hankyoreh

Professor Park Geon-yeong: President Lee Myung-bak’s administration emphasizes pragmatism as the main principle behind its foreign policies. These policies, and their results, should have a distinct direction and clear goals. The new administration should pursue a strategic pragmatism. In international politics, pragmatism functions in a way that allows a nation to engage in exchange and cooperation while finding peaceful co-existence with countries that have different systems of government. However, President Lee’s administration places emphasis on “shared values.” Lee’s position is that he will pursue “value-oriented” policies, not pragmatism, saying that his administration will work to make the ROK-U.S. alliance a comprehensive partnership, in which triangular cooperation with Washington and Tokyo are based on common values. Lee has also said that he would be willing to engage in dialogue with North Korean residents, not the regime itself.

Professor Park Sun-seong: Lee’s administration does not want to look realistically at inter-Korean relations, ties between South Korea and the United States and the political situation in Northeast Asia. The administration should evaluate the performance and limitations of the administrations of Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun objectively. Currently, Lee’s administration is demonstrating its political prejudice in saying that all of the policies adopted by previous administrations were wrong. It also does not understand the tension between the universal pursuit of values, such as peace and human rights and military security strategy or the alliance between South Korea and the United States. It’s possible that Lee’s administration is unable find its own direction. The new administration, above all, should establish a positive and active, but distinctive, identity.

Professor Kim Yeon-cheol: Lee’s administration says that it will pursue pragmatic policies, but it is actually pursuing foreign policy based on its values and morality.

Professor Lee Hee-ok: The new administration does not have a clear policy direction on neighboring countries. South Korea and China, however, are discussing ways to upgrade their relations to form strategic ties through which the two nations will cooperate on regional and international issues. If Lee’s administration is excessive in its emphasis of value-based foreign policies, by placing too much emphasis on the alliance with Washington, conflicts could arise in its relations with China. In this aspect, the nation should keep a close watch on the rapid normalization of ties between North Korea and China. Beijing has taken a favorable position on the launch of President Lee’s administration, but there are also some who are taking a wait-and-see attitude. There won’t be serious change in relations between South Korea and China until the Beijing Olympics, slated for August. Changes could occur, however, depending on Seoul’s attitude toward the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and the Missile Defense (MD) system.

Professor Park Gyeon-yeong: President Lee’s “Denuclearization-Opening 3000” plan assumes that North Korea should first abandon its nuclear weapons programs. U.S. President George Bush’s administration has already given up on such a policy. The denuclearization process has made little progress under the action-for-action principle. Former President Kim Young-sam’s administration was unable to grasp the dynamics of North Korea-U.S. relations and shouldered an enormous burden. Such a situation could recur. President Lee’s idea that abandonment should come first is a suggestion which goes against the dynamics of international politics.

Professor Park Sun-seong:It is unclear whether nuclear dismantlement is a condition or a goal of Lee’s Vision 3000. Lee’s administration should think more about changes in the diplomatic topography of national strategy. If it emphasizes nuclear dismantlement alone, it will be a problem of military security and national defense. The North Korea nuclear issue should be monitored from the level of national strategy. In this situation, in which China is a rising power in the international community and the interests of the United States and China are mixed, South Korea should worry about its own future survival.

Professor Kim Yeon-cheol: President Lee’s administration does not have any distinct suggestions for how the North should go about scrapping its nuclear weapons programs. The six-party talks have taken a comprehensive approach, such as the improvement of relations or peace on the Korean Peninsula, following the action-for-action principle. It seems that Lee’s administration is not considering taking a comprehensive approach.

Professor Park Geon-yeong: The Lee Myung-bak administration should inevitably follow the action-for-action principle. For the North, its survival depends on this, but there is a deep history of distrust between the North and the United States. The application of the “denuclearization first” theory resulted in the North’s nuclear tests.

Professor Park Sun-seong: It is desirable to think of “Denuclearization,” “Open” and “3000” as a comprehensive package to be applied simultaneously.

