Anarchy, Month 3: Just keep the course, captain

Eugene Lee

In international relations, knowing history is not just an intellectual exercise, it is a prerequisite for a national survival. Drawing parallels with the past where Korea was a century ago would be wrong, as the country today isn’t what it used to be, plus it is Korea we need to think of.

Getting my share of news every morning for the past month got me thinking and a flurry of questions now swarming in my head. Are we witnessing the U.S. falling into a spiral of “endless wars to end wars”? With the U.S. economy being battered by gas and oil prices, what does it all mean for the global market, and particularly for South Korea? What will the U.S. do with North Korea?

Of course, President Donald Trump, with what has already been achieved in Iran, could always call it a victory and walk away. That would be the most rational decision, but the likelihood of it happening is zero and it is just my wishful thinking. Yet, envisioning possibilities is necessary, because our resources are limited and external pressure is rising.

As uncertainty grows around the U.S. global commitments, South Korea must prepare for a future of reduced American guarantees. The first possibility is the fallout of the prolonged conflict in the Middle East that eventually leads to political fatigue. As voters and political circles are increasingly uncomfortable with Trump’s moves, he would eventually decide to pull all troops back into the U.S. from all places around the world, including South Korea.

Another possibility would be very similar to the U.K.’s security “offshoring” of 1968 in the Arabian Peninsula that left tribes to quickly “plug holes” in their own security, and eventually ended in the creation of a federation, today known as the United Arab Emirates, and several independent states that decided not to join.

Of course, the United States today is not Britain of 1968. But, if things continue to evolve as they are now, I see the U.S. withdrawing its troops from the peninsula in three to four years’ time and what ensues will be left to us to deal with. I truly hope I am wrong in my judgment.

Unthinkable yesterday, seemingly low today, but totally possible in the near future, the withdrawal of U.S. troops from East Asia would be one of those cataclysmic events comparable to the demise of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, that will reshape the regional security environment and potentially bring a level of volatility comparable to the 1950s.

A peace treaty with North Korea will change the security table completely. First of all, to a large extent it will gradually ease military burden on the budgets of several countries, including North and South Korea.

Some say that this move is likely to destabilize the situation, citing rigidity of existing security structures, but I would argue the opposite. Look around the world and you will see that these structures are being broken. Losing all hope for the U.S. role in NATO, the European states are staying away from the Middle East. Even China is “sitting on the fence” without knowing whether a Trump-Xi meeting will ever actually take place.

Speaking of the North, whenever the two Koreas meet, the stance is first “let’s do it as equals,” or given the South’s economic prevalence over the North, “do as we suggest,” and Seoul tends to lecture Pyongyang on what and how to do. Some voices suggest that we should take a more nimble and cultured approach and talk “like brothers.” And they suggest for the South to behave as “the older brother.” I suggest the opposite: a "younger brother" strategy. It means taking on an even humbler approach by calling the South “the younger brother” and the North “the older” one, all to disarm the North's defensiveness. Just imagine the response when the Confucian culture kicks in between the leaders!

Ultimately, we must prepare for a reduced U.S. security role by developing strategic autonomy, including energy security and broader diplomatic flexibility. South Korea already knows what to do and already does it. We just need to double our efforts. Energy sovereignty is one of them, meaning reducing oil reliance via renewables, efficiency and nuclear. Diversification of resource sources, supply chains and markets has always been one of the proven means of survival for smaller states. Examples abound. Now, the UK requires solar panels on all newly built housing. Europeans are revising their energy project timelines overall and bringing deadlines closer to now. Some countries are renegotiating and speeding up their free trade agreement schedules across the board. We must do it all, too.

South Korea also needs to be more vocal in supporting the international system, even if the system is being undermined by larger states. We have to carefully calculate and negotiate with all parties involved on what we can and cannot do. The interpretation of any participation in the Strait of Hormuz should not be merely “doing the U.S.’ request” but rather to promote peace and stability in the region along with other members of the international community. We already have some know-how as we did in the Gulf of Aden in East Africa. But, of course, pirates and terrorists or guerrilla fighters are two completely different opponents. We must do so with a new understanding — we are not there to blindly follow orders from those who are retreating, but we are there because we have learned to navigate the storm on our own.

Eugene Lee (mreulee@gmail.com) is a lecturing professor at the Graduate School of Governance at Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul. Specializing in international relations and governance, his research and teaching focus is on national and regional security, international development, government policies and Northeast and Central Asia. The views expressed in this article are his own.