EMAIL 
LIST 
In the summer of 2013 a new, online journal began, based in Seoul, edited from Washington, DC, and dedicated to the study of international relations in the Indo-Pacific, giving priority to Northeast Asia. Planning for the journal centered on covering this sprawling region differently. Eschewing academic theories and methodological orientations, for the most part, the goal has been to build on the exchanges taking place at think tanks, to engage country specialists from throughout the Indo-Pacific, and to immerse coverage in the debates under way in the region.
The Asan Institute launched the journal without any expectations it would center on Korea or be guided by any particular political orientation. Although the US capital has served as the journal’s hub, US thinking about the Indo-Pacific did not take priority over policy orientations in Asia. At the core of coverage, four countries loomed large: China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea. In the case of Russia, the spotlight shone on Russia in Asia. For the other three states, their outlooks on the Indo-Pacific as well as the US role there took center stage. Unlike various journals with long articles and a lengthy review process, The Asan Forum prized mid-sized articles of roughly 5000 words and commentaries of approximately half that length. An exception was made for articles planned to be book chapters, first posted in the journal then withdrawn on publication of the book. As editor, I have quickly decided if a piece was publishable, speeded revisions to accelerate resubmission, translated articles whose author felt more comfortable writing in a native language, and done preliminary editing and some formatting before the assistant editor finalized the process for posting. Nearly all articles were commissioned on topics deemed timely and important, as well as little covered elsewhere. Eun A Jo has long served as assistant editor, ably contributing suggestions and her own articles as well as seeing pieces to their final posting.
How has this journal made a difference? Readers are bound to have their own views, coming from diverse standpoints. As editor, I can point to five ways, I think, it has proven to be different. First, it has generated the publication of six books with a seventh submitted for review. More on the books will follow. Second, the country reports and many of the articles open a window on what China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea are debating on international affairs. Some details about this window into national thinking are noted below. Third, the Special Forums with their overview introductions serve as a cohesive collection of writings on a timely topic. In a number of cases, they have become part of books, and a separate review of these forums follows below. Fourth, the commentaries in the journal juxtapose three national viewpoints on one main issue. Finally, the Open Forum articles often are distinctive from those appearing elsewhere, as I try to explain below, along with a review of the type of topics selected for the national commentaries.
The Asan Books
The seven books (six out by September 2023 and one submitted and awaiting approval,) bring together articles posted in the journal. They are: (1) Asia’s Alliance Triangle: U.S.-Japan-South Korea Relations at a Tumultuous Time (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015); (2) International Relations and Asia’s Southern Tier: ASEAN, Australia, and India (SpringerNature, 2017); (3) International Relations and Asia’s Northern Tier: Sino-Russian Relations, North Korea, and Mongolia (SpringerNature, 2017); (4) Democratization, National Identity, and Foreign Policy in Asia (Routledge, 2021); (5) Putin’s Turn to the East in the Xi Jinping Era (Routledge, 2023); (6) South Korea’s Wild Ride: The Big Shifts in Foreign Policy, 2013-2022 (Routledge, 2023); and (7) “Japan Presses Its Case as a Global Power, 2013-2023” (under review in the summer of 2023).
While the Special Forums are coordinated in advance and books 4-7 from the outset followed a book publication plan, books 1-3 emerged from collections of articles in the Special Forum and Open Forum, when enough had appeared to suggest a critical mass. Together, these volumes reflect the breadth of the journal. Books 2 and 4 demonstrate the wide range of coverage across Southeast Asia, Australia, and India. The other five volumes and prospective book indicate the heavy emphasis in the journal on Northeast Asia. Central Asia figures importantly in book 5, and Mongolia makes an appearance in both books 3 and 5. No book is centered on US foreign policy, but all are informed by how Washington’s evolving policies impact thinking across the region.
