Seoul faces strategic dilemma between US, China

The following is the 13th and last in a series of articles examining Seoul-Beijing ties in the wake of the tumultuous relationship between the two countries last year, sparked by the Cheonan incident. ― ED.

By Sunny Lee

BEIJING ― The tension between Beijing and Washington in the wake of the Cheonan incident, and the difficulty Seoul had in bringing the former on to its side to condemn Pyongyang, all occurred amid a seismic shift in the bigger geopolitical landscape in East Asia — “China’s rise.” And this is increasingly likely to pose a strategic dilemma for South Korea, squeezed between the two superpowers, observed Shin Gi-wook.

“I think South Korea is already stuck in this strategic dilemma,” Shin, director of The Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University, told The Korea Times.

“The challenges Seoul faces in the coming years will be how to balance its military alliance with the United States and its economic partnership with China,” he noted, adding that the Cheonan incident was a “trigger point.”

Even a solution to the North Korean problem, according to Shin, “is squeezed” in Seoul’s diplomatic balancing act with both Washington and Beijing.

South Korea is not the only nation, which has been jolted by “the rise of China,” which poses both opportunities and challenges. The idea was accentuated, if not complicated, by another idea: “the decline of U.S. power.” The two concepts are still heatedly debated among international audience, including scholars, security experts and politicians.

Against this backdrop, analysts view South Korea as being still on a learning curve in its search for a new balancing point. “During the previous Roh Moo-hyun administration, Seoul’s strategic thinkers promoted the idea of the 'East Asian Era' and leaned closer to China, compromising Seoul’s ties with Washington. On the contrary, when Lee Myung-bak was sworn in, he took a pro-American policy, dramatically improving Seoul’s relationship with Washington, but it depreciated its diplomatic currency with China,”said Shin.

“So, these days, I am researching an alternative, which I tentatively call, ‘a third way’ that South Korea can explore,” after these two diplomatic experiments.

Looking back on the Cheonan incident, Shin, like some other scholars, said that Seoul could have done a better job, from the early stages, of keeping close cooperation with China, and also with Russia, two U.N. Security Council member countries with a Cold War affinity for North Korea. Both countries, in one way or another, snorted at Seoul’s effort to mete out punitive measures against the North.

Seoul’s lesson from the Cheonan incident, in bluntly simplistic terms, is how to be good friends with both Washington and Beijing, without making one of them feel jilted, while the South itself also has to upgrade its national power and attractiveness so that it could have its say registered by both of the big powers.

That may be easier said than done. But Shin thinks Seoul should try. “Seoul can host ‘1.5 track’ meetings among South Korea, China and the U.S. participants. Perhaps universities are in a more convenient position to host such meetings,” said Shin. The “1.5 track” means meetings that include both government officials and scholars.

Some argue that the Lee Myung-bak administration’s “pro-America” posture is hard to change as most of his advisors are Ph.D. holders from the United States, who value the alliance more than anything else.

They say it is also a time when Lee’s term is waning, meaning it is increasingly difficult for him to shift from his current policy platform.

“Well, whether you like it or not, things are changing toward multilateralism. Diplomacy is also heading toward pluralism too. The South Korea-U.S. alliance is important, but that is not the whole picture,” said Shin.

Exploring a “third way” also becomes important in healing South Korea’s split political philosophy of how to approach North Korea, said Shin, moving beyond the Cheonan and Yeonpyeong incidents. A major divide exists within South Korea, between those who support engagement with Pyongyang and those who oppose it. Koreans call it the “South-South Conflict.” Observers say there is no easy solution. “I think in both diplomacy and domestic politics in South Korea over North Korea, it’s time to explore a third way,” said Shin, hinting that he wants to brainstorm the specifics during his coming research trips to East Asia.