| Summary/Abstract |
Despite South Korea's general support of the liberal international order (LIO), its actions often deviate from or weaken the practices and values of the LIO. Applying role theory, the article argues that this apparent contradiction in South Korea's foreign policy arises from a situation of role conflict due to its multiple and conflicting role conceptions. Following an analysis of leaders’ speeches and official policy statements, the article contends that it is the interpretation of the past, not just the past per se, that matters for role conception and contestation. For South Korea, the experience and differing interpretations of the Korean War have simultaneously produced both LIO-supporting role conceptions (‘responsible international citizen’, ‘middle power’ and ‘global pivotal state’) and LIO-deviating or weakening roles (‘US ally’, ‘balancer’ and ‘independent nation’), thereby causing role conflict and inconsistency in the country's foreign policy behavior. The latter roles push Seoul either toward a more realist, alliance-based form of order or causes it to focus more exclusively on the Korean peninsula order, which emphasizes independence and inter-Korean unity. Based on these insights, the article suggests that it is imperative to minimize domestic dissensus on the interpretation of critical historical events, in order to avoid potential role conflict and to promote consistency in foreign policy.
|