Professor Kim Yeon-cheol: President Lee’s administration appears to have taken its current position after observing North Korea’s actions with regard to inter-Korean relations. It is the kind of policy that ignores North Korea. An immediate concern is whether the South will join the Proliferation Security Initiative and Missile Defense. If the nation does decide to participate, it won’t be possible to manage South-North relations in a stable way.

Professor Park Geon-yeong: Neocons are politically and philosophically in support of pursuing the PSI. Influential candidates for U.S. president - John McCain, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton - are all against this idea. While the Lee administration is showing interest in the PSI, the East Asia policies of the next U.S. administration don’t look PSI-friendly.

Professor Lee Hee-ok: China basically thinks of MD as a blockade against it. If South Korea joins MD, the South Korea-China cooperative system, including the six-party talks, as well as relations between the two countries, will be difficult. If South Korea also pushes the issue of human rights in North Korea as a universal concept, China, which is pursuing gradual improvement of human rights via nonintervention in domestic affairs, will feel burdened.

Professor Kim Yeon-cheol: Ahead of the general elections in April, the new administration appears to think it has no choice but to take a political approach to policies on North Korea and foreign policy. The government has made several remarks about the North’s human rights situation. If it takes this kind of political approach, it could place a significant political burden on inter-Korean relations and ties between South Korea and China.

Professor Park Sun-seong: If the nation makes the North’s human rights situation and the opening of its regime

into political issues, or makes them conditional, they could work as obstacles to South Korea’s diplomatic efforts. In South Korea, the human rights situation has improved, along with economic development, political democratization and the growth of the civil society. Outward enforcement can’t improve the North’s human rights situation. South Korea should come up with conditions that Pyongyang can accept. It should not establish a barrier that is too high.

Professor Park Geon-young: The new administration must participate in international efforts to improve human rights in North Korea from a humanitarian point of view. However, public criticism without proper judgment is likely to cause negative results. If the new administration becomes tempted to exploit the human rights issue politically, it could fall into its own trap.

Professor Park Sun-seong: North Korea is expected to be in a wait-and-see mode until the April 9 parliamentary election in South Korea. If the Lee Myung-bak administration were to take a flexible approach to negotiations on rice and fertilizer aid before the election, North Korea would be likely to minimize its concerns and resolve the issue.

Professor Park Geon-young: President Lee Myung-bak and his aides were said to have reviewed the October 4 agreement, which was struck by former South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il at the second inter-Korean summit, and plan to implement some of the items in the agreement after categorizing them into “things that are possible” and “things that are not possible.” Doing this would be one-sided. Any agreement is a package consisting of gains and losses. If South Korea wants to do things that are only beneficial to the South, it will force North Korea to accept things that could harm the North. The Lee Myung-bak administration must put itself in the North’s place, a key part of its pragmatic policy initiatives.

Professor Lee Hee-ok: While it has a strong will, the new administration seems to be very one-sided in its understanding of the attitudes of others. Relations between South and North Korea are coming to a deadlock. If Pyongyang-Washington ties warm, as is likely, and Pyongyang-Beijing relations continue to be forged in the wake of the 60th anniversary of diplomatic ties between the two nations, South Korea is likely to be cast aside in the region’s geopolitical landscape, a phenomenon called “Korea Passing.”

Professor Kim Yeon-cheol: North Korea’s silence has lasted for a long time. As a result of the South’s engagement policy over the past decade, North Korea’s economic reliance on South Korea has increased. Progress was made in the Gaeseong (Kaeseong) Industrial Complex and the tourism project at Mount Geumgang. North Korea doesn’t want radical change. In addition, the North might think it’s too early to judge the Lee Myung-bak administration because the new South Korean administration’s remarks on North Korea have consisted of both good and bad expressions. North Korea would react if the failure of a specific policy arose. Depending on the choices made by the South Korean government, I can’t rule out the possibility that inter-Korean relations could return to a past in which “there were no inter-Korean relations.”