honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser
Posted on: Sunday, January 25, 2004

COMMENTARY
U.S.-South Korea: Tough times ahead?

By Ralph A. Cossa

Is the relationship between the United States and South Korea in for some tough times?

Foreign Minister Yoon Young-kwan chatted with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly after their talks in Seoul last April. Yoon's firing suggests the U.S.- South Korea relations will remain rocky.

Advertiser library photo • April 25, 2003

The answer is yes, but not because of the recent forced resignation of "pro-American" Foreign Minister Yoon Young-kwan (whose steady, mature leadership will nonetheless be missed).

Yoon did not lose his job for being too supportive of Washington. He was compelled to resign because of inflammatory comments by outspoken subordinates in a society where a boss is held accountable — a hard concept for Americans to grasp, since all too frequently our leaders seem unaccountable even for their own actions.

Foreign Ministry officials, particularly those associated with maintaining the U.S.-South Korea alliance, had become more open (and provocative) in complaining about the actions of "progressives" within the South Korean National Security Council (led by Deputy National Security Adviser Lee Jong-seok), whom they reportedly identified as "junior Kim Jong-ils" or "the Taliban."

President Roh Moo-hyun saw the need to "strengthen discipline" after these "absurd remarks" that represented "disobedience to the president." Ever gracious, Minister Yoon accepted full responsibility. He will be replaced by the president's adviser for foreign policy, Ban Ki-moon, a highly regarded career diplomat with close ties to the United States, in a signal that maintaining good relations with Washington remains a priority.

There has been considerable debate within the Roh administration from the start, not so much over whether the alliance should be maintained (although some Roh supporters question even this) but more over the degree of responsiveness to Washington. The debate over the decision to send additional South Korean forces to Iraq was reportedly very heated. The final decision, to send 3,000 troops, seems to have pleased no one, with the conservatives arguing that a larger number should have been sent and many of Roh's core supporters insisting that none be sent at all.

While the Bush administration was clearly hoping for a larger combat contingent, the decision must still be seen as a "victory" for the alliance. South Korean forces will comprise the third-largest foreign military force in Iraq (after the United States and Britain).

Despite the firing, President Roh has reaffirmed that strong ties with Washington are "essential" and that bilateral relations are "as firm as ever." Even "Taliban" leader Lee Jong-seok tried to appear reassuring, noting that "Although there are some concerns, there would be no (negative) change in the Korea-U.S. alliance and cooperation."

If this is so, then why is the alliance so troubled? There are a number of reasons. First is the recognition that more heads will roll, especially from within Seoul's already demoralized North American Affairs Division which, inappropriate comments notwithstanding, has legitimate complaints about the ideological battles it must fight to implement Roh's professed commitment to keep the alliance relationship strong.

Even more troubling was the way in which the firing was announced. Insubordination (plus accusations of intelligence leaks) would have been sufficient. But the presidential adviser announcing Yoon's "resignation" went on to stress that "Some Foreign Ministry officials neither swerved from the "dependent" foreign-policy paradigm of the past nor properly understood the basic concepts and direction of the participatory government's new 'independent' foreign policy." "Dependent" is an emotion-loaded phrase used to discredit those who appear too close to the United States.

It would thus appear that, even as one set of advisers was sending signals that the alliance was and must remain strong, others were playing the anti-American card, perhaps signaling that the president — facing contentious parliamentary elections in April — may once again choose to play the "will not kowtow to Washington" game that he played so successfully in winning election in the first place.

It has been President Roh's proclivity for sending mixed signals that has caused much of the foreign policy confusion in South Korea, and between Washington and Seoul, since his inauguration last February. For example, almost every time there is a joint statement laying out a firm position vis-a-vis North Korea, there will invariably be a contradictory statement from another senior spokesman complaining about U.S. inflexibility, notwithstanding the fact that Pyongyang would not even have allowed Seoul a seat at the Six-Party Talks had President Bush not refused to yield on this issue. As long as Pyongyang sees that its stubbornness still causes divisions between Washington and Seoul, it has little incentive to come back to the bargaining table.

It is encouraging to see President Roh insist that his subordinates follow his policy directions ... but only if this is enforced evenly. If, instead, the president has merely decided to exploit the situation by replaying the anti-U.S. card to shore up his fragile political base — especially at a time when public-opinion polls show a steady decline in South Koreans' faith in either Washington or the alliance — then there will be serious trouble ahead.

Ralph A. Cossa is president of the Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based nonprofit research institute affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., and senior editor of Comparative Connections, a quarterly electronic journal.