What is N. Korea for us?

By Choi Sung-jin

The presidential TV debate on Sunday, like the two previous ones, was a huge letdown.

There was nothing wrong with the five candidates focusing on national security issues, given the debate subject of politics that day and the touch-and-go military situation gripping this divided peninsula.

Voters, however, could find little discussions of substance let alone some meaningful conclusions. It was little better than a grade schoolers’ class meeting. Two conservative candidates spent most of their time pressuring the left-of –center leader of election polls to say what he thinks of North Korea.

Yoo Seong-min of the right-wing Bareun Party mainly tried to stick Moon Jae-in of liberal Democratic Party with just the one question: Is North Korea the “main enemy” of South Korea? Moon refused to offer an unequivocal “yes” as the answer. Yoo then reminded Moon of the government’s white paper on national defense, saying it defines North Korea as the South’s “principal adversary.”

“How would you fulfill your duty as commander-in-chief while denying what the government’s policy book says?” Yoo asked. The former chief of staff for the ousted President Park Geun-hye should have checked his facts better than that. The defense white paper accurately says “the North Korean regime and its military are South Korea’s enemy.” Consciously or not, Yoo made entire North Korea the enemy, and not a just simple enemy but the South’s principal adversary.

Yes, North Korea is South Korea’s enemy ― militarily. At the same time, however, the North can ― and should ― become the South’s counterpart in various dialogues and negotiations. For the South’s defense minister and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the reply to Yoo’s question should be “yes.” For South Korea’s president, the answer can’t help becoming more subtle because he or she should take all other factors, including diplomacy and eventual reunification, into account. Yoo was wrong, and Moon was right.

The Constitution also stipulates North Korea as part of the Republic of Korea, and North Koreans as “our people.” Only, North Korea, or more correctly the North’s regime or establishment, is an anti-state group that infringes on ROK’s territorial supremacy. Contradictory as it may sound, North Korea is both the enemy of South Korea and a partner for exchange and cooperation. So Yoo’s obsession with painting the entire North as the “main” adversary is even unconstitutional. And it is beyond dispute who will throw the nation into greater danger ― between a flexible and thoughtful leader and a reckless hardliner.

It is a mystery of Korean politics why smart people from various walks of life turn into fools once their feet are wet in politics. Yoo seems to be no exception. After getting a Ph. D. in economics at Wisconsin University, Yoo had been a reasonable scholar and one of the “reform-minded conservatives” ― until he set a a goal too high for his caliber and posed himself as the “icon” of ideological squares and inter-Korean confrontationists. Otherwise, he couldn’t have asked such a one-dimensional, black-or-white question, which was like asking a kindergartner, “Who do you like better, mom or dad?” Even a kid of median IQ would say “both” ― or just smile.

Another conservative candidate, Hong Joon-pyo of the Liberty Party Korea, the erstwhile Saenuri Party of former President Park, was little better. Hong attempted tenaciously to picture Moon as a “follower of North Korea.” The former prosecutor tried to drive Moon ― former chief-of-staff for the late liberal President Roh Moo-hyun ― to the wall questioning whether the Roh administration abstained from the 2007 U.N. resolution condemning North Korea’s human rights abuses “after inquiring about Pyongyang’s intention.”

Moon was wrong to prevaricate this time around, not to be seen as sympathetic to the North. Sim Sang-jung of the leftist Justice Party couldn’t be more right when she rebuked Moon, asking, “Why can’t you be more open and aboveboard, saying it was inevitable to further cooperation and reconciliation with the North at the time?”

National security is always an important election issue, and especially so now when the saber-rattling by North Korea and the United States is driving military tension to the highest level since the Korean War (1950-53). The focus of the debate, however, should not be on how pro- or anti-North Korean the candidates are or what they did in the past but on how they will prevent another horrible war and lead the nation to peaceful unification by mixing strong-arm tactics with deft diplomacy.

The five candidates can be divided into three groups concerning the handling of the current national security crisis. There are two liberals pushing for negotiated settlement, two conservatives calling for increasing pressure until the North gives up or hits back at its (and the entire peninsula’s) own peril and one centrist fence-sitter, Ahn Cheol-soo. Ahn is a doctor-turned-computer virus developer-turned-politician representing the middle-of-the-road People’s Party, whose inter-Korean policy stance has flip-flopped “as the situation changes,” as Ahn put it himself.

The next president should not just follow the situations – created by other countries’ schemes – but try to change them to our best interests and at our initiative. Cynics might jeer how a small country can move far larger nations. It should be all too apparent, however, a small nation’s safety and survival should go ahead of the large global powers’ strategic interests.

The next leader must at least be tenacious and determined enough not to let the situations get out of control regardless of Koreans’ intention or allow others to decide this country’s fate behind its back mobilizing all means available ― military readiness, diplomatic swiftness as well as moral and humanitarian appeals.

And this must remain unchanged even if the North commits another military provocation to celebrate the birthday of its army as early as Tuesday when this page went to press.

Choi Sung-jin is a contributing op-ed writer for The Korea Times. Contract him at choisj1955@naver.com.