For those not closely following international affairs, Korea's mission chief to Washington and the nation's hottest K-pop group both got on the G2's nerves recently.
“Just because (South) Korea chose the U.S. 70 years ago does not mean it has to choose the U.S. for the next 70 years, too,” Ambassador Lee said during the National Assembly's online audit of the administration last week. Lee went on to say that “adhering to a decades-old alliance without love is an insult to America.”
The U.S. State Department wasted no time rebutting Lee's remark, stressing that it is “extremely proud of the U.S.-South Korea alliance.” Right-wing media outlets and politicians here heaped criticism on Lee over his comments, with some calling for him to be ousted for “hurting the nation's most important alliance.”
Two weeks ago, BTS received an award that recognized advancements in Korean-American relations. In reference to the 1950-53 Korean War, the band's leader RM said, “We will always remember the history of pain that our two nations shared and the sacrifices of countless men and women.” RM and his colleagues might not have realized what consequence the seemingly innocuous comment would bring about.
Chinese internet warriors denounced BTS for not recognizing the Chinese soldiers' sacrifices who fought “alongside (North) Korean troops.” The Global Times, China's state paper with a nationalistic tinge, quoted Chinese social media users as saying, “The band's totally one-sided attitude to the Korean War hurts our feelings and negates history.” How could BTS ― or most other foreigners for that matter ― have known some Chinese people's nationalistic zeal had reached that high a level?
Almost all Korean media outlets, liberal and conservative, criticized the Chinese social media users' one-dimensional responses, and the Chinese newspaper's audacity to accuse its Korean counterparts of instigating anti-Chinese biases. But some conservative papers here went too far when they rebuked the Moon Jae-in administration for “not uttering a word against China's arrogance.” Criticism should be rational to be effective. Government officials can, and should, respond to their foreign counterparts if necessary. However, how can a government deal with the foreign public and a paper claiming to be objective?
That said, I can hardly agree with criticism of Ambassador Lee.
Those who sympathize with Lee said his views were not necessarily wrong in principle. Even those sympathizers acknowledged Lee was neither skillful nor diplomatic in expressing them, however. As I see it, Lee doesn't seem to be a skilled ally, either: You don't need to threaten to leave your partner when you will not, or cannot, do so in the foreseeable future.
Let's put ourselves in Lee's shoes for a while. The Donald Trump administration is reluctant to transfer wartime operational control as scheduled under the pretext of Korea's insufficient preparedness, adamant in jacking up Korea's share of defense expenses by 50 to 500 percent, and persistent in demanding Seoul join in Washington's containment of Beijing.
U.S. ambassadors to Korea have not hesitated to make remarks about intervening in the host country's internal affairs if Seoul showed the slightest gesture of veering away from Washington. Should the Korean ambassador to the U.S. not express his views even for a test assuming the two are equal and reciprocal partners? President Trump even seems to prefer North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to President Moon Jae-in.
For Trump, South Korea appears to be little more than an ATM ― the harder you press the button, the more the money comes out. Koreans know the U.S. is indispensable for their national security, and China will become even more overbearing than now if America leaves here once and for all, which is highly unlikely, anyway.
Just as Korea can hardly remain secure militarily without the U.S., it cannot survive economically without China. Even so, it will be increasingly difficult to maintain equidistance between Washington and Beijing or take sides with one or the other, alternately and conveniently, depending on issues.
However difficult the tight-rope walk may be, that's the only remaining option for Korea because of its geopolitical destiny. Almost all countries on this planet will be forced to pick a side in the G2 rivalry sooner or later, although the pressure of choice is harshest on this divided peninsula. Seoul has few other choices but to set up and stick to a set of justifiable and unobjectionable principles ― peace, democracy, free trade, environment protection and help for less developed countries ― and forge international solidarity with like-minded foreign partners.
It is not easy for a middle power surrounded by far larger countries to survive and prosper. However, Korea can give it a try if it can meet two preconditions ― securing economic power and internal unity.
Blocking Korea's progress to that goal are also two obstacles ― fatalism as a small country that great powers should determine their fate, and an excessively ideological approach to foreign policy. So, the rightists here say South Korea should not raise issues with anything the U.S. does, and liberal governments are enduring humiliation by North Korea to seek an inter-Korean rapprochement ― only for the sake of remaining in power.
In the U.S. presidential election, candidates prioritize domestic issues ahead of foreign ones because there is bipartisan consensus regarding international matters where key national interests are at stake. In this country, even foreign policy makes an about-face if the political power shifts from left to right or the other way round.
President Trump has revived the “America first” policy of the early 20th century, marked by isolationist and non-interventionist stances on international issues. Korea needs to minimize its involvement in the U.S.-China fight over global domination.
The time has come for a “Korea first” policy.
Choi Sung-jin (choisj1955@naver.com) is a Korea Times columnist.