nearly 200 sovereign states in the world, South Korea ranks high in national power. Calculating national power is difficult, but several attempts have been made. The Composite Index of National Capability ranks only hard power and, according to data from 2007, South Korea ranked eighth behind China, the U.S., India, Japan, Russia, Brazil and Germany. Another ranking is the National Power Index, developed by the Atlantic Council, and the International Futures model.

This index attempts to predict changes in national power until 2060. In 2010, South Korea ranked 11th, but was predicted to rise to 10th in 2020, before declining to 18th in 2060. The prediction for 2020 has only the U.S., China, India, Japan, Germany, Russia, the U.K., Brazil and France above South Korea.

The problem for South Korea, of course, is that Koreans do not perceive their nation as having much national power. This is perhaps natural given that Korea is surrounded by three high-ranking nations ― China, Japan and Russia ― and that the U.S. has a number of troops in South Korea.

Until the end of the 19th century, China was the Big Country. This was followed by Japan in the early 20th, and then the U.S. Koreans are thus used to perceiving themselves as a weak victim among powerful hegemonic states. History affirms the accuracy of this view, which makes it so difficult to dislodge despite South Korea’s recent accomplishments.

For most nations, foreign policy swings from idealism fed by emotion and pragmatism fed by selfish interest. Since the rise of the nation state, pragmatism has been dominant. As Henry Kissinger, one of America’s most famous diplomats, once put it, “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” The 20th century saw the rise of idealistic foreign policy after World War I. The failure of the League of Nations, the horrors of World War II and the prolonged Cold War put idealism at bay, but it returned periodically. U.S. President Jimmy Carter put human rights at the center of U.S. foreign policy during the first several years of his administration. Much of the impulse for deepening the EU through a common currency came from idealistic impulses.

South Korean foreign policy, too, swings between emotional idealism and pragmatic self-interest, amid a lack of self-confidence. After liberation from Japan in 1945, South Korea pursued a pragmatic foreign policy that focused on economic development through trade and national defense through a security alliance with the U.S. This required South Korea to maintain close relations with Japan, despite the bitter history of colonial rule. The security alliance with the U.S. has kept the peace for 61 years, but has made it difficult for Koreans to develop self-confidence on the world stage. In this context, emotional idealism in South Korean foreign policy contains strong anti-Japanese and anti-American streaks.

President Park’s visit to Canada reflects the pragmatic self-interest strain because the visit focused on a bilateral free-trade agreement between the two countries. Her speech to the U.N. General Assembly appealed to emotional idealism through implied criticism of Japan for forcing Korean women into sexual slavery during World War II.

Kissinger also noted that “A country that demands moral perfection in its foreign policy will achieve neither perfection nor security.” As the history of the 20th century shows, idealistic foreign policy has a bad track record. Trade and security should remain the primary goals of South Korean foreign policy. In keeping with its national power, South Korea should also raise its profile in international efforts to address global issues, such as climate change and sustainable development.

And what about the elephant in the room, reunification? Putting the pragmatic needs of national interest at the center of foreign policy will help bring clarity and, hopefully, courage to the discussion of this all-important matter.

By Robert J. Fouser

Robert J. Fouser, a former associate professor of Korean language education at Seoul National University, writes on Korea from Ann Arbor, Michigan. ― Ed.