By Tong Kim
When Koreans say something is a matter of ``principle," it often means no dialogue, negotiations or compromises. When the North Koreans disagree on an issue, they often invoke the ``principle of sovereignty and independence" as the ground for disagreement. The Seoul government says it has a set of principles on engagement with North Korea, which serve as the justification for saying no to the North.
In South Korean domestic politics, former Grand National Party (GNP) chairperson Park Geun-hye is known to be a confirmed politician of principle. She believes that once a decision is made by the party or the government, the decision must be carried out regardless of change in political reality or public opinion.
On the controversial issue of Sejong City, Park supports the ``original plan" as a matter of principle. The plan was to build an administrative city, to which nine central government agencies would relocate. On the other hand, President Lee Myung-bak has been pushing a ``revised plan" for the city to develop it as a city of economic and educational activities.
All opposition parties disapprove of Lee's new plan. Moreover, the governing GNP is split on this issue between the supporters of the president and the followers of the former GNP chairperson. Last week, Park's faction of the GNP cracked in unity when National Assemblyman Kim Moo-sung, known to be the most senior member of the faction, presented a compromise plan, which would relocate the Supreme Court and some independent government agencies that are not involved in day-to-day business of the administration.
Park immediately rejected Kim's compromise proposal as ``a worthless plan," pronouncing that nobody is a senior person in her faction. Park would not tolerate any dissident from her principled position, and as a result, the influence of her faction may chip away. The GNP is holding today a general meeting of its national legislators to rally behind President Lee's revised plan.
Pundits see the GNP's disharmony as ``a division between present power and future power," as Park is the leading contender for the next presidential election, which people have already started talking about in South Korea. When a politician keeps a fixed position of principle, the person may make a political point, but at the expense of the utility of pragmatism.
The Lee government has recovered from a big political setback during its first year and has produced an impressive report card in coping with the global economic trouble and carrying out a positive role in global diplomacy. Lee has just finished two years of his five-year term. He still has an ambitious agenda to enhance South Korea to become a global power.
Two years in government, Lee seems still fighting with Park Geun-hye, whom he defeated in the 2007 presidential primary. Some blame Park for her stubborn opposition to Lee. Some blame the President for lacking the political leadership to win her support. Whoever is to blame, it appears that the President and his party are spending too much time and energy on Sejong City. Many argue that they should focus on the more urgent issues of creating jobs and stopping the decline of welfare for low-income people.
From the start of his administration, President Lee said he would pursue pragmatic policy. He also said he would maintain a principle in dealing with North Korea. The principle would require the North to reciprocate offers and provision of aid from the South. The North must denuclearize itself before it receives full political and economic benefits from the South and the international community.
In theory and practice, principle and pragmatism often are incompatible. In South Korea's policy, principle says no compromise with the North, while pragmatism says it is possible to compromise that principle. The Seoul government has already suggested that a third inter-Korean summit would be good if it discusses the issues of denuclearization and the South's prisoners of the Korean War. Seoul said it would not take political advantage of the unlikely repatriation of the prisoners, by using them to criticize the failed North Korean system.
North Korea refuses to discuss denuclearization with the South insisting that the issue should be dealt directly with the United States, as a matter of principle. North Koreans invoked the principle of sovereignty when it walked away from the six-party talks after the U.N. condemned the North's sovereign right of launching a ``satellite rocket" last April.
Pyongyang demands the discussion of a peace treaty and the lifting or easing of the U.N. 1874 sanctions, as a principled condition for its return to the six-party talks. However, the pragmatic side of their policy pursues a possible compromise of their principle. While delaying the resumption of the multilateral talks and working on expanding and refining their nuclear arsenals, they are continuing to show interest in talking to the United States.
The Seoul government's principle allows no cooperation with Pyongyang, unless the North gives up its policy of ``shunning the South while talking to the United States." By the principle of its political system, North Korea would not accept or follow the South Korean model of democracy and market economy. Nevertheless, the North badly wants to solicit economic assistance from the South, while struggling to revive its economy.
Both Seoul and Pyongyang may not want to forget that diplomacy is a discipline of negotiating the best state interest, while principle is a matter of justification that supports a moral or national soul. Absence of principle does not necessarily mean immorality. In international politics, amoral pragmatism can yield more benefits for the country that practices it.
If politics is an art of making choices and compromises, both factions of the GNP should realize that the issue of Sejong City should not be a zero-sum game. Park Geun-hye may gain popular support from sticking to her uncompromising principle, but at the same time, she may lose the support of traditional GNP conservatives because of her obstinate opposition to the incumbent president.
It could be fatal to a politician, if she or he is labeled as a person without principles. But in real politics, pragmatism pays off more often than principle. It is not easy to have it both ways. An artful balance would be ideal but it is sometimes impossible to strike one. What's your take?
Tong Kim is a research professor with the Ilmin Institute of International Relations at Korea University and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). He can be reached at tong.kim8@yahoo.com.