Same problems, shifting views
By Tong Kim
Into the second half of his presidency, Lee Myung-bak is still struggling with very much the same agenda that he had undertaken upon inauguration. His agenda included among others an advanced economy, a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, a government compassionate to the working and low-income classes, and a reformed education system that would free children from the heavy burden of coercive preparations for going to college.
He set out as a pragmatic growth president who would raise South Korea to the next level of advancement ― or he would at least lay the foundation for Korea to become the seventh largest economy in the world. Now MB tries to find a balance between growth and polarization.
It is true that his first year was tainted by the unfortunate ``beef candlelight vigils” that almost paralyzed the functioning of the government. Some blame the unprecedented global financial trouble for the frustration of MB’s vision. Yet, he is given credit for a fast recovery from the worldwide financial crisis. The fact that South Korea will host the G20 conference in November is seen as an international recognition of South Korea’s adept ``exit strategy” that worked well.
An export-dependent economy, Korea expects around a 5 percent growth this year, then about 4 percent next year. South Korea’s economic standing has fallen to 15th in the world, and the per capita income is still below $20,000, meaning no increase since the government of Roh Moo-hyun. One of the problems MB inherited from his predecessor was that of polarization _ economic, social, educational, and occupational. There is no easy solution to this classic problem in the sense that an increasing welfare divide is an inevitable byproduct of a successful practice of neo-liberalism.
The Lee government is still tackling this issue to assuage the discontent of the disadvantaged, but without making any significant headway. It should be seen in this context that MB pronounced ``a fair society” as a philosophical tenet of his domestic policy for the second term of his office. From common sense, the catchphrase of ``a fair society” sounded good, but MB’s discourse of ``a fair society” during his August 15 speech was rather confusing, like gobbledygook. He tried to define it as an equal opportunity for everyone that requires each individual’s responsibility.
MB argued the ethical infrastructure of a fair society, in which no one winner takes all, and none would be left behind, would constitute a new paradigm for Korea’s next advancement. In a fair society, he said, ``If one falls, he will get up again, and no one stays behind or ahead forever.” There would be fair relations between big and small businesses, and between labor and management,
With a fair society platform, the government would keep carrying out regulatory reforms in the areas of markets, education, banking and housing so that the less privileged are provided with fair access to the benefits of growth based on an ethical standard. But, any set of ethical standards could only be dictated in a theocracy. Human experience shows that ``a fair society” has never existed under any system of governance.
What MB says he wants to achieve by a ``fair society” is not new. It is a statement of his realization of the difficulty to integrate and unite the nation, without which Korea would not be able to advance further. MB has used several other signature phrases including ``principled pragmatism,” ``rule of law,” ``pragmatic centrism,” ``a government friendly to the underprivileged” and ``a government in communication with the people.” ``A fair society” is the latest label for the government’s direction, and it may be a synthesis of all the previous terms. But, it should be no surprise if there comes another rhetorical term, well-meaning but nebulous.
In a fair assessment of President Lee’s performance for the first half of his term, he fared pretty well in trade and diplomacy. True to his campaign pledge, he has strengthened Korea’s alliance with the United States. On the North Korean front, he has had a severe setback. However, the past few weeks have showed things starting to move for the better.
It is yet too early to tell whether MB’s ``principled” hard line policy will pay off at the end. It depends on what happens to the North or what it will do. That is not clearly knowable beyond speculation.
What is clear is that since the Cheonan incident, North Korea has restarted, at least tactically, to show its willingness to soften its hostility toward the South ― releasing a South Korean fishing boat, proposing reunions of separated families, and calling for a military-to-military meeting. In the meantime, the South started sending humanitarian aid. The unification ministry decided to provide 5,000 tons of rice and other goods as emergency aid to the flood victims of North Korea. However, the government is not ready to provide a larger amount of aid until the North accepts its responsibility for the Cheonan.
South Korea is overstocked with rice and the opposition Democratic Party insists that the government should send 500,000 tons to the North. The progressive opposition finds it repugnant to use the surplus rice for live stock feed or to pay enormous storage expenses, while the South Korean rice farmers are suffering from an excessive supply and while people are starving in the North. This problem is only one aspect of the complex nature of the North Korean problem.
In a positive move, Seoul has delinked the Cheonan issue from the discussion of reviving the six-party talks. Simply put, Seoul would continue to demand North Korea’s responsibility and apology but through inter-Korean channels rather than through multilateral talks. Washington too has started looking into the shifting conditions for resuming denuclearization talks but still sticking to its basic stance that the North would have to show some concrete evidence of its seriousness toward denuclearization. Yet, Washington must be feeling uneasy that it has ``zero” contact with Pyongyang.
Dialogue is better than no dialogue. What’s your take?
Tong Kim is a research professor with the Ilmin Institute of International Relations at Korea University and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). He can be reached at tong.kim8@yahoo.com.