The final three books and manuscripts overlap in covering roughly a decade of policy shifts as seen in one of the four, core Northeast Asian states. They make the case that the period 2012-13 to 2022-23, as a whole and broken down into segments, deserves close scrutiny. Whereas the end of the Cold War occurred in 1989 (or in a process usually perceived as concentrated in 1987 to 1991), the transformative effect of the end of the “Post-Cold War” played out over a full decade. Four leaders drove the fundamental changes under way: Xi Jinping, who took power in late 2012 with a boldly assertive agenda; Vladimir Putin, who reclaimed the presidency in 2012 bent on turning Russia to the East; Kim Jong-un, who in December 2011 ascended to the family throne before rattling the region with his belligerence after several years; and Abe Shinzo, who returned for a 7½ year stint as prime minister at the end of 2012. If we add the clashing moves of Park Geun-hye in 2013-16 and Moon Jae-in from 2017, as well as those of Barack Obama in his second term from 2013 and Donald Trump from 2017, we find the ingredients of a whirlpool of foreign policy flux ideal for reflecting on the onset of an extended regional transformation.
The end point of our coverage in the three books also follows a compelling logic even if, amid dramatic change in 2023, we do not know what the coming years will bring. In the years 2021-23, the spillover of the Ukraine war, the intensification of US Indo-Pacific activism under Joe Biden, the emergence of Kishida Fumio followed by Yoon Suk-yeol as transformative leaders, and the polarization between China and the United States, point to the culmination of the trends set in motion in the early 2010s. Most important may be the decisions of Xi Jinping to reject US appeals to find common ground. The volumes 5-7 present chronological as well as wide-ranging geographical coverage of the transformative decade spelling the end to an era. In planning is an eighth book centering on Chinese strategic thought over the 12 years from 2012.
The co-editors or co-authors of each of the three, decade-long, wide-ranging volumes aimed for a panoramic grasp of one country’s thinking about a region in transformation. Breadth was not to come at the cost of depth. Chapter-by-chapter the narrative draws on an extensive number of primary sources in the languages of the four countries whose strategic thinking is scrutinized. It also is rooted in the articles commissioned for the journal over the decade to fill gaps in what is perceived to be the prevailing state of knowledge on particular themes, for example a bilateral relationship in Asia. Hopefully, the eventual collection of four books will prove useful as a whole for understanding the course of transformation in a transitional era for Northeast Asia.
Country Reports
Six times a year since mid-2013 a country report has been posted on each of four countries: China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea. Averaging about 5,000 words, the reports document newspaper and journal coverage on international relations in the Indo-Pacific. They provide a resource for students and researchers alike. Below I point to four ways they can be helpful: (1) chronological assessment of changing perspectives; (2) comparisons of viewpoints at the same snapshots in time; (3) review of how clashing opinions played out; and (4) overall analysis of the thinking on a central concern for international relations in the region (or some sub-region).
The country reports present a running record of the issues in the forefront of attention in the four countries. They elucidate how the four countries differ in their approaches to the issues. In coverage of conservative and progressive thinking in Japan and South Korea and mainstream and discordant thinking in Russia and, where possible China, these reports reveal the debates that have shaped political decision-making. Finally, a wholistic approach to the cumulative record over a decade can contribute to better understanding of the region’s transformation.
Chronological assessment of changing perspectives
In the cluster of decade-long books, published and forthcoming, there are breakdowns into 3-4-year periods. For Russia, this took the form of stages in Putin’s “Turn to the East.” In the other cases, separate chapters focused on three successive periods over the decade. For Russia, South Korea, Japan, and China, country reports served as the foundation for tracing the year-by-year development of strategic thinking, often broken down into geographical sub-themes. Building blocks are found in interpretive summaries of articles from each of the four countries on policy toward other countries, one bilateral relationship after another. For example, on Chinese views of Russia in 2013-16, the country reports make possible year-by-year analysis. Serious research, of course, does not stop with these materials alone. Secondary scholarship outside of China or other countries whose articles are summarized and interpreted adds context and fills in gaps. Yet, the raw materials presented in the 200-plus country reports assembled for four countries, drawing exclusively on materials not published in English, build a foundation for scholarship.
