hankyoreh

The Hankyoreh-Busan International Symposium at the Nurimaru Apec House in Busan on Nov. 11. (Baek So-ah, staff photographer)

“Is there some reason South Korea can’t have the vision of being a permanently neutralized state?”

This provocative question was raised at the Hankyoreh-Busan International Symposium on Nov. 11 by Park Tae-gyun, dean of the Graduate School of International Studies at Seoul National University.

Given the reality of South Korea’s geopolitical position, sandwiched between the great powers, the Swiss model of permanent neutrality has been occasionally proposed as an alternative for state survival. But the idea hasn’t been seriously debated for nearly half a century given hostile relations with North Korea and the Cold War between the US and the former Soviet Union.

In a round table debate on Wednesday titled “COVID-19, the US Presidential Election, and Peace on the Korean Peninsula,” Park compared successful examples of neutrality such as Switzerland and Austria with unsuccessful examples such as Belgium and Laos. Park summarized the requirements for successful neutrality as being internal will and ability and external consent.

While internal will and ability are necessary conditions for neutrality, Park asserted, external consent is the sufficient condition required to maintain the stability of a neutral state. Park believes there are several conditions that favor Korea becoming a neutral state: South Korea’s military and economic power, US efforts to avoid entanglement on the Korean Peninsula, and Chinese reluctance to get caught up in a military conflict.

On the other hand, complicating factors are the lack of a national consensus and the division of the Korean Peninsula. “Taking all factors into account, including the fact that a policy of neutrality would ease tensions in neighboring powers, neutrality could be easier to achieve than a peace treaty,” Park said.

Two of the discussants in Park Tae-gyun’s presentation were the attorneys Park Hyeok and Jeong Yeon-sun, who expressed doubts about the significance of the long-term goal of neutralization in the current situation, when Korea must pay attention to foreign policy in the initial phase of the Biden administration.

Jang Eun-joo, a professor at Youngsan University, sympathized with Park Tae-gyun’s “experimental thinking.” “The successful construction of a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula will require the pan-progressive movement to move away from a unification-oriented mindset,” Jang said.

“Whether we opt for neutrality or unification, we will need a distinctive persuasion strategy that matches the experiences and sensibilities of the younger generation,” said Lee Hyeon, a member of the Busan city council.

In a presentation titled “The Launch of a New Administration in the US and Prospects for Inter-Korean Relations,” former Vice Unification Minister Chun Hae-sung predicted how the concrete direction of the Biden administration’s Korean Peninsula policy would be decided through policy reviews and appointments and hearings for foreign policy and national security officials after Biden’s inauguration in January 2021.

“The question of whether the Biden administration’s North Korea policy turns out to be the ‘strategic patience’ of the Obama-era or a problem-solving approach based on active engagement will be decided in light of the South Korean government’s policy, North Korea’s attitude, and the position of related countries. The South Korean government has a very important role to play in that process,” Chun emphasized.

“There needs to be preemptive and proactive engagement in humanitarian aid and other areas to motivate North Korea to return to the peace process instead of making the wrong choice,” the former official said.

Chun’s rationale is that North Korea “is likely to look for a breakthrough in the current situation by improving inter-Korean relations” considering that it will inevitably take a while for the North to make connections with the Biden administration.

“Biden has gotten results in negotiations with inflexible diplomats from the Soviet Union and with war criminal Slobodan Milosevic. It’s always possible that he’ll pursue a ‘third way’ that departs from the Obama and Trump models,” said Ahn Byeong-min, head of the Korean Peninsula Economic Cooperation Center, one of the discussants at the event.

Kim Seong-geol, director of the Hankyoreh Foundation for Reunification and Culture, offered some advice about the American troop presence in Korea. “Given the current trend in US military strategy toward more dispersal and rotational deployment rather than permanent assignment, we need to be preparing for a possible withdrawal of American troops,” Kim said.

By Lee Se-young, staff reporter

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