One Alliance, Two Lenses is an innovative and unique study of the asymmetrical nature of U.S.-Korea relations. Focusing on the period between 1992 and 2003—a time of intense geopolitical change, deepening democratization in the ROK (South Korea), and heightened tensions over nuclear armament in the DPRK (North Korea), this book explores key conceptual differences in how South Koreans and Americans made sense of their bilateral relationship and, in turn, how these differences resulted in mounting tensions for this decades-long alliance. The book argues that the key difference between the U.S. and the ROK's perception of the alliance hinged on the distinction between policy and identity. Despite the extensive U.S. involvement in the formation and history of the ROK—from its role in dividing the Korean Peninsula at the 38th parallel to its ongoing deployment of tens of thousands of U.S. military troops—the United States rarely, if ever, viewed its relationship with South Korea as anything more than a “matter of policy.” When disagreement occurred over such key issues as nuclear proliferation in North Korea, for example, the United States treated them primarily as “policy rifts,” with little spillover to its sense of nationhood or place in the world. In contrast, South Korea's perception of the alliance has been directly influenced by its changing sense of national identity. In the context of rapid economic development and national democratic transformation, South Koreans began reassessing their attitudes towards the United States and the ongoing U.S. involvement in national affairs, especially in relation to the DPRK. Although conservatives and progressives staunchly disagree on the value and continued necessity of the U.S.-ROK alliance, what is significant, according to Shin, is that these debates are deeply embroiled in South Koreans' evolving sense of themselves as a nation and their position in a changing regional and global order.
To provide evidence for the book's principle claims, One Alliance, Two Lenses relies on content analysis of news coverage in five major daily newspapers: the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal in the United States and Chosun Ilbo and Hankyoreh Shinmoon in South Korea. Unlike opinion-editorials, which mainly capture differences in ideological positions, and survey data, which tends to focus on general attitudes at particular moments on particular issues, news media content analysis generates data regarding the “processes by which the particular views of a foreign nation are discussed, debated, established and reformulated” (pp. 28–9) over time. Chapter 2 provides a detailed explanation of the methodology, including the treatment of news sources, the codes used to identify similarities and differences in media environments, and measures used to test reliability and validity. This chapter is written mainly for sociologists, political scientists, and other social science researchers and is especially useful for those interested in the mechanics of conducting news media content analysis.
The remaining chapters engage in an extensive discussion of the book's research findings in relation to four basic themes: South Korea's views about North Korea and the ROK-DPRK relationship; South Korea's views about the United States and the U.S.-ROK relationship; U.S. views about South Korea and the U.S.-ROK relationship; and U.S. views about North Korea and its role in the “Axis of Evil,” coined by the Bush administration. Numerous figures and tables are provided in each of the empirical chapters and are followed by detailed explanations of differences in the extent, depth, and tone of news coverage for various issues, from the economy and national security to human rights and cultural trends.
The strength of each empirical chapter lies in the presentation of clear and accessible arguments that both enhance and add complexity to the book's key claims. For example, in chapter 4, Shin analyzes the “progressive conservative perception gap” (p. 103) in South Korean news coverage. He finds that both progressives and conservatives recognize the need for engagement with North Korea, but they possess fundamentally different understandings of how to do this. Whereas conservatives emphasize the need for continued ties with the United States to deal with the ongoing security threat that the DPRK poses to South Korea, progressives emphasize the importance of independent engagement with the DPRK and view the United States as one of the greatest impediments to achieving peace and stability on the peninsula.
Another key research finding is the divergence between U.S. and South Korean news coverage of each other. Shin found that almost half (44.7 percent) of all news and editorial coverage in major South Korean newspapers addressed U.S.-related issues. Conversely, U.S. news media coverage of the ROK was episodic and disconnected. News coverage of other countries, such as Russia, China, Japan, and Israel, far surpassed that of either South or North Korea, reinforcing the idea that Korea is not a “significant other” to the United States on any register. The only time any emotional content about Korea appeared in U.S. news outlets was in their coverage of the DPRK as a security threat. While the reporting was consistently negative and one-dimensional, it still amounted to a negligible proportion in relation to other countries.
Despite the book's unique approach, the arguments in the book could have been greatly strengthened if there was a deeper historical and theoretical engagement with the dynamics of U.S.-Korea relations. Although some contextual information is provided, the explanations would have benefitted from a more nuanced historical lens. For example, Shin attributes the emotionally laden nature of debates in South Korea over North Korea to the issue of ethnic nationalism and a shared investment in the lives of their Northern brethren. While such feelings may be dominant, other issues are not sufficiently explored, such as the role of negative emotional sentiments about North Korea as a continued legitimating force in formal politics and the convergence between conservatives' attitudes toward North Korea and the power base of the ruling economic and political elite.
Religious politics are also not considered when discussing conservatives' attitudes toward North Korea, which points to a broader problem in the book's treatment of the key concept, “identity politics.” Given the centrality of this concept to the author's arguments, there is very little elaboration of what exactly this term means and what value it adds to understanding U.S.-Korea relations. Identity politics are narrowly conceptualized as perceptions about national identity, with little consideration of the significance of other factors, such as gender, religion, and class, in contending Korean identities.
Also, there is insufficient attention paid to the material and institutional power asymmetries between countries, not only between the United States and South Korea, but also between the United States and North Korea, and South Korea and North Korea. Very real material differences influence how and under what conditions disagreements can be resolved between nations, including the absence of a peace treaty between the United States and North Korea and the size and growth of U.S. military power and reach, especially in the context of the “war on terror.”
Nevertheless, the book is a significant contribution to existing social science research on contemporary Korea. It is written in a clear and accessible manner and it will be a useful addition to undergraduate and graduate courses about Korean politics and politics in Asia, more generally. It will also be a valuable text to assign in courses about U.S. geopolitics and comparative politics and courses in sociology and political science with a topical focus on East Asia or a methodological focus on media content analysis.
