Obama: style and substance

By Tong Kim

President Barrack Obama’s visit to South Korea should not have been an easy, comfortable one as its timing coincided with a time of sorrow following the tragedy of the Sewol ferry that sank off the southwestern coast. Yet, Obama pulled off a very successful visit, touching many hearts in Korea, not by his policies but by his good-natured compassion.

In presidential diplomacy, well-choreographed gestures, protocol, itinerary, rhetoric and symbolism all have a role to play. These tools can help build a good image for a president and even popular support at home and abroad. But, none of these tools would work if they were perceived as only existing for show.

The key element to this equation is the actor’s genuineness. President Obama appeared genuine when he, as a father of two daughters of similar ages to the Sewol victims, sympathized with the grieving parents. He brought an American flag that flew over the White House on the day of the ferry accident and a magnolia tree from the White House lawn in memory of the victims.

Before, he began his talks with President Park Geun-hye at the Blue House, all in the room, at his suggestion, had a moment of quiet for the students and their loved ones. He requested a quiet and simple schedule fitting to the mourning mood of the Korean people. He avoided music during the working dinner and a cultural entertainment program afterward.

There was more to the symbolism. The American President brought back with him nine items of Korea’s historic treasures, including the royal seal of the Yi dynasty, which were taken out of the country by American soldiers during the Korean War. Even before his latest visit to Seoul, Obama was well known as a good friend of Koreans.

On the Japanese problem of not facing the truth of the past, President Obama made a very strong statement that again touched Koreans:

“I think that any of us who look back on the history of what happened to the comfort women here in South Korea, for example, have to recognize that this was a terrible, egregious violation of human rights. Those women were violated in ways that, even in the midst of war, was shocking. And they deserve to be heard; they deserve to be respected; and there should be an accurate and clear account of what happened.”

A masterful speaker, capable of managing complex issues in a clear and comprehensive summary, Obama did not forget to emphasize the need for Korea and Japan to look to the future: “…we can honestly resolve some of these past tensions, but also keep our eye to the future and possibilities of peace and prosperity for all people.”

Obama’s visit also coincided with a heightened North Korean threat to conduct a fourth nuclear test. There is utility to repeat U.S. commitment to South Korea’s defense for as long as the North Korean threats of nuclear missile programs continue.

However, President Obama offered no new approach to a negotiated resolution. What efficacy his warning to the North might have to prevent them from going through a “new form of nuclear test” remains to be seen. The warning included “greater isolation,” “further sanctions with more bites,” and a unified pressure of the U.S., South Korea, Japan and like-minded countries of the region.

Obama was right when he said his policy of the past five years has been consistent and steady. The problem is this policy has not worked. He reiterated a litany of the same old propositions: no acceptance of a nuclear North Korea, no reward for bad behavior, and no cycle of provocation-dialogue-leading-nowhere concessions.

His conditions to talks still call for North Korea to cooperate. It is interesting to hear President Obama say, “Denuclearization has to be on the table,” because he like many others may think that the North Koreans are not interested in denuclearization, even if they come to the table. Pressure on the North to change its approach has failed so far.

The joint fact sheet released after the summit avows that the two allies are still committed to seeking “the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of North Korea in a peaceful manner.” Obama said there is no “magic bullet” to resolve the North Korean issue, but there should be a better way of moving forward.

In the meantime the U.S. and South Korea would present “a strong, forceful alliance to prepare for any eventuality” if North Korea make more nuclear or ballistic missile provocations. In this regard, Obama and Park agreed to consider deferring the conditions-based transition of operational control to the ROK possible beyond the current schedule for the end of 2015.

Seoul has decided to build an independent missile system interoperable with the U.S. system, a sensitive issue due to China’s tendency to think the strengthening of U.S. alliances or rebalancing of military power in Asia aims at containing China for further rise.

At the press conference, Obama reconfirmed that the U.S. is “not interested in containing China; we’re interested in China’s peaceful rise and it being a responsible and powerful proponent of the rule of law and an international system. In that role, it has to abide by certain norms.”

Both Obama and Park recognize the kind of influence that China can exercise on North Korean behavior. Although China recently showed more interest in, and even carried out some sanctions for the denuclearization of North Korea, there are still limits to what China is willing to or can do to reign in the recalcitrant North Koreans. What’s your take?

The author is a visiting scholar at the Ilmin Institute of International Relations at Korea University, a visiting professor at the University of North Korean Studies and an ICAS fellow in the United States.