By Roy U. T. Kim
An unprecedented change is coming to the U.S. This change could remind us of a similar change that swept America during the Great Depression around the 1930s.
It would bring about a transformational leadership change in the White House, a Democrat controlled Congress and eventually change the Supreme Court. Basically the balance of power in U.S. federalism would be altered.
This does not necessarily bode well. The similarly Democratic majority periods of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson were accompanied by some problems for the U.S.
There are several basic factors affecting the election. The late Theodore White, a veteran observer of U.S. elections, suggested that (1) bread and butter, (2) war and peace, and (3) black and white usually decide the outcome of the elections.
The race issue has an entirely different meaning in the 2008 election. At the same time, another important factor could have been gender if the Democrats had nominated Sen. Hillary Clinton as their presidential choice.
The economy is certainly the most critical issue. Some people are reminded of the situation preceding the Great Depression.
Related to the overall economic picture is the current global financial crisis, an intolerably high unemployment rate (nearing 7 percent), the energy crisis, a healthcare crisis, and the undocumented alien issues.
Protracted conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are nagging problems as well. It is certain that the new president will inherit both conflicts. Continuing instability in Pakistan is an equally serious problem for the new president.
How to handle the nagging problem with Iran, and how to manage North Korea's nuclear problem remain no less serious problems. How to proceed with North Korea even after removing it from the U.S. terrorism list remains a critical question for Washington.
The 2008 election would also bring about major changes in the U.S. Congress. It is now more than certain that the Democrats would completely control the Senate and the House of Representatives, making Congress very solidly Democratic and able to override any presidential vetoes.
The balance of power within the three branches would be drastically changed. A Democratic president, on the other hand, would not necessarily be able to control a Democratic Congress. Both Democratic presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, had very difficult times with Democratic controlled Congress.
Looking ahead, the election would likely bring more Democrats onto the U.S. Supreme Court as several judges are nearing retirement. In short, the election would bring about major changes totally unprecedented in U.S. history. This may be much more fundamental than the Roosevelt era in the 1930s.
What kinds of changes can we anticipate in ROK-U.S. relations? How should Seoul anticipate and prepare for such changes?
Any international relationship is bound to change with the passage of time. Even the stable Korea-U.S. relations might not be an exception.
It is often said: ``There is no permanent friend or permanent enemy, only national interests remain permanent." Historically the Seoul-Washington relationship has been very enduring.
Yet there have been noticeable instances of friction. For instance, the U.S. signed the 1953 armistice agreement with North Korea against the wishes of the Seoul government.
This caused much friction and restraint between Seoul and Washington. But on the whole, the bilateral relationship has been very close and friendly, now even allowing visa free travel between both countries.
Sometimes, each appeared to have been tempted to interfere in internal affairs particularly during the close elections. On several occasions, ROK presidents indicated their preferences in the U.S. presidential elections.
Former Presidents Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung were no exception. Even in 2008 election, Seoul appears favoring Republicans, wishing Washington would continue Bush's hard-line policies.
Such wishful hope often produces rather unfortunate results. It would have been better not to interfere in each other's domestic affairs.
What significant elements could be affected in the future Seoul-Washington relationship? How should Seoul be prepared? To begin with, the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement (FTA) may face critical challenges in the US Congress.
Of course, the Bush administration already negotiated the agreement in detail with Seoul. The beef issue is highly insignificant in the overall package of the FTA. The total volume of trade is more important for Seoul in its overall global balance of trade in comparison with Washington.
The overwhelming Democratic majority in the House of Representatives may cause serious opposition to the FTA with Seoul.
The House may confront the high level of unemployment rate, close to 7 percent throughout the country by early spring 2009. Some economists fear there may be a period of protectionism coupled with gradual isolation in U.S. foreign policy.
What could Seoul do? It will confront a major economic dilemma, much more serious than the painful period of the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis. Perhaps it should consider diversifying global trade as much as possible. As rich as the US market has been, there are other emerging markets globally.
U.S. foreign policy may bring about unprecedented changes globally. One particular area that may directly affect Seoul could be North Korea. Pyongyang is no longer a part of the ``axis of evil."
Washington has already removed it from its states sponsoring terrorism list. Pyongyang is likely to be serious with its pledge to dismantle its nuclear program within the six-party framework. What could be the next step?
The new U.S. administration may be expected to negotiate with North Korea on several issues. Pyongyang is likely to demand a total nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
The U.S. may be asked to pledge to remove its nuclear umbrella from the peninsula. Gradually, Pyongyang and Washington would proceed to normalize the relationship.
How would Tokyo react? Japan has already objected to the U.S. removal of North Korea from the list. Japan's priority is to resolve its kidnapping issues first. Washington however has ignored Tokyo's demand.
The new U.S. administration is more than likely proceed with its policy to normalize relations with Pyongyang irrespective of Tokyo.
What about Seoul? What could Seoul possibly do when Washington normalizes its relations with Pyongyang? Gradually Seoul may be marginalized in the Pyongyang-Washington normalization process.
While Seoul is still a member of the six-party talks, it would simply follow Washington's lead. This is nothing more than a ``mendicant diplomacy." This is diplomacy that the late Ham Byung-chun regrettably lamented when he served as Korea's ambassador to the U.S.
How then would Pyongyang react if Seoul simply followed Washington?
Seoul expressed its displeasure when the U.S. unilaterally signed the 1953 armistice agreement with Pyongyang. Seoul expressed its anger at the U.S. by releasing unilaterally a large number of POWs.
What kind of leverage does Seoul have today? Or would Seoul simply be a bystander? This could be the most challenging test in the ROK-U.S. relationship.
Seoul is fully capable of exercising its creative diplomacy. Within six months of coming to power, the new Seoul government has already strengthened its relationship with the surrounding four major powers.
Now is a golden opportunity for Seoul to exercise its creative diplomacy. Time is too precious to ponder for long. Without any question, the best approach is directly reaching out and touching Pyongyang.
It may not be too early to prepare for a face-to-face meeting on March 1 next year either at the Gaeseong industrial or the Mt. Geumgang resort in North Korea.
Roy U. T. Kim is professor of political economy at Drexel University, Philadelphia. He is also a distinguished visiting professor at Soongsil University and senior consultant at Global Management Institute in Seoul. He can be reached at kimru@drexel.edu.