The Termination of the Peace Corps in Korea and Korea-US Relations: Focused on the Diplomatic Documents Regarding Political Statements by Peace Corps Volunteers

The Peace Corps, dispatched to Korea with the aim of promoting world peace and international friendship, worked primarily in English education and public health. In May 1980, four volunteers who had witnessed state violence in Gwangju broke the principle of political neutrality and exposed the atrocities to the international community. Alarmed by the possibility of the democratization movement spreading abroad, the Korean government made the unusual step of demanding explanations and corrective measures from the United States. The U.S., while avoiding an open response, nevertheless referred to Korea-US relations, and the issue eventually developed into a diplomatic dispute between the two countries. As the Peace Corps’ termination date approached, Korea refused the dispatch of the last volunteer. Yet the United States, once again invoking Korea-US relations, succeeded in securing the volunteer’s entry. Even after notifying Korea of the Peace Corps’ early termination on grounds of budget cuts, the United States continued to press for redeployment. Korea at first rejected the request on the grounds of financial burden, and later on the basis of national prestige. During this process, the issue of the volunteers’ political statements resurfaced, leading South Korea to formally notify the United States of its refusal to allow the resumption of Peace Corps activities. Ultimately, the redeployment effort failed. This study aims to examine the impact of individual political statements on Korea-US relations by analyzing the micropolitics of diplomatic conflict between South Korea and the United States. A series of events-from the diplomatic dispute triggered by Peace Corps volunteers’ political remarks, to the early termination of the Peace Corps program, and finally to the subsequent requests for its reinstatement-demonstrates that South Korea did not simply acquiesce to U.S. demands, even within the asymmetric structure of the Korea-US alliance. While the United States pursued a dual diplomatic strategy that combined security concerns with efforts to promote goodwill, attempts to redeploy the Peace Corps ultimately failed due to the South Korean government’s opposition, which prioritized domestic security and regime stability. The process leading to the termination of the Peace Corps thus suggests that, in realworld international politics, mechanisms of coercion and consent may not necessarily operate even within asymmetric alliances, and that soft power diplomacy has inherent limitations.