2023-05-07 05:54:15
[한겨레21] Yoon Seok-yeol Administration 1 year diplomacy and security
Lost history and peace, gained old ideology
President Yoon Seok-yeol shakes hands with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida while taking a commemorative photo at the official residence of the Prime Minister in Tokyo, Japan in March. yunhap news
The Yoon Seok-yeol administration sold ‘history’ at the Korea-Japan summit, and sold ‘peace’ at the Korea-US summit. So what did you get? What is lost is profit, and what is gained is only ‘old ideology’. The world order is changing rapidly. All countries pursue ‘profit’ to survive in the changing order. In the era of self-reliance, the United States is no exception. However, one year following the inauguration of the Yoon Seok-yeol government, which chose an ideology, what is the problem?
Pursuing an ideology in an age of profit
The diplomacy of the Yoon Seok-yeol administration is only triangular cooperation among South Korea, the United States, and Japan. He made concessions on historical issues in Korea-Japan relations, converted Korea’s traditional Asia-Pacific strategy to an Indo-Pacific strategy, and strengthened triangular cooperation between Korea, the US and Japan in the military field. Naturally, the era of the Northern Policy that has been maintained for the past 30 years since the Roh Tae-woo administration has come to an end. Of course, that does not mean that there is no will or strategy for the southern policy. Relations with the North cannot be good due to deteriorating inter-Korean relations, strategic competition between the US and China, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. However, the camp confrontation between South Korea, the US, and Japan and North Korea, China, and Russia is just beginning and is long-term, so a transitional transition for a considerable period of time is required. Even the United States acknowledges China’s role as a ‘production hub’ in the consumer goods sector, while competing with China in the high-tech sector. Japan also follows US policy towards Russia, but does not give up national interests such as natural gas imports. Not to mention India and Australia, many countries approach the US-China competition from a national interest perspective and respond flexibly. The Yoon Seok-yeol government chose an alternative too quickly. The United States and Japan both compete while minimizing profit loss, and numerous buffer countries show flexibility by putting national interests first, but only Korea chose one side too quickly. Although the current situation is moving toward counter-globalization, the intricate interdependence of globalization is also a stark reality, and too many things have been given up too soon. First, the trade balance turned into a deficit. Temporary trade deficits caused by COVID-19 containment or the slowdown in China’s economy can be recovered if circumstances change. However, in a situation where the division of labor between Korea and China is already structurally changing, if deterioration in political and diplomatic relations has a negative impact on the economy, the future of the Korean economy is very bleak. Of course, the US and Japan will not make up for the deterioration in Korea-China relations, and there is no such structure for division of labor, and there is no way to do so.
Even if you concede first, they won’t give you favors
Alliances can also be sustained only when interests are harmonized. The present United States is no longer the United States that served as the eldest brother of the free camp in the past Cold War era. Both Republicans and Democrats pursue ‘America First’. At this Korea-US summit, the US did not make any concessions on the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), but demanded that South Korea make concessions in the field of nuclear power plant exports. At a press conference for the Korea-US summit on April 26, 2023 (local time), US President Joe Biden emphasized that “Korean companies have invested more than $100 billion in the US since taking office.” He used the profits he gained in Korea as a justification for running for re-election. In a reality where politics and economy are not separated due to the security of the supply chain, the political risk of Korean companies has increased. What can we gain from triangular cooperation between Korea, the US and Japan? The reason why the US is praising Japan’s role in East Asia is because of the sharing of security costs, and Japan uses this as an opportunity to transform itself into a ‘state capable of war’. Why would the US appreciate South Korea’s efforts to reconcile South Korea and Japan? In the South Korea-US-Japan triangle that the United States envisioned following the Korean War, Korea-Japan relations have always been a conflict. The United States, which acted as a mediator whenever there was a conflict over historical issues, always demanded more concessions from the conceding side. Despite criticism from the majority of the public and the cautious approach of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the United States cannot help but highly praise the Yoon Seok-yeol administration, which has made concessions at a level incomparable to previous South Korean governments. The Japanese government of Fumio Kishida also took advantage of South Korea’s concessions as an opportunity to raise approval ratings. Neither the United States nor Japan pursues profits, so concessions first do not give favors later. We need to understand the grim reality of making more concessions if you make concessions.
Why did Reagan negotiate with the Soviet Union?
