South Korea has elected a new president, Park Geun-hye. A member
of the ruling party, she looks to be the Republic of Korea’s George
H.W. Bush, who followed Ronald Reagan promising moderation. For
instance, Park has pledged to go easier on North Korea.
The so-called Democratic People’s Republic of Korea remains a
problem child. A year ago the dictator died, leaving his son, Kim
Jong-un, in at least nominal charge. The latter has projected a
more youthful, even hip, image, but nothing of substance has
changed. The North Korean people remain in Stalinist bondage,
economically impoverished and politically oppressed.
For a decade liberal ROK presidents — Kim Dae-jung and Roh
Mo-hyun — followed what they called the “Sunshine Policy,” which
involved large-scale investment in and aid to the North with little
required in return. Both South Korean leaders even traveled to
Pyongyang for summits. The hope was to ease decades of military
confrontation. Alas, the DPRK continued its missile and nuclear
programs, maintained its large conventional military deployments
along the Demilitarized Zone, and persisted in its provocative
threat-making.
After Lee Myung-bak was elected ROK president in 2007, he
changed course. Although not willing to cut off North Korea
entirely — the cost of terminating existing investment projects
would be high — he closed the open financial spigot for the North.
Pyongyang responded with screams of outrage, additional missile and
nuclear tests, and attacks on a South Korea military vessel and
island. That hostility has continued under the new DPRK regime.
None of this would matter much to America if the U.S. did not
defend the ROK. President Harry Truman intervened in 1950 in what
he termed a “police action” to stop a full-scale North Korean
invasion. China then entered to save the North and the conflict
ended inconclusively near where it began. No peace treaty was ever
signed and American troops have remained on station ever since.
The Sunshine Policy created the spectacle of Seoul paying off
its potential aggressor which America was simultaneously deterring.
Unfortunately, DPRK simply took the money and ran. Billions of
dollars later nothing had changed. The ROK could continue with a
policy that wasn’t working only because American military personnel
and taxpayers were on call.
Unsurprisingly, the Bush and Obama administrations embraced the
Lee government. Yet a curious domestic political backlash soon
developed in the ROK: support grew for a more conciliatory course
with the North. This year both presidential candidates embraced a
move back to the future.
Leftish Moon Jae-in advocated a return to the Sunshine Policy,
including holding another summit. The architect of his North Korea
policy explained that the ROK “should take the lead” because “If we
don’t make a move first, nobody else will.” That, of course, would
mean more aid with fewer conditions. Moon’s position could be
summarized as: Maybe this time the North Koreans can be
bribed to be nice.
Park took a similar rhetorical position, though she appeared to
be more cautious in practice. A decade ago she met the late Kim
Jong-il, who she declared was “comfortable to talk to” and appeared
to be someone “who would keep his word.” However, Pyongyang did not
return the praise, losing few opportunities to vilify her during
the campaign. The North even concocted a Gangnam-style spoof video
attacking her.
She did indicate that an apology for recent military
provocations would be necessary before any meeting with Kim
Jong-un. However, she advocated separating humanitarian assistance
from politics — which is impossible for the North, since any
government-to-government aid is seen as a concession. Nevertheless,
her election probably means a resumption of food shipments, at
least.
Her main difference with Moon appeared to be to endorse economic
assistance only if the DPRK responded in some fashion. She spoke of
“trust building” with the DPRK, a daunting task when the latter
sinks South Korean ships and bombards South Korean islands. Even
she acknowledged that “shoveling” aid to Pyongyang had only
resulted in a “fake” peace, and called for progress on nuclear
disarmament to promote bilateral relations.
The latter sounds good, but appears to reflect the triumph of
hope over experience. She will be under pressure to “move first,”
granting concessions in the hope of inducing the North to
reciprocate. This risks subsidizing the world’s worst government
which continues to threaten her nation. Alas, so far nothing
suggests a greater willingness in the North to adopt genuine
détente. Talk of economic reform so far has been largely
unfulfilled, and there is no evidence of political reform. Indeed,
the Kim regime actually has tightened controls along the border
with China. As long as Beijing is prepared to provide abundant
investment and aid, the DPRK faces only limited pressure to
change.
South Korea’s problems run deeper than its politicians, however.
Pyongyang continues to possess the means and claims to have the
will to do the ROK great harm, but many South Koreans no longer
care. Last week’s rocket launch received international attention,
but didn’t seem to be have “much effect on the current presidential
contest one way or the other” reported John Delury of Yonsei
University. Since Pyongyang already possesses short-range missiles
that could hit the ROK, “most people don’t see this rocket launch
as a security threat.”
Nor do they seem to see much else in the North as a threat. Choi
Jong-kun of Yonsei University
said: “Threat perception overall toward North Korea has
somewhat waned.” Even violent incidents are nothing new. Explained
Choi: “It’s been going on for the last 20 years, despite so many
sporadic skirmishes, virtually nothing has happened.”
Younger South Koreans are the least concerned. They don’t fear
the North, see the need for U.S. troops, or long for reunification.
An unnamed official at the Ministry of Unification told World
Affairs Journal that “Young people in Korea are not really
interested in North Korea.” They are leading comfortable lives and
“believe in the old policy, coexistence.” They also tend to get
most angry at the impact of America’s military presence, from
crimes committed to sovereignty violated.
Park’s election may complicate the ROK’s relationship with
Washington. The Obama administration appears to be skeptical of any
new North Korean initiatives. That is unlikely to change after the
North’s rocket launch. If Seoul moves forward, it could resurrect
the tensions of the 2000s, when George W. Bush pushed isolation and
liberal Kim Dae-jung practiced engagement.
It is time for Washington to ask: Why is America guaranteeing
the security of a country that worries ever less about its own
security? Moreover, the South is well able to defend itself — it
enjoys roughly a 40-1 economic advantage, for instance. Yet even
the conservative Lee government allowed South Korean military
outlays to lag. Surely the U.S. should not pay to defend a country
that subsidizes its enemy.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently argued: “We maintain
those forces not only for help and protection of South Korea but
also as a force to indicate that the United States is going to
always maintain a military presence in the Pacific.” However,
alliances and deployments should be a means to an end, not an end
in themselves. Why maintain such a presence?
Emergency access to ROK bases would be helpful to meet
unexpected contingencies, but the permanent presence of an army
division with no obvious use anywhere wastes American resources and
entangles American forces. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates
made the obvious point that anyone advocating another land war in
Asia should “have his head examined.”
Just as many South Koreans no longer worry much about the DPRK,
Americans should no longer worry much about the ROK. The Cold War
is over, South Korea’s security is not vital to that of America,
and the South can safeguard its own future. Moreover, Washington is
effectively broke and no longer can afford to treat defense
spending as welfare for its friends.
South Korea has much of which to be proud. An impoverished
dictatorship has become a prosperous democracy. If the new
president wants to go back to appeasing the North, that is South
Korea’s prerogative. However, there’s no reason for Washington to
be subsidizing it.
