Questions NATO summit posed for Korea

By Ahn Ho-young

NATO invited to its Madrid summit four Asia-Pacific countries, namely Australia, Japan, Korea and New Zealand. The invitation raised many questions for Korea, which in my mind covered almost the whole range of foreign policy challenges facing the new Yoon government.

The first question was if Korea should participate in the summit. It was an important question, because NATO was expected to adopt a new strategy at the summit to guide its member nations for the coming decade, and emphasize the importance of stronger cohesion among like-minded countries as they face increasing challenges to the rules-based international order.

Korea has been a highly successful beneficiary of that international order. Thus, the invitation to Madrid offered a timely opportunity for Korea to clarify where Korea stands on this important issue. As Yoon said at the summit, it is only through further strengthening relations with like-minded countries that we can preserve freedom and peace through this challenging time.

In that sense, it was also reassuring that the leaders of Korea, the U.S. and Japan met on the margins of the Madrid summit. It was a trilateral meeting held at the summit level for the first time in almost five years. It was a noteworthy effort. However, Korea and Japan still need to do some heavy lifting ahead to make meaningful improvement in their relations. A U.S. scholar I met in Seoul recently summed up the present situation succinctly: "Korea is seriously committed; Japan is overly cautious; the U.S. role as a catalyst needs improvement."

The second question was how Korea, while further strengthening relations with like-minded countries, could avoid alienating relations with the countries not belonging to that group, especially China.

The new government has already stated on several different occasions that strengthening relations with NATO does not preclude Korea from maintaining mutually beneficial relations with China to the extent that the relations do not undermine Korea's core values and interests. Given Korea's geopolitical and geo-economic reality, Korea must continue to stay the course carefully and develop relations with China.

Some Korean commentators suggest in this regard that Korea must avoid making a binary choice between the U.S. and China. Instead, Korea must find a place of appropriate distance from each country, and base its actions on that pre-determined position. In other words, it is suggested that Korea set down a pre-calibrated distance in its relations with the U.S.

I think such a suggestion ignores the very basis of an alliance, which is "trust." If Korea were to follow such a suggestion, it would work as an invitation for the U.S. to set down its own distance. It would turn the alliance into transactional relations, and lead to its eventual abandonment.

I agree that national interests could diverge even among allies. However, the situation can be better managed on the basis of total trust, which must guide the relations between allies.

In 2014, China proposed to launch the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Korea wanted to join the bank, while the U.S. had deep-seated suspicions about China's intentions. At the time, I used to work as Korea's ambassador in Washington.

In discussions with my U.S. counterparts, I tried to let them understand that Korea's participation at the bank would result in a better outcome for U.S. interests as well. In the end, the U.S. agreed with Korea. The discussions could have been far more difficult, had it been the case that Korea had tried to set down an artificial distance in the alliance, thus undermining U.S. confidence in Korea's commitment to the alliance.

The third question was how to make the best of the opportunity to alert NATO partners on the North Korean nuclear issue, which poses serious threats not only to Korea but also to the global non-proliferation regime itself. Yoon said through his statement that the issue would not be resolved unless the whole international community is more vigorously committed to North Korea's denuclearization than North Korea is to its nuclear development.

One conspicuous example of the growing challenges to the rules-based international order is the failure of the U.N. Security Council to take necessary actions. The council used to pass increasingly strong resolutions to deter North Korea from repeated violations of international norms. Given the impasse now paralyzing the Security Council, it was a wise use of opportunity for Yoon to raise the issue at the meeting with NATO plus Asia-Pacific 4.

The Yoon government must keep the door open for dialogue with North Korea, especially for humanitarian assistance. However, this effort at dialogue must not blind the critical reality. North Korea declared a change in its nuclear doctrine from deterrence to war-fighting. It is also suspected of planning to test and improve tactical nuclear weapons. The world must awaken to the serious challenge North Korea poses.

Ahn Ho-young (hyahn78@mofa.or.kr) is president of the University of North Korean Studies. He served as Korean ambassador to the United States and first vice foreign minister.