In the ‘Washington Declaration’, Korea obtained ‘regular visibility’ (regular deployment) of the consultative body for extended deterrence and strategic assets. The United States set a wedge in public opinion on nuclear development within South Korea by specifying compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Korea-US Atomic Energy Agreement. What is it that the Yoon Seok-yeol government claims to have gained here? The ‘nuclear sharing’ claimed by some conservatives and certain government officials was not obtained. ‘De facto nuclear sharing’ was also not true. Did the director in charge of the US National Security Council (NSC) call in Korean correspondents right following the summit and say that the agreement “does not view it as ‘de facto nuclear sharing’?” This is an unprecedented response. Originally, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nuclear sharing cannot be realized on the Korean Peninsula. in any form. Since Europe has tactical nuclear weapons, the concept of ‘nuclear sharing’ is valid, but there is no plan to redeploy tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula. How do you mean sharing ‘absent nucleus’? Of course, the concept of ‘nuclear sharing’, whether practical or de facto, was not established from the beginning. The Yoon Seok-yeol government made too many concessions to get the concept of ‘nuclear sharing’ impossible from the start. The same goes for “extended deterrence,” which means nuclear umbrella. As long as the ROK-US alliance is maintained, the extended deterrence pledge remains valid. There is no reason to create an additional council. Strategies to respond to North Korea’s nuclear attack are included in the operational plans of both South Korea and the United States, are being modified and developed according to North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, and are already being reflected in South Korea-US military exercises. As you will see in the future, the council may be open for show, but there is no reason to open it. The same is true for strategic asset allocation. The US had already pursued the efficiency of US military forces abroad in the name of ‘strategic flexibility’ during the George W. Bush administration. Fighters, aircraft carriers, and submarines equipped with nuclear weapons cannot be tied to the Korean Peninsula. It is decided to come near the Korean Peninsula. It comes when joint military exercises or when the area around the Korean Peninsula and the scope of operations are linked. I mean, it’s not that different from now. More importantly, the range or range of operation of US strategic assets is not limited to North Korea, but is aimed at China. Each time, military tension in Northeast Asia rises, leading to countermeasure drills by North Korea, China, and Russia, and security costs must be paid accordingly. Of course, the government’s more important responsibility than preparing for a nuclear war is to resolve the nuclear issue. Here, I would like to introduce how US President Ronald Reagan, a Cold War warrior who regarded dialogue and negotiation as ‘a word only for cowards’, changed his mind and entered into negotiations with the Soviet Union. On November 20, 1983, the American Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) aired a movie regarding nuclear war. President Reagan was one of the 100 million people who saw this film regarding the horrors of nuclear war. He was shocked and told the relevant ministries to report the nuclear war scenario. He was even more shocked to learn that the difference between the movie and reality was not that great. He felt the need to control nuclear weapons, so he might negotiate with the Soviet Union to end the Cold War.
Diplomacy that cannot be entrusted to the president
Diplomacy is done by the president. In other fields, experts can be selected and entrusted to them, but diplomacy cannot. The ‘presidential risk’ of Korean diplomacy is serious. The first problem with President Yoon Seok-yeol is that he does not use ‘diplomatic language’. There is a reason why the United States criticizes North Korea but says ‘the door to dialogue is open’ and criticizes China but does not leave out the ‘one China’ principle. Diplomacy is not war, it is to leave room for cooperation even in confrontations. The harsher the president’s words, the harder it is for foreign affairs officials who have to follow up. Second, he does not recognize the need to manage the situation. It is true that the resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue is far from over. Inter-Korean relations are also a reality that cannot be easily resolved. But don’t give up on solving the problem. At the same time, even if a solution is difficult, the president has the responsibility to manage the situation in a stable manner. This is because if the situation deteriorates, we will lose more than North Korea. It is necessary to understand why former President Chun Doo-hwan held talks with North Korea despite the Burmese (Myanmar) Aung San Incident. Third, they are immersed in excessive ideology. As in the case of nuclear sharing, the conservative media catches the wind, and the government prioritizes negotiations on ‘ideas that are not feasible’ from the beginning, and the vicious cycle of giving up the national interest that should be obtained in practice continues. Due to the authoritarian nature of the policy-making process, the functional role of civil servants is also not visible. “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is power.” The reality of facing the slogan of a totalitarian state in George Orwell’s <<< I believe in the resilience of democracy in Korea in the long term, but it is very regrettable that the national prestige has fallen until then. Kim Yeon-cheol, Professor at Inje University and former Minister of Unification
1683475003
#General #politics #Politics #News #Hankyoreh
