The Participatory Government's foreign policy is taking on a clearer tone. The role of Northeast Asian "balance keeper" that President Roh Moo Hyun spoke of at the end of February on the occasion of his second year in office is spreading to various areas of national policy. At the time he used the term gyunhyeongja ("balancer," "stabilizer") as he spoke of a sovereign military with its own operational authority, and then on March 22 at a military academy graduation he spoke boldly of how "the choices Korea makes will determine the landscape of Northeast Asia." During the same span of time high-ranking officials in foreign and unification affairs said things that were similar, and on Thursday officials explained why there would be no three-party alliance composed of Korea, the United States, and Japan.
Given how the president and high placed members of his government are speaking with almost the same voice, it looks like the "independent diplomacy" that is symbolized by the "stabilizer" doctrine is not an impromptu product developed to excite the people's sentiments. You do manage to sense evidence of serious agonizing over the current political climate. Korea was pressured from all directions by major foreign powers at the end of the 19th century and the experience after Liberation, however, was also that "independent diplomacy" was just for show. When you remember that, it is apparent that an independent foreign policy is not something that sees action just because you suddenly declare that is the route you are going to take. If the Roh Moo Hyun doctrine - which is what you can call the Participatory Government's new foreign policy - is going to take root, then it is essential that it be based on cool-headed analysis and bold ideas.
Conservatives who criticize the idea of Northeast Asian "stabilizer" say Roh is ignoring the harsh realities of international politics, which is inevitably based in physical strength and do-or-die interests. Korea is under the direct influence of the United States, so departing from American leadership to act independently is essentially impossible, they say. We think, however, it is that kind of logic that does not fit with the reality, because the Cold War order is not yet dissolving in Northeast Asia as smoothly as it should be with a new regional order of international cooperation taking its place, and because there's the supremacy of the US as a superpower on the one hand while confrontation between the hegemonism and nationalism of Japan and China is intensifying. Korea has to survive amidst such intense conflicts of interest between powerful nations, so what is more important than anything else is that Korea see to it that peace is established on the peninsula and prevent the outbreak of regional conflicts. Being a "stabilizer" and peacemaker is extremely difficult if you are too comfortable with any one of the camps that is in confrontation.
It is very ironic that the Participatory Government expresses the confidence to lead the Northeast Asian landscape according to Korea's wishes while on the other hand stressing the need to strengthen the US-Korean alliance. It appears to have made the judgment that there needs to be "well intentioned intervention" by the US in order to keep the arbitrary moves of the powerful nations surrounding the peninsula in check. It also appears to have made the calculation that there would be nothing to be gained from openly offending US sensibilities. But there should be no need for a new explanation about which country, either Korea or Japan, the US places more importance on in managing East Asia. The approach of the Bush Administration is clear when it comes to elevating the US's relationship with Japan to a similar level as that of the alliance between the US and the United Kingdom.
That being the reality, the Participatory Government will be able to win the country's understanding only by presenting the people with a concrete plan, if, that is, it is ready to stop being pulled around by the unilateral policies of powerful nations and establish some independent space to work with. It is not enough to explain the idea by saying Koreans were always a peace loving people who have not invaded a neighboring nation for hundreds of years, or that Korea should have confidence in its national strength now that it has one of the world's ten largest economies.
The government's emphasis on increasing military strength that possess the ability to engage in self-defense could encourage a regional arms race. That question is not something that should be entrusted exclusively to the government; it is something for civil society, including academia, to give serious discussion. Once there is a majority consensus on a course for foreign policy and a concrete plan, Korea can play a leading part in bringing peace and prosperity instead of being the regional "stabilizer."
The Hankyoreh, 1 April 2005.
[Translations by Seoul Selection (PMS)]
[Editorial] Leading the Way to Peace |
