The first summit between Presidents Park Geun-hye and Barack Obama on Tuesday drew particular attention not least because of its timing: South Korea and the United States celebrate the 60th anniversary of their alliance this year.
In that regard, the two leaders’ meeting was successful, reaffirming the evolution of bilateral relationship from security cooperation to global comprehensive partnership. Equally meaningful was the U.S. recognition of and support for Korea as the “lynchpin” of Northeast Asia’s peace and stability when Seoul has to compete not only with Pyongyang but with Tokyo and Beijing for regional diplomatic initiatives.
Though widely expected, it was also significant that Park and Obama showed a tightly united front against North Korean provocation while keeping the door open for the North’s return to the dialogue table.
As far as the bilateral alliance is concerned, the summit was a resounding success. But many Koreans, especially those who anticipated some changes and progress in real issues, including the escalating confrontation between the two Koreas, must have felt the talks left much to be desired. To be brutally frank, one can hardly find the difference, rhetoric aside, between the latest summit from the one Obama held with his former South Korean counterpart, Lee Myung-bak one a half years ago.
This is regretful indeed, as the political and military tension on the Korean Peninsula has sharply exacerbated over the period.
And Park is far more to blame for the deadlock than his U.S. counterpart, who is neither willing nor able to tackle the North Korean nuclear crisis in part because he has other, more urgent foreign relations issues. Even if he has the will to push hard for a breakthrough in the Korean issues, Obama cannot go far because of opposition from domestic hawks.
Of course, President Park reiterated her “trustpolitik,” a two-track approach of pressurizing and inducing dialogue, but we see no difference from her predecessor’s “principle-centered” hard-line policy, which calls for a change in North Korea’s attitude as a precondition. It’s little wonder that President Obama, who all but outsourced his North Korea policy to Seoul in his first term under the noncommittal phrase of “strategic patience,” is throwing his wholehearted support to it once again. Different title, same content, the U.S. leader might have thought.
President Park also said she would tell North Korea’s Kim Jong-un to first change if she happened to meet him. Then what? Was she expecting Kim would say “Yes, madam”? It is easy to trust someone if the latter behaves in a trustworthy way. If trust-building is a mutual process and if it would avoid ending up a misnomer, however, one should begin by giving the benefit of doubt. And only the stronger of the two parties can make such a tolerant, courageous gesture.
The 60 years of Korea-U.S. alliance also means six decades of military limbo on this peninsula _ neither war nor peace. The South Korean leader has just wasted a good opportunity to begin to break the impasse.
A summit meeting is often described as a beginning, not an end, to diplomacy. Yet that cannot completely erase the bitter taste left by President Park’s passivity.