ed Obama's Asian tour

Substance comes ahead of appearance in diplomacy, too

Korea and Japan are engaged in a diplomatic battle over a scheduled visit to East Asia by U.S. President Barack Obama. Tokyo hopes Obama will make a three-day state visit to Japan as part of a three-nation tour, which will also take him to the Philippines and Malaysia. Seoul wants the U.S. leader to also stop here in order to strike a “diplomatic balance.”

Diplomacy is often called the art of itinerary, and more so if the schedule involves the commander-in-chief of the world’s strongest nation. Yet what makes Obama’s trip to East Asia in April unusually important is its timing, considering the ongoing chilly relationship between two of America’s allies in this region.

Petty as the diplomatic war-of-nerves over Obama’s tour appears, it has become somewhat inevitable for Seoul because of the regressive Japanese government. Japan reportedly hopes that Obama’s visit will fill the gap in bilateral relations, created by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to the Yasukuni Shrine last year, and reaffirm their strong alliance.

Korean diplomats say, with reason, that if the U.S. president strikes Seoul off his schedule, it would not only send the wrong signal to North Korea but also further embolden the Japanese leader, who has aroused tension and vigilance among Asian neighbors with his provocations concerning historical facts.

We know that Obama’s upcoming tour, originally scheduled for last October and involving only three nations, has been delayed because of the U.S. government shutdown crisis. Now that the situation in this part of the world has since changed considerably, Washington is advised to add Korea when it fixes Obama’s itinerary later this month. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry could wrap it up during his visit to Seoul over this weekend.

That said, the government needs to make careful diplomatic calculations ― the gains and losses ― concerning the presumed visit here by Obama. If the visit happens, Seoul will have prevented the U.S. leader from visiting only Japan and giving the impression that Washington is tacitly behind Tokyo in its diplomatic friction with Korea. We doubt, however, that there are many other possible diplomatic outcomes other than a self-satisfying sense of disallowing Japan to push for a unilateral diplomatic process.

For that relatively insubstantial result, the nation may have to pay considerable diplomatic costs in bilateral negotiations in security and trade areas, including the pending issue of improving the agreement to increase Korea’s self-regulatory functions in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

To sum up, Seoul may need to try hard to realize Obama’s visit, but not so hard as to see its diplomatic costs exceed realistic benefits.

Also, what’s more important than bringing the U.S. leader to this country is what message Seoul can give to Washington, concerning the increasingly emotional diplomatic squabbles with Tokyo. Korean diplomats in this regard should be able to offer a regional vision, which can unite, not divide, allies and partners, and be based on the modern values of democracy and human rights instead of historical regression and self-justification.

There will be sufficient occasions for President Park Geun-hye to meet President Obama. What matters more is not how often they meet, but how she wins the heart and mind of her U.S. counterpart.