ROK-U.S. alliance hanging by a thread

ROK-U.S. alliance hanging by a thread: Experts call on both countries to start working toward a true partnership

by Kim Ji-hyun
The Korea Herald
August 14, 2006

The following is a special report to mark the 53rd anniversary of The Korea Herald. The interviews with renowned experts from Korea, the United States, China and Europe were conducted through e-mail. - Ed.

International experts have collectively raised concerns about the prospects for the decades-long partnership between South Korea and the United States as discord is detected on a wide range of issues, particularly regarding policies toward North Korea.

"In my view, the relations between the U.S. and the Republic of Korea are poor on policy issues, and the future is clouded," said David Steinberg, director of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. "There seems less interest in it in Washington under the Bush administration because of basic disagreements between the U.S. and ROK on how to deal with the North."

Steinberg placed the blame for the troubled relationship equally on the shoulders of both Washington and Seoul. George W. Bush, for failing to showcase a coherent policy toward the North, and Roh Moo-hyun for barging ahead with naive engagement policies regardless of Pyongyang's brinkmanship diplomacy.

A Korean expert echoed this view. "Under presidents Roh and Bush, we are witnessing an increase of tensions and strain between Seoul and Washington," said Woo Seong-ji, professor of international studies at Seoul's Kyung Hee University.

"Both Roh and Bush administrations are to blame for the current turmoil. Roh should be blamed for its naive pro-North Korea stance and vulgar anti-U.S. remarks. Bush needs to be blamed for his excessive anti-North Korea stance and aggressive foreign policy styles that have not been able to propose a workable solution for North Korean nuclear issues."

Washington, despite showcasing efforts to draw North Korea back to the stalled six-party nuclear talks, has not budged from its firm belief that Pyongyang should not be rewarded for its latest provocation with bilateral talks.

This hardball diplomacy is at odds with the position taken by the Seoul government. Breaching the time-honored diplomatic etiquette between allies, President Roh recently said it was "Okay to speak out when our views differ from the United States and when we deem it to be in the wrong over certain issues."

Washington refrained from responding, but voices on Capitol Hill made it clear that Roh's comments were not the kind you'd expect from an ally.

"Washington regards President Roh's 'sunshine policy' of engagement as at best unpragmatic, and at worst counterproductive," said Eugene B. Kogan, a senior political analyst at Americans for Informed Democracy.

The way South Korea coped with the latest missile crisis drew intense criticism from conservatives at home and abroad who questioned Seoul's loyalty to the alliance with Washington, and more importantly, its commitment to national security.

"President's Roh's policy on North Korea has not produced the desired results due to the fact that there has not been a coherent policy toward North Korea," said Paik Hak-soon, director of Inter-Korean Relations Studies Program at Sejong Institute.

One of the reasons he cited were developments in the local political landscape, namely the crushing defeat of the president and Uri Party in the May 31 local elections after which the popularity of the Roh government took a nosedive. It will not be the first time Roh was tempted to use the Pyongyang card - a dramatic inter-Korean reconciliation - to boost his approval rate. This time, the stakes are higher with the presidential ballot looming next year.

Even after the seven ballistic missiles were fired, some of which are capable of hitting targets south of the truce line, Roh refused to acknowledge security risks posed by North Korea. His message to Washington, Tokyo and the rest of the world was that Seoul would persist in dialogue for communicating with Pyongyang.

The administration, although it admittedly badgered the North for more cooperation, failed to muster much cooperation during the acrimonious July inter-Korean talks, and recently, it has signaled its willingness to send humanitarian aid to Pyongyang's flood victims.

Only a few weeks have passed since the government pledged to suspend rice and fertilizer aid to a missile-firing North.

The flood aid is widely viewed to be the South's way of mending fences with the North without making it lose face.

"I want to see continuous ROK engagement with the North, but I hope that the Roh administration will be more skeptical of the North's good will and not react in a supine manner to the North's insults," according to Steinberg of Georgetown University.

If anything, Seoul's approach to North Korea is inching closer to that of China, experts note. As Pyongyang's largest ally, Beijing has maintained a softer attitude toward North Korea and its provocations.

One factor that may help Seoul close the gap with Washington is the upcoming November elections.

The prevailing sentiment is that although dramatic policy changes are unlikely, a Democrat-controlled congress would possibly be more willing to engage the North.

Some believe the six-party talks are contingent on such a shift in Washington's stance on North Korea.

"The six-party talks are still a viable tool for resolving the North Korean nuclear problem, but will remain so as long as North Korea is convinced of a U.S. abandonment of an anti-North Korea policy - that is, U.S. abandonment of an attempt to change the regime in North Korea - and decides to come back to the talks," said Paik of the Sejong Institute.

