 |
The Seoul-Washington blood alliance stands like a holy union that does not have any expiration date on it. But, I wonder whether the South Korea-U.S. defense alliance suits the principles of free democracy and, more importantly, Korea’s national interest in a rapidly changing world. Korea’s rightist educational wing has named the start of the independence movement against Japanese colonial rule as the origin of modern democratic nationalism. Today, some right-wing scholars also try to depict King Kojong (1863-1907) of the Chosun dynasty as an enlightened ruler. Although those behind the independence movement and King Kojong differed in the specifics of their political philosophy, they all supported neutral diplomacy in principle, one that was founded on a balance of power. It is true that both relied on a certain power at a certain time. Nonetheless, they all sought to keep a certain distance from the powerful states that competed each other for hegemony on the Korean Peninsula. This diplomatic strategy, however, failed because they did not earn the hearts and minds of the public, and due to a severe conflict in the ruling class as well as the lack of industrial foundation and military force that could support neutral diplomacy. However, to their credit, without such efforts put in place the colonization of the Korean Peninsula would have come much sooner than it did. During the Cold War era, the neutral diplomacy that characterized the late Korean kingdom was seen as radicalism that only leftist reformists could "dare" to imagine. Today, however, South Korea’s Cold War enemy, China, has transformed from enemy to largest trading partner. Then, is there any legitimate reason for us to still demonize neutral diplomacy? Now, South Korea is sandwiched between China and the U.S., unable to give up either of them, looking very much like Sweden before World War II. At that time, Sweden’s exports to the U.K. and Germany were about the same. Sweden made a great effort to build its own military to be ready for any aggression and declared itself neutral when the war broke out. Doing so prevented Sweden from suffering the enormous loss of lives and wealth. It also paved the way for Sweden to become a model welfare state. What today’s Korea shares with the Sweden of 70 years ago is that unlike the late Korean kingdom, it now has its own military force that can effectively nullify a possible outside aggression. That also means that it now has enough power to support neutral policy, if it wants to. On the other hand, where South Korea differs from Sweden is that Sweden, by the time it declared neutrality, had already maintained just such a neutrality for over a century. On the contrary, Korea’s ruling class has long been mentally bound by the Seoul-Washington military alliance, which they see as a de facto fundamental national policy, or even as a condition for the nation’s survival. The ruling Social Democratic Party of Sweden took the protection of its citizens as its priority by not being pulled into World War II. On the other hand, we clearly saw the priorities of Korea’s ruling class when it sent troops to Iraq, and when it granted strategic flexibility to the U.S. forces in Korea to be deployed to wider conflict zones. As China is becoming stronger, the world now faces a "new Cold War" that may unpredictably turn out to be a fierce military conflict. Then, is it wise for South Korea to continue to render blind loyalty to a hegemonic power that often invades other countries? The time is nigh for South Korea to engage in a discussion to seek a way to extricate itself from the hegemonic competition surrounding the Korean Peninsula. It is necessary and urgent to do it immediately, at a minimum to protect its innocent citizens from harm’s way. Tomorrow will be too late.
