State visit to bolster Yoon's domestic standing

By Kim Sang-woo

Russia's invasion of Ukraine and growing U.S.-China strategic rivalry will have a profound effect on the future global system. The world seems to be heading toward a two-bloc system. However, it will not be like the bipolarity that existed during the Cold War, when the great power rivalry extended and affected the whole world. Today much of the Global South is refusing to take sides.

Moreover, the world has entered an era of de-globalization. The transatlantic community has cut economic ties with Russia. The United States and its allies are reducing their economic interdependence with China and seeking to check China's technological progress. Global supply chains are being reconfigured. In the U.S., bipartisan support for trade liberalization has diminished in favor of protectionism and national industrial policy.

On April 5, French President Emmanuel Macron took EU President Ursula von der Leyen with him on his state visit to China. He said that China and Europe must unite themselves to end the war in Ukraine.

To Americans, Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to Moscow last month for a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin was further confirmation that Beijing is on the side of "Putin's war machine" as Von der Leyen has called it.

In Europe, views are divided. There are growing concerns in East Europe about West Europe. Central and Eastern Europe (by and large) want de-risking and eventual decoupling from China. They do not want a Chinese-brokered peace deal for Ukraine.

Nonetheless, China is important to the European Union. In 2021, China surpassed the U.S. as the EU's top trading partner. In 2022, Beijing exported over $560 billion to the EU making it China's largest importer.

One reason why China hasn't followed up on its "no limit partnership" with Russia is the fear of how sanctions might offset its access to the European market.

Obviously, a united Europe needs a comprehensive China strategy for Europe's security in the long term, but for now, the victory of Ukraine is more important. The EU cannot afford to be divided at such a critical period.

Nuclear weapons limit the objectives of the West in the Ukraine war. NATO and the Biden administration want Russia to lose, but not too much. If the Russian army is at risk of complete collapse, or if economic sanctions risks total state failure, Putin could use nuclear weapons to force a reversal of the situation.

For all the rhetoric from Western leaders about how important it is to defeat Russia, Ukraine's sovereignty might not be essential enough to risk a nuclear war.

In Asia, this raises uncomfortable questions: To protect South Korea, will the U.S. be prepared to risk a North Korean nuclear missile striking a U.S. city? Would it risk a war with China to save Taiwan? Since the war in Ukraine, Washington's friends and allies in the region are wondering.

Amid heightened tensions and such uncertainties, relations between South Korea and Japan have been strained over unresolved disputes resulting from Japan's colonial occupation of Korea.

The summit last month ― the first bilateral summit in 12 years ― between South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is a positive sign of urgently needed rapprochement.

At the summit, Seoul and Tokyo also expressed wishes to avoid a Cold War-style confrontation and a full-scale economic war, with the two leaders announcing the creation of a new dialogue on economic security and hopes to restore the trilateral summit dialogue with China.

Previous bilateral agreements, such as the 1965 normalization treaty and claims agreement and the 2015 comfort women agreement were often vague or paid less attention to victims' concerns for the sake of political expediency and national objectives. These agreements allowed the two countries to improve relations just enough to achieve immediate goals. But because they did not resolve fundamental questions about the colonial period, the agreements remain controversial and subject to different interpretations, which increases the risk of a breakdown.

The latest agreement by the two governments may be following the same unfortunate pattern. With both facing serious challenges in recent years ― including Chinese coercion, North Korea's nuclear threat, weak economic growth, inflationary pressure, supply chain resilience, low birth rate, climate change ― there are ample reasons for the two countries to work together.

The recent bilateral agreement, at the governmental level, appears to be working. However, opinion polls also show that about 60 percent of South Koreans oppose it, suggesting that it may not provide the closure that both governments seek.

The U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy is based on working together with allies in the region. Bringing South Korea and Japan closer together has been a priority for the Biden administration. The U.S., behind the scenes, encouraged the leaders to meet and has been credited with helping to bring about the summit.

The Biden administration also issued Yoon an invitation for a state visit after the summit was announced, in an attempt to bolster Yoon's domestic standing. Continued support of this kind will be important as the two countries navigate the complicated issues between them.

What's difficult is that although the U.S. can express support for and perhaps influence efforts regarding the two governments, it cannot affect the views of the South Korean and Japanese people, including South Korean victims, which ultimately need to support their government initiatives for it to succeed.

Therefore, if South Korea, Japan and the U.S. want an enduring resolution to the historical issues that both minimize the periodic eruptions of strained relations and maximizes the optimal bilateral cooperation, then the way forward is to come up with ways to give the victims closure and appropriate compensation, reconcile conflicting views of history as much as possible, and provide proper commemoration and education for future generations.

Kim Sang-woo (swkim54@hotmail.com), a former lawmaker, is chairman of the East Asia Cultural Project. He is also a member of the board of directors at the Kim Dae-jung Peace Foundation.