Diplomatic niceties aside, Seoul may be one of the governments feeling rather embarrassed or uncomfortable with the U.S. election results.
That Cheong Wa Dae has been emphasizing the ``sameness'' or ``no big changes'' in the relationship with the U.S. after Barack Obama's victory became clear paradoxically reflects its concerns about how to deal with upcoming administrative change in America.
President Lee Myung-bak said Wednesday the administrative visions of his and Obama's are similar in that they both seek to reform their own countries. That is exactly where their similarity ends, however, for the two leaders are poles apart in their ideology and philosophy in attaining the same goal.
Take just the two most important policy areas, security and the economy. President Lee is refusing to make major deals with North Korea until Pyongyang's complete denuclearization and is reportedly dissatisfied with the North's removal from the U.S. state sponsors of terrorism list by President George W. Bush. President-elect Obama has expressed a willingness to meet with Kim Jong-il.
With regards to the economy, Seoul is going all out to make the bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) an irreversible fact, while the newly emerging U.S. Democrats at the White House and Congress have made it clear their intentions to revisit the deal, which Obama once described as ``badly flawed.'' By all appearances, Sen. John McCain ― the hawk of hawks on North Korea as well as a rubberstamp for the FTA ― should have won the presidential poll for the current Korean government.
As to ways to overcome the ongoing economic turmoil, no two leaders could be more different: Lee is sticking to outmoded neo-liberalism stressing businesses, markets, growth and free trade, while Obama is seeking a neo-Keynesian policy putting priority on workers, regulation, distribution and fair trade. Cheong Wa Dae officials say Korea has yet to liberalize its economy further to catch up with even the present state of the U.S., but they don't seem to know Korea can't be America in national power or on economic scale.
Most disappointing is Seoul's approach to narrow the difference ― by developing human connections and personal ties. It is a sad reminder of the Park Chung-hee days, when Korea disgraced itself by trying to bribe U.S. politicians through illegal lobbying to overcome policy differences. Some reports are carrying tables comparing Lee and Obama and charts of possible human connection.
Even blood allies sometimes need to recognize their difference in matters of national interest, particularly when their governments have contrasting ideologies and administrative philosophies. For example, Lee should be able to correct Obama's misconception about non-existent trade barriers here against U.S. cars, which are even struggling in their own country. Likewise, Seoul must question why it should maintain its troops in Iraq Afghanistan and increase its defense burdens for U.S. troops based here but who can be sent elsewhere whenever necessary.
This is not to say the conservative Korean government should oppose most policies of the liberal U.S. administration. Whatever the case, Seoul should avoid a situation of being left with a bill for a party it never attended, willingly or not.
Liberal or conservative, what matters are actual benefits to their people. Seoul should be in a position where it is likely to disagree with Washington in matters of national interest but compromise on ideologies. We are afraid the opposite may prove to be true.