Korea, Trump: crisis of modernism

By Stephen Costello

The US is moving in one direction while Korea is moving in the other.

Under the new Trump administration, and with Republicans in control of the Congress, US policy toward Korea, China and Japan will probably rival that of the George Bush era. President Obama’s agreement with the Bush agenda in the region has made alternatives even harder to see. A continuing US disinterest in serious arms control or lowering tension, together with recklessness on policies toward North Korea and China, must be assumed. Confusion over Washington’s priorities in the alliance will not be settled.

At the same time, Seoul is alive, not only with new civic activism, but with a new appreciation of what it will take to move Korea’s young democracy forward. There is a good chance a progressive will be the next Korean president. But even if not, a moderate will have to act to restore transparency, reduce corruption, and be more realistic about relations with neighbors. Accepting the reality of these different directions should be the starting point for leaders in the Blue House, Assembly, and other power centers. All prospective candidates should be grilled about this.

The US and Korea have each endured political power-grabs disguised as impeachments. Bill Clinton in 1998 and Roh Moo Hyun in 2004 weathered anti-democratic efforts. US President Richard Nixon faced impeachment for real crimes in 1974, and President Park Guen-hye has now been impeached for real transgressions as well. Unlike Nixon, who resigned, Park will probably wait for the Constitutional Court to decide her political fate. At this momentthe Korean system is working to expel a corrupt president, even if it takes a year, just as the US is preparing to inaugurate one. In fundamental aspects of governance, law, accountability, and ultimately policy, the two are headed in different directions.

Leaders chained to the past

Both Park Guen-hye and Shinzo Abe have been burdened and limited by old ideas associated with their political families and their history-denying nationalist ideologies. Both have tried to rewrite and whitewash textbooks.Barack Obama was in many ways contemporary, but his lack of preparation meant that he misunderstood both the use of power and the capabilities of Washington. There was no policy review covering the future of the Northeast Asia region, much less an accurate assessment of the Bush policy disaster for US interests there. Like Park and Abe, Obama clung to old and discredited constructs rather than forcing policy to reflect modern realities.

This is important, because history is moving at aquickening pace.For a good review of how quickly developments move now, US Secretary of State John Kerry has just given a useful interview.He talks about threats from populist demagogues, fact-free media, and the growing inability of systems to enforce accountability. It’s good to remember that his ability to speak and act has been limited by his position as Obama’s man. That will change a week from now. See him here: https://www.usip.org/events/passing-the-baton-2017-americas-role-in-the-world.

Modernism a good measure of leadership

In describing today’s leaders or potential leaders and their outlooks,modernism is a more accurate standard for measurement than generalities like left/right or conservative/progressive.What would bemodernism’s opposite? Maybe the practice of looking backward for an inappropriate worldview to anchor a leader’s identity, or continuing with failed approaches that are clearly not effective. In both cases, the inability to learn from recent past experience, or to incorporate lessons from social or economic progress, arms proliferation or inequality, prevents the leader from being up-to-date or in tune with the times. And in today’s world, only a modern approach, one that takes into account recent impacts on governing from advances in areas like technology, social media, and climate and energy science, can hope to meet the big challenges.

In East Asia, Trump will struggle

From China to Taiwan to Japan to Korea, Trump has already created new and dangerous work for himself. The dreams of many voters and observers, that some kind of unspecified “disruption” can be good for the system, were always tragically naive and dangerous. Weaknesses in international systems, and in US policies, are real. But Trump will be even less prepared than Bush or Obama to come up with new approaches to the region’s complex problems.

In international affairs, Republicans for at least 15 years have stood against diplomatic activism, preferring military and other pressure. They have strongly opposed almost all peacemaking agreements, from the Agreed Framework with North Korea to the Iran Nuclear Deal and the Cuba Engagement.Although General James Mattis at the Pentagon and Rex Tillerson at the State Department are not as radical as others in the leadership, they may not have the power or inclination to force new thinking. At a downtown Washington hotel this week I sat with a colleague only feet away from John Bolton, the anti-UN former Bush administration official. He is still mentioned as a possible Deputy Secretary of State.

Requirements from Korea have escalated

These political realities should matter to Koreans. The US, from time to time, will not be able to help much with the big issues of regional peace and strategic vision. Now is one of those times. And it will require the next Korean government to act with far more independence and flexibility than the past two have shown. The time to start preparing for that is now. The alliance should remain strong. Tension is unnecessary. Any disagreements or debates can be handled privately, as they often have been in the past. But the requirement on the Korean side for clear goals, policy planning and public communication has now escalated. The next government must become good that these things, or it will continue – unnecessarily – to be a junior player in its own neighborhood.

Stephen Costello is a producer of AsiaEast, a web and broadcast-based policy roundtable focused on security, development and politics in Northeast Asia. He writes from Washington, D.C. He can be reached at scost55@gmail.com.