Hopes remain vested in the talks for the time being as they are probably the best bet for reinforcing regional security, but few experts were willing to predict a favorable outcome in the foreseeable future.

Despite Washington's visible frustration reflected last month when Christopher Hill, the chief U.S. nuclear negotiator said if Pyongyang wishes, it would be isolated, experts ruled out military action from the Bush administration.

"Unless North Korea tests a nuclear weapon or crosses a similar red line, it is inconceivable that the U.S. will use military force against it. If Washington contemplated military action, it would seek to work through the U.N., and China and probably Russia would veto any military action under U.N. auspices," said Kogan of Americans for Informed Democracy.Washington's preoccupation with the Middle East further dims the possibility of its taking unilateral action, he adds.

For the U.S.-South Korea alliance to conquer the fundamental differences over North Korea, analysts suggest both sides stop aggravating the other and to start working toward a "true alliance."

"I do believe that the alliance has a future. However, it depends on a strongly increased sensitivity in Washington towards the many constraints that the South is facing. There is a good chance and a great need to develop a new, true alliance now. I suggest not to look back with a false sense of nostalgia, but to move ahead with fresh concepts," said Ruediger Frank, professor of East Asian Political Economy at the University of Vienna.

Others call for the two countries to work out a common set of strategic visions for the region.

Washington, for its part is urged to make clear to its allies what its strategic priorities are toward Pyongyang: is it nuclear disarmament, human rights, or regime change, experts say. To reciprocate, Seoul should take the initiative to open more foreign policy discussion channels with its largest ally.

Regional interests: Japan vs. China

Another dimension to Pyongyang's latest missile launch is Japan's military interests. Stoking concern among its regional neighbors, Tokyo is visibly building a stronger military force.

"One of the key misgivings North Korea must have had after the missile launch is that it helped the Japanese ultra-right wing," said Paik of Sejong, who added Japan has capitalized on the missile tests to empower its military.

Unlike Washington, expert views underline that it is not unconceivable for Tokyo to adopt drastic military measures if North Korea crosses a major red line, such as testing a nuclear weapon.

Tokyo, which has lately enjoyed a tight relationship with Washington, has been jointly developing a missile defense program with the Bush administration to help ward off global nuclear threats, namely North Korea.

Following the missile launch, Japanese conservatives triggered a controversy for allegedly suggesting preemptive strikes against North Korea.

China, which has grown into one of Japan's largest competitors in the region, is clearly disturbed.

"The nuclear issue and the recent missile testing have already been used by Japan as excuses to make amendments to its constitution and to strengthen its military capability," said Liu Yongsheng, research fellow at China Arms Control and Disarmament Association. "What Japan has been doing is very detrimental to international efforts to settle the nuclear issue peacefully, and is equivalent to pouring oil on the fire."

Protests over Japan's military buildup are mostly anchored in a belief that it could cause neighbors like China and Russia to overreact.

An environment of such tension would have a negative effect on the weaker players in the region, namely South Korea.

"Based on that scenario, which is a probable one, the regional security framework in Northeast Asia may come under some strain should Japan try to further increase its military strength," said Kim Tae-woo, a research fellow at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses.

As Pyongyang's staunchest ally, Beijing's approach toward the communist state is in stark contrast with Washington and Tokyo.

It reluctantly participated in the U.N. Security Council resolution sanctioning North Korea, only after playing a major role in watering down the original draft.

As with the Roh administration, and even after being served with considerable embarrassment when the Kim Jong-il regime defied its warnings to test fire the seven missiles, Beijing continued to stand by Pyongyang.

"China's basic position on the North Korean nuclear issue has not changed," said Liu of the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association. "Instead of isolating the DPRK (North Korea), we should further develop our bilateral relationship with it and provide humanitarian assistance."

But even China concedes that a nuclear North Korea would pose a major security threat to the region.

Bejing reportedly does not rule out concerted efforts from both regional neighbors and allies to resolve this issue.

The problem is, analysts say, Beijing continues to disapprove of Washington's North Korean policy.

"China won't join the U.S. attempt to trigger regime change or system collapse in North Korea, which will inevitably endanger stability and peace in Northeast Asia," said Paik of the Sejong Institute. "China had to compromise (regarding the U.N. resolution) to a certain extent this time out of necessity to entertain U.S. interests, but will not join any U.S. attempt to put sanctions on North Korea through the U.N. Security Council."

But with regional security on the line, China and South Korea can't afford to keep up the offensive against Japan.

"It requires great statesmanship in China and Korea in order to overcome issues such as Yasukuni, textbooks or Dokdo, and to extend a hand to a Japan that can be a valuable partner, or an incalculable threat," noted Frank of the University of Vienna.

(jemmie@heraldm.com)

2006.08.15