A distinctive global pivotal state? The intra-hierarchical messaging of the ROK Indo-Pacific strategy

ABSTRACT

The Republic of Korea’s (ROK) Indo-Pacific strategy is widely interpreted as mimicking the language, tone, and agendas of the US Indo-Pacific strategy. Drawing upon existing theoretical work on hierarchy and international relations, this paper challenges simplistic views of the ROK strategy as a pro-US document by presenting a new model of intra-hierarchical messaging to explain how demonstrations of solidarity with a hegemonic order (compliance narratives) can also contain attempts to reassign responsibilities and privileges within this order (distinction narratives). Applying this framework to the ROK strategy reveals how a strong compliance narrative supporting the US hegemonic system exists alongside a distinction narrative articulating a more profitable role for the ROK that deviates from US expectations. Although this strategy has partly elevated Korean status in the US world order, tensions between these narratives may lead to potential negative outcomes for the ROK, such as empty solidarity or reined in leadership. Nevertheless, the article concludes that it may be in US interests to continue this renegotiation of the hegemonic contract.

KEYWORDS:

• Hierarchy
• hegemony
• Indo-Pacific strategy
• hegemonic contract

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 For more detailed treatments of this spectrum see Connolly and Hynd and Connolly (2023, 2–5) and Zarakol (2017).

2 As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, Hirschman (1970)’s voice option also captures this struggle of subordinates seeking to change their organization from within. The compliance and distinction narratives presented here could be understood as basic ingredients of the voice option, though distinction narratives also blur into what Hirschman terms the exit option, i.e. desertion.

3 The US strategy groups the DPRK nuclear arsenal under the category of ‘other major challenges’ (The White House 2022b, 6).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Daniel Connolly

Daniel Connolly is Associate Professor of International Relations at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. With a background in history as well as Science and Technology Studies, his research interests are broadly focused on the history of international relations, critical security studies, and the political and security implications of new technologies in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. His recent publications have appeared in International Studies Quarterly, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, and New Political Economy. He can be reached at [email protected].