Comparisons of viewpoints at the same snapshots in time
Should one choose a particular year or even a two-month time span, juxtaposing the country reports offers a promising basis for research directed at understanding the perspectives from within one or another country. This material can be used to overcome the habit of analyzing a bilateral relationship from only one of the two sides. Key milestones in Indo-Pacific relations, such as regional summits, certain bilateral summits, major diplomatic initiatives, and responses to tectonic geopolitical shifts such as the war in Ukraine, can better be studied comparatively. Preparation of the separate country reports proceeded with an eye to coverage of a similar set of themes. Of course, discussions in the four countries had their own distinctive orientations. Even so, analysis based on comparisons of perceptions deserves to be given a higher priority.
Review of how clashing opinions played out
Most explicitly, the South Korean country reports detail the opposing coverage of conservative and progressive newspapers. Throughout the ten-year period they differed on how to interpret developments in the Indo-Pacific region. Frequently, in the Japan country reports, there is also a breakdown into opposing views of conservatives and progressives, mostly drawn from the main newspapers. Given the dominance of the conservative side over this decade, the narratives in their press and in several journals largely influenced by their thinking receives more attention, but clashing opinions can be traced, year-by-year, too. For Russia, differences in viewpoint are less pronounced but not absent. In the book on Putin’s “Turn to the East” it proved possible to divide coverage drawn largely from the Country Report: Russia into a mainstream approach and a questioning approach referred to as debating the “Turn.” Finally, for China, articles on various foreign policy subjects revealed more than one point of view, which a discerning reader could uncover using the country reports. The first Special Forum for the China project points to times when a debate was under way, such as alternative thinking on how to manage ties to Russia.
Overall analysis of the thinking on a central concern for international relations in the region
In 2018-19, when diplomacy over North Korea captured international attention, publications in China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea conveyed contradictory interpretations. In 2022-23, as the Russian aggression in Ukraine unfolded, Chinese and Russian articles differed on what was happening as spillover in Central Asia. The notion of the Indo-Pacific, first spotlighted in Japan as the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” concept, aroused different responses in the United States and the four countries whose discussions are reported in the country reports. Numerous topics critical to the evolution of Asia and the role of the United States there can be best wholistically studied by bringing together the coverage from multiple country reports over a given period.
Special Forums
Combinations of three or four articles exploring a single theme from multiple angles can further scholarship in ways rarely achieved by disparate, individual articles. Moreover, interpreted by an introductory article, their potential is more likely to be realized. Driven by that logic, the journal has posted sixty Special Forums on diverse aspects of international relations in the Indo-Pacific.
When a guest editor takes charge of an issue of a journal, a similar effect may be realized. In the case of The Asan Forum, this is the continuous objective. Informed about the thrust of papers in progress, the editing often seeks revisions to maximize complementarity. The arguments critical to comparisons of the findings are summarized for each article in the introduction. The whole is, thus, greater than the sum of its parts. Roughly one-quarter of the Special Forums were written as part of a book plan, not one but three were coordinated according to an overall blueprint. In this way, the Special Forums serve as a cohesive combination, not just a collection of articles.
Approaching a topic from the perspective of three or four countries became a common pattern in the Special Forum. Alternatively, analyzing a single country’s strategic thinking from three or four distinctive angles served as another pattern. It follows that authors begin not from a plan they conceived through their own ongoing research agenda but from a shared understanding of a common agenda. This requires flexibility and confidence that the project will meet its goals.
