[Column] Various concerns on US-South Korea relations

Posted on : 2016-04-10 09:16 KST Modified on : 2019-10-19 20:29 KST
Joint military exercises by US and South Korean soldiers in Pohang
Joint military exercises by US and South Korean soldiers in Pohang

Whereas the sinking of the Sewol ferry in Apr. 2014 forced South Koreans to reflect on safety issues, North Korea’s fourth nuclear test this past January and its long-range missile test in February have prompted our reconsideration of the state of security on the Korean Peninsula.

It is clear that both were catastrophes. But there are clear differences in how people have come to terms with each of them and in the way they have responded to them. The incidents that we are facing cannot be neatly captured by a single perspective or frame of analysis.

The US is the US, and South Korea is South Korea?

On Sep. 3, 2015, South Korean President Park Geun-hye attended a ceremony in Beijing marking the 70th anniversary of its victory over Japan in World War II. The pictures of Park watching the Chinese military parade as she stood on the parapet of Tiananmen to the right of Chinese President Xi Jinping, with Russian President Vladimir Putin between them, made a strong impression.

Had China’s official partner on the Korean Peninsula switched from North Korea to South Korea? Or had South Korea’s international partner shifted from the US to China? The image of Park standing alongside the leaders of China and Russia looked as if a player from the blue team was joined the ranks of the red team. The image suggested not just that change was inevitable, but that it could be sudden and earth-shattering as well.

South Korea appeared to be stepping out of the shadow of the US and at last trying to find its own path. Just as former president Park Chung-hee (1961-79) had pushed for independent defense and a South Korean form of democracy during the transitional detente period of the Cold War, in the first half of the 1970s, so Park Geun-hye seemed to be seeking an independent foreign policy and a “jackpot” approach to unification of Korea during the post-Cold War G2 period.

However, the semiotic analysis of a single photograph was unable to escape from the wheel of the hermeneutical cycle.

While the event celebrated the 70th anniversary of South Korea’s liberation from Japanese imperialism, it at the same time candidly revealed South Korea’s geopolitical position between the American and Chinese empires.

During World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, South Korea’s relationship with the US was baptized in blood. The relations between these two staunch allies is qualitatively different from other international relations.

Some might say that I am taking an exceptionalist view of South Korea-US relations.

But the leaders of the Joseon Dynasty and the Korean Empire saw Chinese order as world order and thereby courted disaster for the nation. The global cycle known as the Cold War has come to an end, but a new international order in Northeast Asia has yet to take shape.

After joining the global market through a policy of reform and opening, China has expanded cooperation and exchange with South Korea in the areas of the economy and culture - and it has also grown closer on a political level. Thus, it can no longer be seen as a stranger.

But on a military level, China is a rival, even an adversary, of the US in Northeast Asia. Even though the Cold War is over, the DMZ and the Taiwan Strait remain direct areas of interest for the US. While the US is not an Asian country geographically speaking, its national interest is deeply rooted in Northeast Asia.

With indications of the US’s “rebalance to Asia” growing stronger in connection with the nuclear program run by our brethren on the north half of the peninsula, the US’s faithful ally South Korea has little room to maneuver.

The US and South Korea are not strangers either. Once again, South Korea is stuck between empires.

The US is not the US, and South Korea is not South Korea!

When we try to understand South Korea-US relations, we often ask ourselves the self-centered question of what the US means to us. But we could just as easily turn this question on its head and ask what South Korea means to the US. This offers us a way to regard South Korea-US relations from a reciprocal perspective. That is to say, looking at things from the American point of view can give us a better understanding both of the US and of ourselves.

The US has been thoroughly involved throughout the liberation of South Korea from Japanese colonial rule, the divided occupation of the nation, the creation of separate governments in North and South, the defense of South Korea during the Korean War, the development of a capitalist economy and the democratization of the country along liberal lines.

There is no denying that South Korea is a sovereign state. But the Americanization that has taken place over the past two generations far surpassed past Sinicization and Japanization in terms of speed, breadth and depth.

During the Cold War, the US preferred indirect rule to direct rule and indirect empire to official empire. Direct rule is a method that depends upon military force, while indirect rule is entrusted to the local elites.

The US sought an alliance not only for its own interest but also for institutional and ideological reasons. One can conclude that the US was willing to wait for South Korea to be Americanized of its own accord.

South Korea has formed a close relationship with the US in several respects. Militarily speaking, the two are allies. In addition to the tens of thousands of US soldiers stationed in South Korea, the US also retains wartime operational control of the South Korean military.

American-style liberal democracy is the model for South Korean politics. Watching the election process shows just how Americanized South Korean politics has become.

The South Korean economy aims at becoming the free market economy found in the UK and the US. South Korea‘s shift to neoliberalism cannot be explained without mentioning the social context of a country that has been fully Americanized.

Because of the Americanization that has taken place in the cultural sphere, American living patterns and attitudes have been copied en masse.

Given the influx of university professors holding American doctorates and the trend for teaching children English at an early age, South Korea has gone beyond the nominal top-down phase of acculturation and reached the actual bottom-up phase of acculturation. Consequently, it would be no exaggeration to say that the past seven decades in South Korea’s contemporary history have been a process of the total transformation of society along American lines.

Today, the US is no longer the superpower across the Pacific Ocean. In the same way, South Korea is no longer the “hermit kingdom.” The identity of South Korea and of South Koreans has changed. This is the case both in terms of history and in terms of international relations.

