hankyoreh

Then South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and then North Korean leader Kim Jong-il shake hands in Pyongyang on June 13, 2000. (Blue House photo pool)

The conflict between the US and China is growing in intensity. The US has been doubling down on its strategy of encirclement of China, with President Trump openly and aggressively blaming the COVID-19 pandemic on China and responding to China’s enactment of a Hong Kong security law by moving to strip Hong Kong of its special status. For its part, China has declared that it won’t kowtow to unfair pressure from the US and has promised an aggressive response. That creates a tricky situation for South Korea, which is squeezed between the two countries. Does South Korea have a foreign policy alternative that can surmount such a binary choice? The Hankyoreh has brought together experts from these three countries to share their opinions.

There are serious concerns that South Korea is stuck in the middle of the conflict between the US and China. What options does Korea have to slip out of this challenging situation?

The Hankyoreh invited Wi Sung-rak, former South Korean ambassador to Russia, and Kim Jun-hyeong, director of the Korean National Diplomatic Academy, to solicit their views on the matter. Wi is one of South Korea’s leading experts on North Korea-US relations and the North Korean nuclear issue, as well as a veteran on Russia affairs. Following a stint as ambassador to Russia, Wi is currently serving as an expert advisor for the Asia Center at Seoul National University (SNU).

Kim is a geopolitical scholar who drew the blueprint of South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s foreign policy and national security policy. Kim created the framework for some of the Moon administration’s key foreign policy initiatives, including the New Southern Policy, for the National Planning Advisory Committee in 2017.

Both of these experts said that, if South Korea is to avoid being sandwiched between the US and China, it must escape the diplomatic inertia that has driven its noncommittal stance in the past and to respond with the kind of clear principles that are universally respected in the international community. Wi argued that Korea should define its “basic coordinates” and accumulate precedence to establish diplomatic consistency. “Rather than choosing between the US and China,” Kim said, Korea ought to decide on principles such as free trade, the freedom of navigation, and the denuclearization of Asia and to keep taking preemptive action. The conversation between the two was held at the Hankyoreh office, in Seoul’s Mapo District, on June 10. The conversation was moderated by Park Byeong-su, the Hankyoreh senior staff writer in charge of unification and foreign policy.

Hankyoreh (Hani): Let’s start by talking about the background of the US-China conflict. The two countries seemed to take a step back with their “phase one” trade deal early this year. More recently, however, their relations have reached a nadir, with the US blaming China for COVID-19 and China enacting security legislation involving Hong Kong.

Wi Sung-rak (Wi): Looking at larger trends, the US and China have a long-running conflict, and this was the expected result of China’s rise. But that conflict has been sharpened by the election of Trump as US President. This is a decades-old trend, and the situation will be similar even if Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate, becomes president. The last two or three US administrations have adopted similar policies, though they might not have been called the “Indo-Pacific Strategy.” It’s fair to say that a consensus has formed in US society.

Kim Jun-hyeong (Kim): Since US foreign policy won’t tolerate a serious global rival, its efforts to contain China were predictable. Americans seem to regret that the Sept. 11 terror attacks in the early 2000s kept them from bringing China to heel before it got too large. US pressure on China has intensified because of the upcoming presidential election, but their conflict is structural and long-term. In global areas such as trade, currency exchange, and technology, China falls behind the US in every area but trade. In terms of geopolitics, China is going to push against the cordon running through the Korean Peninsula, the East China Sea, Taiwan, and the South China Sea, while the US will continue to exert hegemony by encircling China.

Wi: [The Trump administration’s] attempts to blame China for COVID-19 don’t seem to be a serious problem, because there are many Americans who don’t buy that argument. But there are a number of Western countries who are concerned about the Hong Kong security law, so that could push things in an unpredictable direction. The course of action frequently taken by China is to use its strength to push quietly, rather than picking fights. As Kim said, China won’t just sit and watch the US poke and intrude upon its perimeter but will seek to defend its sphere of influence. The problem is that the Korean Peninsula represents a crucial node in China’s sphere of influence, creating a difficult situation for South Korea.

Hani: Trump has invited South Korea to attend the G7 summit, and the US is also asking South Korea to take part in the Economic Prosperity Network (EPN), an economic coalition aimed at excluding China. Both of those are strategic moves with China as their target.

