Independent and balanced
By Choi Sung-jin
.jpg?w=728)
Korea is facing a diplomatic perfect storm ― as this country surrounded by far larger neighborst has found itself many times over the past hundreds of years.
China’s economic pressure against Seoul’s decision to deploy a U.S. missile defense system here has already cost several billions of dollars in lost export and tourism revenue.
Japan has suspended negotiations for a bilateral currency swap accord, accusing Seoul of reneging on the 2015 agreement between the two countries and allowing a civic group to put up another statue that symbolizes the “comfort women,” in front of the Japanese consulate in Busan.
The two global powers are making economic retaliations against Korea to win a political tug-of-war. Beijing is violating one of its pronounced diplomatic principles of not interfering in other countries’ internal affairs. Even after the comfort women accord, not a few Japanese officials have denied their government’s legal responsibility or the coercive nature in the recruitment of wartime sex slaves.
All this notwithstanding, Seoul cannot refute Beijing and Tokyo head-on in part because of its weak national power and because of the bungled diplomacy by the Park Geun-hye administration. Had the Park government regarded the U.S. missile shield, called the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, indispensable for national security, it should have done its best to persuade ― or plead with ― China and Russia into understanding such a need.
Instead, Seoul had stuck to a “three-no” stance ― no requests, no discussions and no decisions ― until it abruptly turned toward its deployment, and did not even notify Beijing of the decision nor Moscow afterwards. In Korea-Japan relations, too, Park had bet all on seeking the “genuine solution” of the comfort women problem, instead of separating it from other economic and political cooperation between the two countries. Koreans still have no idea why Park settled for the half-baked compromise, except there was pressure from the U.S.
Currently, the nine presidential contenders here are split over the handling of the two biggest diplomatic issues, exactly by ideological lines. Three would-be presidents from the conservative camp call for keeping the two agreements, however flawed they may be, as they are international promises and breaking them would erode foreigners’ trust in this country. Six presidential wannabes from the liberal camp say the nation should withdraw these accords or leave it to the next administration to renegotiate them. I, along with many other peace-loving Koreans, support the latter group.
Yes winning international trust is important but not more so than vital national interests, including the life and death of millions of Koreans, south and north. As is well known, both the THAAD decision and comfort woman agreement have resulted from the U.S. intention to keep China in check through cementing a trilateral alliance of Washington, Tokyo and Seoul. As far as the North Korean nuclear crisis is concerned, however, the doves are Chinese and Russians, calling for a negotiated solution while the hawks are Americans ― especially the recently triumphant Republicans ― who don’t seem to rule out the possibility of preemptive strikes.
Both the North’s Kim Jong-un, who boasts he can complete a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile before long, and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees for the state and defense portfolios seemingly ready for surgical strikes, may be bluffing. But history shows massive wars could break out by a slight misjudgment or other minor mistakes. We must not let it happen again on this peninsula, which underwent one of the most tragic proxy wars of Cold War ideologies losing three million lives less than 65 years ago. Nobody knows where the unpredictable Trump administration will go in its North Korea policy but a military card that has even the slightest possibility of turning this peninsula into nuclear ruins can never be an option.
The United States has been, and will be, Korea’s most important partner in national security. Like in business, however, it may not be safe or wise to always put all the eggs in one basket in the security area, too. THAAD has yet to prove its efficacy but Washington has made it, almost one-sidedly, a touchstone of Korea’s unswerving allegiance to its biggest ally. Still, Seoul will have limitations to oppose its deployment to protect American troops stationed here, at Washington’s own cost. If that leads to Beijing’s near severing of its economic ties with Seoul, however, the Korean government should be able to ask the U.S. to dissolve Chinese and Russian unease.
The next South Korean president should be a leader who will do his utmost, mobilizing what narrow diplomatic leverage he can muster, to change the decades-long atmosphere of confrontation and military muscle-flexing into one of peace and co-prosperity in this part of the world. True, raw power is justice in international politics but even small countries should be given opportunities to seek its own security and prosperity through more self-reliant and balanced diplomatic policies. Many foreign, even local, gurus will laugh this away as a naïve wishful thinking or daydream.
However, as millions of people who gather in Gwanghwamun Square every Saturday braving piercing cold testify, the next president should be able to turn South Koreans’ aspirations for a fairer, freer and more peaceful country into a “citizens’ revolution for peace.” The new leader must do all he can to reconnect the severed relationship between the Koreas and, based on improved inter-Korean ties, attempt to resume the denuclearization talks, starting with the freeze of the North’s atomic weapons program at the current state.
Koreans will know then who their true friends are ― at least for now ― by the latter’s willingness to facilitate this process.
Choi Sung-jin is a contributing writer to The Korea Times and an adjunct professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. Contract him at choisj1955@naver.com.