Experts of international relations often say there can be no diplomacy for small, weak nations. Seen inversely, however, diplomacy, besides basic self-defense capability, can be all there is for lesser powers to survive, and thrive, among bigger neighbors.
This is why leaders of a middle-ranking power, such as Korea, must have a leader with acute diplomatic sense based on historical insight. Few political scientists hesitate to give failing marks to President Lee Myung-bak in this regard.
Most noticeable is his lack of checks and balances, the ABC of diplomacy. Ever since Lee took office four-and-a-half years ago, he has shown a Cold War-era mindset, adhering only to Seoul’s time-honored alliance with Washington and Tokyo, while unnecessarily antagonizing North Korea and estranging China.
At the end of the day, he severed all inter-Korean ties and widened the distance between Seoul and Beijing. And few can deny Lee’s recent visit to Dokdo ― a fully justifiable and even necessary act despite controversy over its short-term strategic wisdom ― has turned one of the most amicable moments between the two historical rivals into one of the worst at one fell swoop.
Lee can cite Korea’s airtight alliance with the United States, but it was earned by Seoul’s almost unilateral economic and other concessions.
All this came from a leader who called for ``pragmatic diplomacy” in theory, but stuck to narrow ideology and rigid principles in practice, a stern reminder of why a leader should fit his actions to his words. And this stresses the need for voters not to repeat their mistakes in selecting a leader by focusing on just the economy and other domestic policies by forgetting they are not their U.S. counterparts who can afford to give little attention to foreign relations.
Yet voters here know disappointingly little about diplomatic platforms of major candidates except probably a common emphasis on resolutely dealing with North Korean security threats on the basis of a strong alliance with the United States.
For instance, Rep. Park Geun-hye, the conservative governing party’s candidate who is closest to the presidency not just now but over the past five years, has shown willingness for inter-Korean thaw as part of her ``ABL (anything-but-Lee)” campaign strategy, but offered little detail in her plans. If the current diplomatic chill with Japan continues or even aggravates, however, many voters will recall she is the daughter of a former officer of the Japanese Imperialist Army, who fought against Korean independence fighters.
Ahn Cheol-soo, a potential third-party candidate who is staging a close game in approval ratings with Park, also has said little about the matter except he is a liberal on the economy but a conservative on matters of national security.
Unlike the Cold War era when Korea could feel secure by belonging to a bloc, there can be few, if any, reliable allies in the ongoing historical war and territorial dispute among the three northeast Asian nations. Japan is completely denying its past wrongs, while China is going all out to revive the Middle Kingdom. It is quite suggestive in this vein that Pyongyang scolded Tokyo’s reaction to President Lee’s Dokdo visit even more harshly than Lee’s political opponents did in Seoul. Blood seems to be thicker than ideology, if not than politics as yet.
Sadly, the choice will likely be a relative one this time, too. But today’s circumstances require voters to discern even the small differences.