"I feel most troubled by those Koreans who think and speak in more pro-American ways than even Americans do." So said President Roh Moo-hyun in Istanbul on Sunday before winding up his weeklong visits to Germany and Turkey. Roh is concerned about domestic criticism of his ``independent stance'' in relationship with the U.S. But it remains doubtful whether the president had to raise a rather undiplomatic issue during a state tour, regardless of the pertinence of his complaint.
According to presidential aides, Roh especially dislikes critics of his "balancer" theory. Since the president first talked about it a month ago, much has been said, without even agreeing on what a balancing role exactly means. The idea may be feasible in theory, but it will prove problematic to put into action, particularly in view of Korea's limited national power. Its advocates say the Korea-U.S. alliance will be unhurt, and may even grow stronger, but it depends on Washington's reaction.
Many signs of rifts in the South Korea-U.S. military alliance have exceeded any diplomatic rhetoric. These are due in part to the post-Cold War environment, particularly the U.S. Global Posture Review, but are also due to the Roh administration's independence-minded defense policy. "These conflicts could have been patched under the surface in the past, but now continue to crop up," Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung said recently. To be precise, there could have been little conflict in the past due to concessions by Seoul.
President Roh and his followers are not leftists as some right-wing extremists say, though in the Roh camp there are some former anti-U.S. student activists, whose nationalism helped to push Seoul's diplomatic balance from the U.S. toward North Korea. Nothing could be scarier for the conservative establishment, believing the U.S. has been and will be Korea's sole protector. So, the present domestic political dispute is over the correct perception of the U.S. and the nature of the Korea-U.S. relationship in the future.
Korea should neither be overly egocentric nor self-deprecatory. We think a balancing role for Korea is possible, if somewhat improbable at the moment. On the other hand, while blind, habitual flunkeyism is problematic, reckless escape from the framework of Korea's time-honored alliance, steeled in blood and without credible alternatives, is foolhardy. What is important is to ensure a free discussion on the nation's future, instead of suppressing it out of domestic political interests and suspicion. Support for the U.S. should not be made another political divide.
Diplomacy is about maximizing national interests through maintaining alliances with as many countries as possible. So, Roh needs not be overly troubled by pro-American or even pro-Japanese compatriots, but take all those views into account and make the most of them in shaping foreign policies.