[Column] Yoon must keep steady hand on S. Korea’s foreign policy and security

Posted on : 2022-05-10 17:03 KST Modified on : 2022-05-10 17:03 KST
There are no conservatives, no progressives, no ruling parties, and no opposition parties in diplomacy and security
Seong Han-yong
Seong Han-yong
By Seong Han-yong, senior editorial writer

President Yoon Suk-yeol’s term has started as of Tuesday, May 10. Barring any extraordinary circumstances, the president of the Republic of Korea for the next five years will be Yoon Suk-yeol.

Since the 1987 constitutional amendment that allowed for direct elections, essentially all presidents achieved similar results when it came to the South Korean economy. The size of the economy has grown, but the potential growth rate has fallen. The number of irregular workers increased and polarization has become worse.

The economy has a large private sector. The main agents of the economy are workers and users; the people and businesses. The role of the government is to support and monitor the economy, but it has its limitations. So long as they don’t make any massive mistakes like President Kim Young-sam setting off the 1997 Asian financial crisis, no matter who becomes president, the country will not immediately collapse or prosper economically.

However, results differ much more significantly when it comes to the fields of foreign policy and security. Presidents Roh Tae-woo, Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun, and Moon Jae-in did well, while Lee Myung-bak, Park Geun-hye, and Kim Young-sam were less successful.

President Roh Tae-woo adopted his Nordpolitik while the administrations of Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun, and Moon Jae-in all held inter-Korean summits. During this period, the dark clouds of war were lifted from the Korean Peninsula giving way to an atmosphere of peace. However, progress on inter-Korean relations froze under Lee and Park while a war almost broke out on the peninsula during Kim Young-sam’s administration and in the early days of Moon’s presidency.

What exactly can be attributed to these differences in performance in foreign policy and security? This is due to the difference in vision and capabilities of the presidents. Unlike the economy, diplomacy and security have almost no private sector — these are areas that are practically 100% government-led. This means that if the president makes a wrong decision, the country and the people are the ones put in danger.

Moreover, international circumstances and luck also play a big role. For example, Kim Young-sam agreed to hold an inter-Korean summit with North Korean leader Kim Il-sung on July 25, 1994. He was determined to get the North to abandon its development of nuclear weapons and make war an impossibility.

However, 15 days before the meeting, Kim Il-sung died after having a heart attack. After this, inter-Korean relations deteriorated significantly. If the 1994 inter-Korean summit had actually taken place, the peace process on the Korean Peninsula would have been accelerated.

Another example can be found in the Lee Myung-bak administration. On July 11, 2008, Lee made a speech at the National Assembly, saying he was “willing to consult with North Korea on how to implement the July 4 Joint Communique, the Inter-Korean Basic Agreement, the Joint Declaration on Denuclearization (1992), the June 15 Joint Declaration (2000), and the Oct. 4 Declaration (2007) agreed upon in the past.” However, on the same day, a South Korean tourist visiting Mt. Geumgang was shot and killed by North Korean soldiers. This unfortunate incident once again led to a total freeze in inter-Korean relations.

Lee’s “Vision 3000: Denuclearization and Openness” plan, which many say called for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons before South Korea started providing any kind of support, was not well understood. In fact, it was a pragmatic policy that aimed to support North Korea step by step from the beginning of North Korea’s abandonment of its nuclear weapons.

Had it not been for the death of the tourist, Lee would have been able to have made significant progress in inter-Korean relations.

So then what will come of President Yoon Suk-yeol's foreign policy and security plans? Yoon’s campaign pledges included the “realization of complete denuclearization of North Korea,” the “promotion of normalization of inter-Korean relations and joint prosperity,” and the “promotion of unification plans based on national consensus.” However, the roadmap and methods needed to achieve these goals remain unclear.

Yoon has heavily criticized Moon Jae-in’s North Korea policy, accusing him of being “submissive” to North Korea, acting “unilaterally” without garnering public consensus beforehand, and of weakening the joint South Korea-US defense posture by postponing or delaying joint military drills for the sake of rapprochement with Pyongyang. Whichever way we look at it, it seems Yoon’s goal is to go in the complete opposite direction of the Moon administration.

This is worrisome. Yoon is a complete outsider when it comes to foreign policy and security issues. He is said to have been impressed with Milton Friedman's “Free to Choose,” which his father gave him when he started college. When he was a freshman at university, he reportedly boasted that he boozed it up but still received an A+ in professor Park Woo-hee’s Intro to Economics class.

Because he conducted a lot of economic investigations while with the prosecution service, it must be true that he has a certain insight into the basic way the country’s economy functions.

However, foreign policy and security were never Yoon’s areas of interest. These are also not areas covered by the prosecution service. Even though Yoon reportedly read many history books while studying for the bar exam, he doesn’t have the same level of knowledge when it comes to foreign policy or security matters, which is concerning.

In reality, South Korea has only one foreign and security policy. This is the denuclearization of North Korea and gradual peaceful reunification through easing tensions on the peninsula, and balanced diplomacy based on the South Korea-US alliance.

The so-called conservative claims that label the Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun and Moon Jae-in administrations as “pro-North Korean leftists” and “anti-American” and “pro-China” are nothing more than an electoral ploy by the powers that be when it comes to Korea’s division. These claims are neither correct nor true. Yoon must never fall for such lies or engage in such divisive partisan rhetoric.

There are no conservatives, no progressives, no ruling parties, and no opposition parties in diplomacy and security. That's the truth.

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

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

Related stories