The first Special Forum in July 2013 weighed the pros and cons on various dimensions of the case that another cold war is on the horizon. With talk of a new Cold War widespread in 2023, this was a precocious foreboding of where the world was headed. The October 2013 Special Forum offered a survey of strategic thinking about North Korea, zeroing in on Chinese and Russian dissatisfaction with the approaches of the United States and Japan. A final Special Forum in 2013 delved deeper into Sino-Russian thinking and relations, viewing them in a triangular context. If we jump ahead to December 2015, we find a Special Forum on North Korea’s place in Sino-Russian relations and identities. These are just a small sample of the coverage of topics pertinent to the chances of the emergence of a New Cold War, which can be productively traced throughout the past decade.
A second persistent theme over the period 2013-23 was comparisons of “pivots to Asia” and within Asia. For example, the introduction to the December 2014 Special Forum was entitled “Five Pivots to Asia: Comparisons and Overall Impact.” Earlier, in May 2014, a Special Forum was devoted to the subject of multilateralism in Asia at a turning point. In July 2015 the Special Forum focus shifted to ASEAN centrality and regionalism. Strategies toward the architecture of the Indo-Pacific proved to be a recurring theme over the decade, sometimes narrowed to an entire Special Forum on one or another leader’s strategic thinking. Xi Jinping, Park Geun-hye, Moon Jae-in, Abe Shinzo, Vladimir Putin, and Joe Biden all rated singular attention for the way they had reconceptualized the region.
National Commentaries
With less frequency than Special Forums, three commentaries reflecting the viewpoints of three states or regions have been posted in the journal. These may be responses to an important summit or regional meeting. Together, the commentaries offer up-to-date insights on diverse thinking at a time when regional transformation is in flux. On alliance matters, US, ROK, and Japanese responses have frequently been juxtaposed. On broader regional challenges, Southeast Asian, Australian, and Indian responses have been posted. Russian and Chinese viewpoints provided some sense of the potential for clashing opinions. The choice of national perspectives has varied from issue to issue.
Let us consider some examples of r national commentaries. In January 2020, the journal carried South Korean, Indian, and ASEAN perspectives of Moon’s New Southern Policy. These were the areas of origin and greatest impact. In April 2023 US, ROK, and Japanese commentaries focused on Yoon Suk-yeol’s visits to Japan and the United States. These nations had the highest stake in Yoon’s summits. In December 2021 commentaries centered on US, Chinese, and Southeast Asian views of the series of 2021 summits in Asia. Sino-US relations were in the forefront, as the responses across Southeast Asia provided one of the biggest tests of the summitry. In the spring of 2022 coverage turned to the responses in the US, Japan, and South Korea on how transformative Biden’s recent summits to Seoul and Tokyo were. At the end of 2021 US, Australian, and UK authors looked at the significance of the new AUKUS agreement. These are some of the recent commentaries.
Open Forum
The Open Forum is the least structured part of the journal, sometimes posting articles proposed by authors rather than covering themes commissioned by the editor. The number of articles declined as the journal made some cutbacks. In earlier years some of the articles presented synopses of a major conference or the annual Asan Plenum. Articles in this section provided opportunities to look back on a given issue in a less time-sensitive manner than the Country Reports, in greater detail than National Commentaries, and without thematic constraints as in the Special Forums. They were less structured, but also opened the door to more unique and independent voices on contemporary issues. The great diversity of posted articles makes generalizations difficult.
Certain themes have received more coverage than others. Geopolitics has been a mainstay of the Open Forum contributions, as have national identity approaches to government policies. As in the other sections of the journal, encapsulating strategic thinking in one or another country is commonplace. Economic security has drawn more attention. Leadership studies are numerous.
Removed Sections
For a time, The Asan Forum carried exchanges known as Alternative Scenarios. Two authors drew different conclusions about one or another current trends. This section was dropped, recognizing that the National Commentaries filled a somewhat similar role. As the journal evolved, there were cutbacks on the frequency of some sections as on the number of articles in each Special Forum. In 2022 one section that was dropped was Washington Insights, covering information gathered at one or another think tank symposium. With the rise of webinars this endeavor seemed less necessary.
SHARE