South Korea is the US, and the US is South Korea

As a state, the US has two aspects. In the first, the US pursues the national interest like any other state. But in the second, it is an empire that preserves the international order and manages the reproduction of the system of global capitalism.

When South Korea-US relations are limited to the first aspect, South Korea and the US would appear to be rational actors that have made a relationship that is only external while pursuing their own separate national interests.

But if South Korea-US relations are positioned in the American Empire‘s role as ruler of international politics and the global economy, an entirely different relational dynamic unfolds. This demands that South Korea-US relations be understood based on a new theoretical perspective on the power relationship between states.

The types of power that exert themselves in international relations can be classified into four categories: compulsory power, institutional power, structural power and productive power. This classification depends upon, first, whether power is exerted through the reciprocal functioning of the existing state institutions or through the social process by which the national elite is formed, and, second, whether the social relationships in which power is exerted are direct or indirect.

Let us apply this framework to South Korea-US relations in regard to North Korea’s nuclear test and missile launch. If it is determined that the US directly pressured the South Korean government into participating in sanctions against North Korea, this is compulsory power. If it is concluded that the US exercised its influence by employing international norms and objective data to bring the South Korean ruling elite to an accurate understanding of the situation, this is institutional power. If we emphasize that the role of the US did not directly influence the South Korean government but rather indirectly alerted South Korea and civic groups around the world to the danger of the North Korean nuclear issue, this is structural power. Finally, if the enthusiastic response from South Koreans who equate the US national interest with South Korea’s national interest prompted the South Korean government to participate of its own will, this is productive power.

Our assessment of the Park administration’s decision to shut down the Kaesong Complex also depends on which of these forms of power we believe was being exerted in South Korea-US relations.

Both the view that South Korea is structurally subordinate to the US and the view that South Korea has formed a free relationship with the US are one-sided. South Korea and South Koreans have changed. Through the institutional changes and the formation of sovereignty that have occurred over two generations, the liberal form of government bestowed by the US must be seen as firmly supporting from inside and outside, and from below and above, the official relations between South Korea and the US. South Korea and the US are one.

South Korea is South Korea, and the US is the US

South Korea’s relations with the US mirror its relations with North Korea. South Korea’s friendship with the US and its enmity with North Korea are two sides of the same coin.

While the US is the primary target of North Korea’s nuclear weapon and long-range missile tests, it is no mistake to conclude that these tests are a security crisis for South Korea.

Since Korea is a divided country, ethnic identity and national identity are not the same. The reality is that the latter takes precedence over the former.

The South Korean state is conflicted and torn between its relations with the US and its relations with North Korea. This is also our reality.

But before we defend South Korea’s national interest, we as South Koreans must define what that national interest is. That is why South Korea is still South Korea.

While the South Korean state has been strong in its relationship to civic society, it has been weak in its relationship to the American Empire. A series of conservative governments have taken power amid dissatisfaction with democracy. But this dissatisfaction was conceived by anxiety.

At its most basic level, governance (which could be called the politics of politics) involves simultaneously maintaining the three areas of national security, social insurance and personal well-being. Since governance is one step above politics, it is a much more comprehensive activity.

Movement-based politics can help democracy grow - but making democracy permeate society is a different matter. In order for a democracy to be democratized, it is essential for the citizens to become aware of their sovereignty. But that by itself is not enough.

There is a need for mediation through the government and through groups of experts. Furthermore, the South Korean state faces challenges around the world.

Nor is the state an all-powerful problem-solver in relation to civic society. The state cannot solve social problems through the technocratic approach. That said, it is unrealistic to hope for the resolution of domestic or international problems without the involvement of the state.

There are tremendous military, political, economic and cultural challenges from outside that are beyond our understanding or control. Even the internal problems that we believe we can manage are not so simple.

These problems demand the development of a national hegemony project that ties together national security, social safety, civic independence and personal discipline. This is also the dream of a new kind of political rationality that encompasses national security, economic development, social well-being and personal dignity.

This dream requires governance by a state that ceaselessly delineates the internal and external spheres, and the public and private spheres. Criticism is the refusal to submit to this kind of governance, and that is why criticism and resistance cannot take priority to governance.

The issue is governance, and governance is the result of voting!

The real tragedy in the sinking of the Sewol ferry was that the passengers could have been rescued but were not. What this means is that governance was possible.

The reason that the North Korean nuclear crisis does not hit home the way the Sewol does is because we assume that it falls outside of the scope of governance. But is that really the case?

The regret we feel for failing to act despite our foreknowledge might be lessened if we bring the truth to light, prosecute those responsible, and set up a system that will prevent a similar tragedy from reoccurring.

The excuse that our ignorance gave us no chance to act holds no water in the area of national security. The collapse of the country is the end of everything.

As a consequence, the question of whether the Sewol ferry or the North Korean nuclear issue should come first should be rephrased as follows: both the Sewol ferry and the North Korean nuclear issue!

While governance is needed in civic society, the same applies for international relations. South Korea must govern its relations with North Korea and with the US at the same time. The same is true of its relations with China and the US. Even further, we must govern not only disasters that can be predicted and managed, but also risks that go beyond our expectations.

Governance is also the repoliticization of the state. The first step is voting. A trip to the ballot box is an act of protest. A vote makes the president, the president creates the history books and the history books produce the citizenry.

So if we are to remember the Sewol ferry and to overcome the North Korean nuclear crisis, we have to vote. In the end, governance too is the result of voting.

By Jung Il-joon, professor of sociology at Korea University

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

 

button that move to original korean article (클릭시 원문으로 이동하는 버튼)

Related stories