Wi: Attending the G7 summit would be quite significant. But it’s not likely that the G7 will be expanded and South Korea made a part of that. Russia’s admittance would be problematic, too. Expanding the G7 would also raise the issue of resetting the G7’s relationship with the G20. Such reasons make G7 expansion a complicated issue. The problem is that Trump appears to have been improvising when he mentioned a G7 expansion.

Kim: I think that Korea should attend the G7. Koreans aren’t the only ones who are opposed to isolating China. Germany is frustrated with the US’ attempt to exclude China and said it won’t attend this G7 summit. To be honest, I’m not sure whether Trump even has a detailed plan for expanding the G7. The G20 played a major role in overcoming the 2008 financial crisis, but I have my doubts about whether an anti-China front could overcome this crisis.

Wi: The EPN is apparently designed to be a loose coalition. If it were supposed to be a more tightly knit pact, they would’ve called it a “bloc.” So I think we don’t have to take it too seriously. For example, we could say we’re going to review the plan to see if there are any positive aspects.

Kim: Trump appears to have hurriedly thrown together the EPN with the upcoming presidential election in mind. It might not be an elaborate strategy. I think Korea should respond by talking about the universal value of free trade that doesn’t exclude any specific country, while avoiding any mention of China.

Hani: Under the current circumstances, Chinese President Xi Jin-ping’s scheduled visit to Seoul in the second half of this year could be interpreted in the context of the US-China conflict.

Wi: China appears to have grown more positive about Xi’s visit to South Korea since the COVID-19 outbreak. As recently as the beginning of this year, China seemed to be lukewarm about it. There was also a push for Xi to visit Korea and Japan on the same trip. But now, there are indications that Xi will be paying a separate visit to Korea. With the conflict between the US and China intensifying during the COVID-19 crisis, China appears to have decided it’s important to keep Korea on its side. Korea is in the reverse situation: we were actively promoting Xi’s visit at the beginning of this year, but now we seem more reluctant.

Hani: Along with the sharpening conflict between the US and China, Korea’s relations with Japan are in trouble, too.

Wi: I think this is a serious issue. We need to work with our neighbors in order to navigate the storm of the US-China dispute, and Japan is one of our neighbors. It’s true that getting too close to Japan could be risky because of its commitment to countering China. But Japan is far too important of a neighbor for us to even think about ignoring them. If our conflict with Japan worsens, it would, in the short term, undermine our plan to attend the G7. What’s worrisome is there are basically no diplomatic efforts underway to counter the deterioration of our bilateral relations. Forced labor during the Japanese colonial occupation isn’t an easy problem to solve, but nevertheless it’s one that must be solved diplomatically. Procedures are underway to liquidate assets belonging to Nippon Steel and other Japanese companies following a court ruling in South Korea, but South Korea and Japan need to put together a committee to seek a diplomatic solution to these issues.

Kim: Japan is being too stubborn about this. It maintains that the issue of forced labor was settled by the two countries’ claims agreement in 1965. Even though Korea agreed to Japan’s requests such as establishing the post of director general of trade control policy, Japan hasn’t removed the export controls. Japan is basically demanding Korea’s surrender, which leaves Korea with no choice. Japan needs to change.

Wi: People have been predicting for a long time that the rise of China would cause its conflict with the US to intensify. We’ve been putting off our decision about what stance to take vis-à-vis the two countries. Being vague and dodging issues so as to avoid creating trouble at home and abroad are characteristic of the foreign policy of developing countries. Such a foreign policy is no longer sustainable. We need to define our basic coordinates and principles and, by defending them, communicate our stance to the US and China. We should justify our foreign policy with universal principles in the international community, principles that no one could reject. If we apply those principles whenever an incident occurs, it can establish a precedent of consistency and give other countries the impression that Korea is a country that advocates such universal principles. That will help us be less swayed by pressure from the US and China.

Kim: Rather than choosing between the US and China, we should be defending principles. Before being forced to make a choice, we should respond to the anti-China front by clearing expressing the principle of free trade, respond to China’s claims of sovereignty in the South China Sea by advocating the freedom of navigation, and respond to the US’ request for the deployment of intermediate-range missiles on the Korean Peninsula by calling for the denuclearization of East Asia and of the Korean Peninsula.

Also important is a strategy of solidarity with countries that are in a similar position as us. There are 60 countries with a full or partial alliance with the US and 110 countries with China as their number one trade partner. What this means, in other words, is that the entire world is basically in the same position as we are — stuck between the US and China. We need to devise a strategy about how to partner with them on each issue.

By Kim So-youn, staff reporter

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