hankyoreh

By Kim Yeon-chul, Inje University professor

The second term of Barack Obama is greeted with warm feelings. Four years ago, our hearts beat with excitement. Expectations were high. Even though the Lee Myung-bak administration had just been elected, we expected that a warm breeze might be blowing our way from Washington. Four years later, however, those expectations have turned into disappointment.

Still it would be better than a Mitt Romney win, we have thought. That’s right. But the international climate surrounding us is not so peaceful that we can allow ourselves to sit back in relief. We have to overcome the disastrous reality left behind by the Lee Myung-bak government and build again a peaceful and mutually prosperous Korean Peninsula. That’s why we look to the future again. To be sure, everybody says the key, after all, is the South Korean presidential election. Can South Korea and the US march to the same beat and make beautiful music together when it comes to a North Korean policy? 



In the post-Cold War era, the ROK-US’s North Korean policies were in harmony for only three years: 1998 to 2000, when presidents Kim Dae-jung and Bill Clinton were at the helm of their respective nations. In the history of the Korean Peninsula, those three years mark the time in which a triangle of the South, the North and the US were in a virtuous cycle. The year 2000 was the zenith: the inter-Korean summit meeting was held, a joint declaration between North Korea and the US was announced and then-US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made her own visit to North Korea.


In the ROK-US ensemble, South Korea played the lead. We must not forget that. The warmth of the summer of 2000 could have resulted from the fact that the Kim Dae-jung government actively encouraged the involvement of related parties in the creation of the so-called Perry Process (the Perry Report). The strength to withstand the eight years of the Bush administration came from firm willingness to improve inter-Korean relations laid down by the Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun administrations. 




The combination of Obama and Lee Myung-bak can be assessed in a similar vein. Of course, the first stage of the Obama administration was riddled with hardship. Obama had to sort out a monumental mess of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Bush administration left behind, make it through the global financial crisis and respond to the rapid emergence of China. In the Obama administration, the North Korean issue was not high on the priority list, so the US did not aggressively address the issue. The Obama administration stood by the Lee Myung-bak administration’s hard-line policy toward the North while reaping practical economic profits including the ROK-US free trade agreement. This may have been made possible by the increased diplomatic leeway the Lee Myung-bak administration has enjoyed due to the US’s weakening influence in East Asia.

Lee used his increased leeway for negative ends, however, instead of making the best of the situation. What would have transpired under a combination of Obama and liberal candidate Chung Dong-young? Think that over for a moment. Things would have been very different.


Now we must choose the leader who can perform a fine duet with Obama. Relations between the US and China are a variable. In Asia, the powers of the US and China are on a collision course. The second term of the Obama administration will carry on with the Asia-centric policy that was established in his first term. It is a strategy that gives a nod to the economic clout of Asia while also keeping China in check. The US will push ahead with Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) based on the KORUS FTA, and will extend its clout to countries bordering China, including Burma, while continuing a deterrent policy toward China on the military side of things. 



To be sure, there is another variable in the US’s pushing ahead with its East Asian strategy: territorial disputes. Considering the current state of Japanese politics, the possibility that Shinzo Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party will come to power cannot be ruled out. If that happens, there would be increased possibility of conflicts with neighboring countries over bitter history or ongoing territorial disputes will be exacerbated. The newly-launched Xi Jinping government will not back down. In the contingency where China and Japan go head to head over a territorial issue, the US would be hard-pressed to take a leadership role. The same is true of relations between South Korea and Japan. There are limitations in conceiving a new future with a Japan that refuses to reflect on the past. The Dokdo issue will be a key variable that can wreck the US strategy of a deterrent to China that relies on the cooperation of South Korea, Japan and the US.


For the US’s Asia-focused policy to succeed, the legacy of the post-war system that the US left in the Cold War era must be overcome. Part of that is the North Korean nuclear issue. The improvement of the US-North Korea relations is obviously an important component of the post-war system. What was the result brought about by the first stage of the Obama administration’s "strategic patience"? It only served to strengthen the North’s nuclear power, brought North Korea and China closer, and weakened the diplomatic clout of the US in East Asia.

So what is the proper course of action in the Group of Two (G2) era of the US and China? We must exercise the diplomatic wisdom not to freeload on the antagonism between the US and China, but to actively make room for the two countries to cooperate. To this end, we must manage inter-Korean relations in a stable manner. We have to take the reins of the Korean Peninsula to prevent it from becoming the venue of hegemonic competition among the powerhouses.

2013 is a meaningful year as it marks the 60th anniversary of the ceasefire agreement that ended the combat phase of the Korean War. Technically the Korean Peninsula is still at war. Our task is to convert the situation to a lasting peace. We need to persuade the US that a peaceful Korean Peninsula is in line with the long-term interests of the US. We need a president who has a strategy and willingness to improve the fate of Korean Peninsula independently.


Diplomacy hasn’t been a big issue in either the US or South Korean presidential elections, which is a shame. In the election, diplomacy is of little importance but when in power, a president’s ability is clearly proven on the field of diplomacy. Some see it as fortunate that the candidates’ pledges on unification, diplomacy, and national security all fall within the same basic framework. But that is a tragedy in a sense, because it shows us that such pledges are not based on reality. The future is the extension of the present. As Freud pointed out, people cannot dream what they did not experience (directly or indirectly). How can they speak of the future without suggesting solutions to the pending inter-Korean issue?


We cannot consider trustworthy those who gazed on with arms folded as the Lee Myung-bak government ruined inter-Korean relations and East Asian diplomacy and are now looking for a free ride on the opposition’s pledges. The same is true of candidates from the opposition. They stress strong security but they have to demonstrate how strong security can go hand in hand with the construction of a peaceful system on the Korean Peninsula.


The crossroads we stand at in 2012 is a historical chance for South Korea and the US to make harmony on North Korea policy for the first time during the post-Cold War era. We cannot afford to march to a different beat yet again. Let us forge a new history for the millennium, a lasting solution that has eluded us on the Korean Peninsula until now.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]