Amid the DPRK’s nuclear brinkmanship and its threat to attack both Seoul and Washington, the Park Geun-Hye Administration faces tough challenges in managing peace and stability in and around the Korean Peninsula. China’s willingness to actively implement the newly adopted UN Security Council Resolution 2087 is an important factor to slow down, if it cannot stop, the North Korean nuclear program, but the ROK government itself also should recall how consistent North Korea policy has been. Future North Korean military attacks on South Korea can be prevented only by thorough military readiness and firm willingness to punish if they occur again. The ROK should not settle for reactively managing the North Korean situation, but it should establish a comprehensive master-plan ultimately aiming at reunification. The ROK government should pro-actively initiate to the Obama Administration collaborating measures to inspire changes in North Korean society. The ROK and the U.S. should promote strategic talks with the Xi Jinping leadership, leading it to consider alternative approaches to the North Korean nuclear issue and a future unified Korea. The tumult in East Asia is another challenge for the Park Geun-Hye Administration’s foreign relations. The PRC-Japan relation is under stress due to disputes over the Senkaku Islands and colliding nationalisms, which is caused by rivalry in Northeast Asia. Southeast Asia is also far from stable as a result of disputes over the Spratly Islands, Scarborough Shoal, and SLOC security. Given America’s re-balancing strategy in East Asia and Chinese power’s emerging dominance in the region, the foreign policy options of East Asian countries will be significantly driven by the U.S.-PRC competition for regional political and economic networks. By envisioning a common scheme for peace and prosperity in Northeast Asia, the ROK should avoid a situation in which it would take a side between the U.S. and the PRC. Likewise, trilateral security cooperation among the ROK, the U.S., and Japan should be equipped with common values and norms so that the PRC will find its role justifiable and legitimate. The Park Administration should also advance the status and role of ‘he Global Korea’ that has been well established in international society over the past few years. Global Korea diplomacy should not settle for the mere geographic expansion of Korea’s diploma tic rhetoric. Resource-poor Korea will have to create more jobs and wealth by exchanging more with global society. In particular, the ROK’s exports and international cooperation in its most competitive areas, such as nuclear power plants, the IT industry, human resources, social overhead capital (SOC) projects, should be promoted. Free trade agreements, currently in place with 46 countries, should be expanded to facilitate reforms in agriculture and fisheries, service business, education, medical industry, and finance, as well as to grow international trade and economic benefits. In addition, the ROK should make active and early investments in green technologies and to lead global governance on climate change. Finally, the legitimacy and persuasiveness of Global Korea diplomacy will be strengthened if the ROK will not hesitate to contribute to the global agenda, including terrorism, ODA, PKO, human rights, etc., based upon commonly respected global norms and values.