Subscribe
E-Paper
 |
On the contrary, South Korea has effectively managed to control the spread of the disease without restricting the movement of people. Unlike other countries that have employed heavy travel restrictions, Seoul implemented a compulsory quarantine and a "special immigration process" directed at countries with severely affected populations like China.
Despite a surge in cases, Seoul managed not only to check the curve but also flatten it. This has prompted many countries to view the South Korean response to COVID-19 as a model to emulate.
What has made South Korea successful in handling the pandemic?
The answer is simple: its domestic crisis management system and strong social accountability practices, which draw from its ambition to emerge as a middle power on the global stage, have been key in handling the pandemic. The strong sense of civic duties, institutional accountability, public response and framework of national transparency have been the backbone of South Korea's response.
Even though the South Korean response replicates a strong middle-power model in the manner in which the crisis has been handled, the debate continues on whether Seoul is truly a middle power in ranking. It is important not to forget that at one point South Korea was second to China in the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases.
Now the United States leads the tally, followed by Italy and Spain. The World Health Organization, which is facing a credibility dilemma due to its pro-China stance, has appealed to countries to "apply the lessons learned in Korea." It noted that Seoul had been successful due to its effective data management and testing modules. The huge amount of data South Korea collected has allowed authorities to locate and isolate infectious clusters to solidify quarantine practices; this methodology can be implemented globally for faster and safer quarantine practices.
In an evolving international structure, South Korea has over the years tried to develop a national capacity for contingencies that allows it to be actively involved and responsive to transnational issues. This makes the South Korean case unique. Even as the debate continues on the effectiveness of the South Korean middle-power model to meet governance-oriented challenges, it is certainly a time that South Korea can use to gather confidence as a power.
Seoul has used its middle-power status to the advantage of its domestic constituency by building universal health coverage for the entire population and making healthcare extremely affordable for different strata's of society. Testing pertaining to COVID-19 is, therefore, affordable and easily accessible. Widespread infrastructure for testing and access to testing clinics allowed Seoul to effectively constrain the spread of the disease.
The access to data and capability to identify and analyze trends helped authorities to locate and isolate infectious clusters to solidify the quarantine process. In other words, the response to the crisis flowed from a foundation of anticipation and effective mitigation.
To what extent middle powers influence the global governance architecture is a matter of debate though. Notwithstanding their competencies in regional and global forums, middle powers possess tremendous national capabilities with enormous national interest to pursue a pro-active diplomacy to make a statement internationally.
Their average geographical size often offers limited geo-political advantage to them; yet, their new international vision, along with solid national planning, makes them a potent power in the global governance architecture. South Korea is one such emerging middle power that has acted as an important player in Asia, even though it still falls short of being an influential one. Its solid response to COVID-19 consolidates its image not only as a middle power but goes to show how middle powers can emerge as reference powers to shape global governance architecture.
For Seoul, the pressing dilemma is how to transform that middle-power image and move toward being a major power in the global theatre. A contradiction exists in Seoul's foreign policy, whereby it aims to act as a major power internationally with a capacity that ranks it more as a middle power. The single-term five-year presidency also comes as a limitation; as the new presidency always comes in with new policy measures rather than building confidence and capacity on the back of previously launched policies. The lack of continuity in policy measures is one of the biggest drawbacks for Seoul in its international campaign.
Further, rebuilding "Korea Inc." will be a challenge in the post- COVID order. Korea Inc. is a nationalized interpretation of South Korea's "middle-power" approach in a tightly contested regional and international environment. The Korea Inc. model is unique to South Korea and is a symbiotic relationship between the business and government power structures of the country.
These structures form the very basis of the developmental state at the core of Korean policies. State-led macroeconomic planning is a key feature of the developmental state and this is promoted by Korea Inc., encouraging Seoul's "middle-power" testimony by allowing stronger state intervention in political-economic aspects of South Korea. In other words, irrespective of whether South Korea is a middle power in the making or not, COVID-19 has truly explicated a case in its favor.
Dr. Jagannath Panda is a research fellow and Centre Coordinator for East Asia at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi. He is also the series editor for "Routledge Studies on Think Asia."
