Limits of unambiguous foreign policy approach

This is the sixth in a "Letters to President Yoon" series The Korea Times has organized to convey policy recommendations in open letters from politicians, scholars and experts to President Yoon Suk-yeol following his May 10 inauguration. ― ED.

By Sandip Kumar Mishra

Dear Mr. President,

First, I would like to congratulate you on your inauguration as the President of the Republic of Korea. The world is eagerly looking at the unfolding of your new avatar as a political leader of the country.

In the foreign policy domain, your moves are going to be closely watched as you have indicated through your various statements that your foreign policy would be quite a departure from that of the previous administration.

You have clearly charted out your priorities as being the U.S., Japan, China and North Korea in your approach toward the region. You appear to be very clear about your friends as well as foes in the region and beyond.

It appears that the existing dilemmas of South Korean foreign policy, such as choosing between the U.S. and China, engagement or contest with Japan, and a soft or hard approach toward North Korea are not applicable to you.

Even on the issue of South Korea having an Indo-Pacific strategy and possible entry into the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), your choices appear to be clear. On multiple occasions you have said that South Korea would cooperate with the U.S.' Indo-Pacific strategy, and in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on April 25, you said you would "positively review" joining the Quad, if invited.

Earlier you have said that you would like the U.S. to reinstall tactical nuclear weapons and deploy more Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries in South Korea. In the great power rivalry between the U.S. and China, it appears that you have decided openly to take sides.

Your career as a prosecutor might have trained you to have an unambiguous approach, which is considered to be appropriate in that profession. However, may I draw your attention to the fact that international politics is a different ball game.

Most of the time, looking at it in a black and white frame does not serve national interests, as international politics is considerably more complicated and grey in nature. In the current globalized, interconnected and multi-dependent world, this reality appears to become truer.

Thus, having dilemmas or projecting to have dilemmas are valid foreign policy strategies rather than bad things in international politics. Actually, dilemmas and ambivalence provide more space to a state to conduct its foreign policy.

Quite the opposite of common sense, it is actually easiest to have a clear foreign policy and take overt sides in international relations, while it may be more difficult (but generally more beneficial for national interests) to appear ambivalent and indecisive in foreign policy.

In interstate relations, states, even if they are your allies, are concerned about their own national interests first and so, it is more insightful to be aware of your interests.

When big tectonic changes have been unfolding in the Indo-Pacific region, it is important for South Korea to focus on enhancing its economic, technological, military and cultural strength rather than get caught up in the great power rivalry and face the consequences.

If you feel that asking for more American tactical weapons, more THAAD batteries and entry into the Quad symbolize great statesmanship, actually, it is quite the contrary. More challenging would be how to bring more trust in South Korea-U.S. relations without taking all these overtly anti-China moves.

We need to remember that around 70 percent of South Korea's GDP is constituted by its external trade and China has almost one-fourth of it. China's role is also important in dealing with North Korea. China's challenge to replace the U.S. in the regional economic and security order is going to continue, and South Korea needs to avoid being a frontline state in the great power rivalry in the region.

Mr. President, you might be positive toward tactical weapons or THAAD batteries or being a member of the Quad, but have you thought about whether the U.S., South Korea's closest ally, is equally positive?

Actually, the U.S. will act on these issues on the basis of its own strategic calculations and not because of your request. But meanwhile, your statements have already annoyed China, which would have real repercussions for South Korea.

I hope that in the future, you will be able to build an experienced and intelligent team of foreign policy experts, who will follow the processes and institutions of foreign policy making.

Through this letter, I would like to convey to you that in foreign policy making there are varieties of complexities and it would be counterproductive to overlook these complexities. In international politics, it is not appreciated to have a clear or consistent foreign policy, but rather to achieve your national interests effectively with the minimum costs.

I am quite appreciative of South Korean politics, which teaches being accommodative, nuanced and circumspect in policies and to focus on the pursuance of national interests.

In the process, you need to appreciate ambivalence and use it to have more space to strengthen the national power of the country.

Sincerely,
Sandip Kumar Mishra

The writer (sandipmishrat10@gmail.com) is an associate professor at the Jawaharlal Nehru University School of International Studies, India.