[Column] Candidates, stop the mudslinging and show us your vision for Korea

Posted on : 2021-12-21 17:54 KST Modified on : 2021-12-21 17:54 KST
From OPCON transfer to S. Korea’s place in the CPTPP, there are plenty of areas for candidates to set themselves apart with bold visions for Korea’s future
People Power Party presidential nominee Yoon Suk-yeol (left) and Democratic Party presidential nominee Lee Jae-myung (right) take part in a ceremony commemorating the anniversary of the death of Korean independence fighter Yun Bong-gil, held at Hyochang Park in Seoul’s Yongsan District on Sunday. (pool photo)
People Power Party presidential nominee Yoon Suk-yeol (left) and Democratic Party presidential nominee Lee Jae-myung (right) take part in a ceremony commemorating the anniversary of the death of Korean independence fighter Yun Bong-gil, held at Hyochang Park in Seoul’s Yongsan District on Sunday. (pool photo)
Gil Yun-hyung
Gil Yun-hyung
By Gil Yun-hyung, international news editor

Over the years, I’ve lived through a lot of presidential elections, and I can safely say I’ve never seen one as disappointing as this. As a contest between one candidate whose support ratings go up every time he flip-flops on one of his many election pledges and another whose presidential run appears solely motivated by a sense of vengeance toward the current administration, it remains mired at the level of mudslinging over family members instead of policies.

It’s unclear how much attention a senior policy debate can get in this heated back-and-forth of exposés. But with such a tumultuous international situation surrounding the peninsula at the moment, I’d like to sum up a few of the issues I’d like to see come up as part of a more meaningful debate.

First of all, the US — South Korea's sole ally — is currently grappling with serious confrontations on two fronts. One is against China in the Taiwan Strait, and the other is against Russia in Ukraine.

When it comes to the question of whether China is actually poised to cross the strait and invade Taiwan in the next several years, no one can give any definitive answers. But we can’t completely rule out the possibility of a misjudgment by Chinese President Xi Jinping in the belief that unification represents the only way to achieve “the great Chinese dream.”

We should view a Chinese invasion of Taiwan as a possibility and develop scenarios to prepare for the different eventualities.

In an April summit with the US, Korea’s neighbor Japan mentioned the issue of “peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.” Since then, it has been devoting its energies to developing a response plan.

Some of the measures that have recently emerged — including amendment of its National Security Strategy, establishing enemy base attack capabilities, and increasing its defense budget — represent efforts to respond to the “Taiwan situation.” The plan is for Japan to beef up its own military capabilities in order to upgrade its alliance with the US, and thereby establish a deterrent against China.

South Korea also mentioned the Taiwan Strait in a May summit with the US, although it quickly moved to downplay its significance as a “generality.”

The only significant activity that has been observed in this area has been the Moon Jae-in administration’s fixation on acquiring a light aircraft carrier. On Dec. 3, the light aircraft carrier budget passed the National Assembly at the administration’s proposed level of 7.188 billion won (US$6 million).

If South Korea does acquire a 30,000-ton light aircraft carrier by 2033 as the Moon administration has declared it will, the US may demand that it make a military contribution by using that capability in the event of an emergency concerning Taiwan.

Already, Japan has been mobilizing two 20,000-ton light aircraft carriers for use in joint exercises with the US, not only in the East and South Chinese seas but as far afield as the Indian Ocean. There’s likely to be a fierce split in public opinion over how the light aircraft carrier will be put to use once we have it.

Unless we’re prepared to send our light aircraft carrier into the distant reaches of the East China Sea to provide “rear support” to the US military in the event of a Taiwan emergency, we’d do well to call off this project.

A second issue concerns the return of wartime operational control (OPCON) to South Korea. I couldn’t help letting out a yelp when I saw an interview with former US Forces Korea Commander Gen. Robert Abrams that was published in the Dong-A Ilbo newspaper on Wednesday.

In November 2015, South Korea and the US reached an agreement to base the OPCON return on “conditions” rather than a specific timetable. Abrams predicted that South Korea could meet those conditions as “early” as sometime around 2028.

USFK is a sharply pointed weapon sticking out right under China’s nose, while the South Korean armed forces has grown to become one of the world’s top six or seven in terms of military strength. Within the US, there seems to be an unspoken consensus that a good way to trap South Korea within the alliance framework — as it struggles constantly to reach a balance between the US and China — is to make the conditions for the OPCON return so onerous that the whole plan ends up falling by the wayside.

A (by no means easy) decision needs to be made on whether we’re willing to accept that situation, or whether we intend to revise the agreement to one based on a timeline rather than “conditions,” even if that causes some friction. Seemingly at a loss, the Moon administration has simply been raising and raising defense spending in an attempt to meet those conditions.

Another issue concerns economic security, which was thrown into sharp relief by the recent urea water solution shortage.

The US plans to develop an “Indo-Pacific economic framework” early next year to respond to this issue. That idea was a latch-ditch response devised to take the place of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which South Korea recently announced its intent to join.

As a framework, it could obviate the whole point of joining the CPTPP. This matter will demand a skillful approach.

Finally, no matter how much the two candidates talk, they only ever mention inconsequential things. There’s no sense of any larger picture in terms of what kind of country they want to turn South Korea into.

Here’s hoping they can share some values and a broader perspective that might unite our ravaged hearts.

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

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

Related stories

Most viewed articles