hankyoreh

President Yoon Suk-yeol of South Korea speaks to the press aboard the presidential jet after boarding at Logan International Airport in Boston on April 29 at the end of his state visit to the US. (courtesy of the presidential office/Yonhap)

Diplomatic experts say President Yoon Suk-yeol’s summit with US President Joe Biden focused too much on strengthening the South Korea-US alliance and extended deterrence and, as such, failed to produce any real results on economic security issues. These experts also say that Yoon has opened up the country to retaliation from North Korea, China and Russia.

Six experts consulted by Hankyoreh on Sunday conducted a postmortem of the South Korea-US summit and called for strategic flexibility in pursuit of pragmatism and crisis management.

At their summit, the two leaders raised the level of extended deterrence against North Korea by establishing the Nuclear Consultative Group and increasing the deployment of strategic assets such as nuclear submarines to the Korean Peninsula. However, the experts predicted that this will only fan the fire of North Korea’s shows of force and nuclear development.

The experts the Hankyoreh spoke to believe that at the summit, South Korea non-critically adopted the factionalist logic of international relations demanded by the US.

“South Korea has whole-heartedly embraced the US’ theory of international politics, which is rooted in partisan division,” said Kim Heung-kyu, the director of the US-China Policy Institute at Ajou University. “It is questionable whether the adopted theory was chosen through a proper understanding of current international politics, and whether it reflects the reality of the current situation.”

Kim pointed out that there were “very few” substantive achievements in the economic security field, and there seems to be “no consideration of the side effects of choosing to stand with one side.” The opinion is that Yoon has joined Biden’s “dictatorship/totalitarianism versus liberal democracy” partisan theory.

Lee Sang-man, professor at the Institute for Far Eastern Studies at Kyungnam University, argued that “the most devastating outcome of the summit is that the Yoon administration has been incorporated into the trilateral cooperation, or quasi-alliance, of South Korea, the US and Japan.” He added that “this has turned diplomacy into a game in which there are only ‘allies’ and ‘enemies.’”

On the other hand, Wi Sung-lac, who formerly served as South Korean ambassador to Russia, commented, “Progress has been made, as can be seen in the strengthened cooperation in the South Korea-US alliance to deal with the US-China confrontation and North Korea’s nuclear and missile advancements.”

Regarding the extended deterrence of North Korea, many pointed out that the Washington Declaration, which the presidential office hailed as “de facto nuclear sharing,” would prove ineffective.

“Extended deterrence is something that South Korea and the US have been doing, and it does not seem as if the summit brought anything new to the table,” said Lee Sang-man. “One document cannot solve everything.”

Lee Nam-joo, a professor of Chinese studies at Sungkonghoe University, stated that extended deterrence “is not a matter of whether something can be done, but a matter of will.”

“Matters of will cannot be taken for granted,” he said, “no matter how much our allies promise to stay true to them.”

Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies, remarked, “The rhetoric used has emphasized the fact that we are an alliance, but the words hold no substance. Enough has been said when we see how South Korea says that the Washington Declaration has promised nuclear sharing, while the US disagrees.”

Some experts agreed that strengthening extended deterrence was the right action to take.

“I think that the agreement on strengthening extended deterrence is a good step forward,” assessed Wi. “Some people criticize the agreement for abandoning the option of nuclear armament or nuclear relocation on the Korean Peninsula, but since those options are not realistic, moving towards strengthening extended deterrence seems to be the wisest option.”

Many believe that the summit will lead to strong retaliations from North Korea.

“If a strategic nuclear submarine enters the Korean Peninsula, it could be a threat to North Korea, but at the same time, North Korea could use that as a way to justify its actions,” Lee Nam-joo said.

“It appears that North Korea will consider the surrounding environment, but will not hesitate to make decisions,” stated Yang Moo-jin. “The ‘audacious initiative’ has become nothing but a distant vision, and the true intention of pressuring North Korea over human rights is becoming apparent.”

“North Korea grants legitimacy to the regime through nuclear weapons, so they will come out swinging irrespective of the outcome of the summit meeting,” said Lee Sang-man.

Wi stated, “Strengthening deterrence against North Korea is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. A breakthrough is only possible through dialogue and negotiations, and that part still remains to be dealt with.”

The experts forecast that the backlash from China and Russia will also become stronger.

“To China and Russia, Korea’s diplomacy seems to have swung much further toward the US than in the past,” Wi said. “This is why China and Russia are pushing back, and this can be viewed as a big challenge for Korea.”

“From the perspective of China and Russia, missile defense networks are the most sensitive of all intelligence systems,” said Lee Hea-jeong, a professor of international relations at Chung-Ang University. “The problem will grow bigger if strategic US assets enter the East Sea or West Sea.”

Kim Heung-kyu was even concerned about the possibility of physical clashes with China. “The waves of tension will rise in the West Sea,” he said. “We might see Chinese warships appear in the West Sea more frequently, and this increases the risk of clashes at sea.”

“In terms of economic cooperation, even if China does not implement any specific sanctions against Korea, they will continue to act in ways that make Korea uncomfortable,” he added.

However, Lee Sang-man believes China will “react very sensitively to strategic nuclear submarines” making port calls in Korea. “But then if Korea makes concessions, there is the risk that China will view us as easy to push around,” he said.

The experts noted that Korea must move away from values-based diplomacy and focus on practical benefits.

“The only way to persuade the public is to try and find some way to balance interests,” Kim added.

“What we need is ‘multi-directional diplomacy’ rather than ‘placatory diplomacy’ that is heavily weighted toward the US,” Lee Hae-jeong noted.

Yang predicted more severe conflict with North Korea, China and Russia, while adding, “It is important to prevent the situation from deteriorating. We need the strategic flexibility to be ambiguous or clear-cut depending on the matter at hand.”

By Shin Hyeong-cheol, staff reporter; Jang Ye-ji, staff reporter

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