THAAD and US beef

By Oh Young-jin

Is the controversy over the deployment of the U.S. missile interceptor the same to President Park Geun-hye as the decision to resume the importation of U.S. beef was to her predecessor, Lee Myung-bak?

Lee’s government was almost toppled after months of protests starting in late May 2008, three months after he took office. The protests were triggered by a casual remark he made to reporters about the resumption of U.S. beef imports during a lunch ahead of a U.S. visit. As the new head of state, he was obviously in an ebullient mood, saying that the decision had been made already.

What he did not understand was that the public had strong doubts about the safety of U.S. beef, whipped up by reports that were later found to contain unrelated scary footage. In hindsight, Koreans started to seriously consider their well-being ― diet, exercise and overall health.

Also adding to the mix were his dented ethical standards. Although he won the election by a lopsided margin, he ― a former businessman and Seoul mayor ― faced continued suspicion for shady deals. This fueled the backlash from progressive forces that saw the end of the two liberal presidencies of the late Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun with the Lee presidency. The result was an anarchy-like situation ― protestors encamped at the center of Seoul ― Gwanghwamun and Seoul Plaza ― and staging candlelit vigils, calling for Lee’s resignation. It was a reenactment of the pro-democracy protests in the 1970s and 1980s.

The ongoing controversy over the terminal high-altitude area defense (THAAD), the U.S.-made missile defense system, has similarities with the mad cow crisis.

The THAAD case could be as explosive in its consequences as the U.S. beef case. Already, the citizens of the areas that are reported to be on the shortlist of candidates are up in arms, some organizing committees and others pressuring their political representatives. It is the exhibition of the selfish “not-in-my-backyard” mentality. But they can’t be blamed for not wanting to be targeted by the first wave of North Korean attacks that concentrate on strategic military assets such as THAAD or the expected losses in their property values.

Making their protests as political as the mad cow protests is the fact that the country is about to enter an election cycle ahead of the December 2017 presidential poll. Buffeted in not-so-small measures by the THAAD brouhaha, President Park Geun-hye saw her approval ratings fall dramatically. Especially noteworthy is the record low of popular support in her regional power centers in North Gyeongsang Province and Daegu. Chilgok and Waegwan, both in North Gyeongsang Province, are reportedly included on the shortlist.

Even if the THAAD controversy doesn’t lead to the massive protests that the U.S. beef incident did, a strong impact could be felt at the ballot boxes. Already, lawmakers from Park’s governing Saenuri Party are agitated, with some making clear their opposition to the THAAD development. Certainly in their calculus are more minuses than pluses for the chances of their party’s standard bearer to win the December 2017 election.

Another common thread in both cases is that the two leaders were disconnected from the public, being worsened by poor leadership.

Lee didn’t seek the understanding of the public about the reversal of position on U.S. beef, losing a chance to take control of the narrative. This also led the majority of people to give their taciturn approval or refrain from expressing their opposition to the protracted protests, although they withdrew their support later.

As happened to Lee, Park was also caught off guard when she blurted out her intention to allow the THAAD deployment earlier this year amid the North’s missile and nuclear provocations. In the months following her remark, neither Park nor her subordinates have bothered to explain to the nation the need for the new weaponry or persuade the nation that it is right.

It is not clear what caused the two to act so similarly. It can only be guessed that they may have confused their presidential powers with imperial authority so they believed they could do whatever they wanted. Also worthy of a reference or two is the casual and offhand regard they displayed in making their remarks, showing a lack of deep understanding about the consequences of their words.

For its part, the U.S. appears more preoccupied with its immediate interests rather than the long-term strategic growth of their alliance, something that could only be understood in the context of domestic politics. In the mad cow episode, the Bush administration was under pressure by agricultural interests, relaying its concerns to the Lee administration. Lee, who was pro-American, wanted to curry favor with the U.S. to gain advantages in other bilateral issues. As a matter of fact, Lee persuaded the U.S. to postpone its handover of the wartime control of ROK forces, a controversial decision that nonetheless has kept U.S. forces anchored here in Korea.

Over THAAD, the U.S. sometimes acted strangely. For instance, the launching of a pertinent joint ROK-U.S. committee was put on hold abruptly without explanation while a senior Chinese official was visiting Washington for consultations on the North’s nuclear threats. This made Korea speculate that the two big powers cut a secret deal behind its back.

Occasionally, unexpected elements added to the confusion. For instance, officials of Lockheed Martin, the U.S. defense contractor responsible for the system, spoke irresponsibly as if the decision to deploy THAAD in Korea was already made, touching off another round of speculation.

So, can Park avoid the fate that befell Lee over U.S. beef? She still has the chance to do just that by drastically changing her behavior. The odds don’t appear good, though.

Oh Young-jin is The Korea Times’ chief editorial writer. Contact him at foolsdie5@ktimes.com and foolsdie@gmail.com.