The election results would put to an end to political turmoil that has plagued South Korea since last autumn and ensure stability, writes RAJARAM PANDA
Even when tensions build up in the Korean Peninsula following sabre-rattling by North Korea and with US President Donald Trump toughening his stance, South Korea’s domestic politics is undergoing significant churning after Park Geun-hye was impeached amid the ongoing campaign to elect a new president on May 9. There are significant differences among the Presidential hopefuls on the way their political parties would deal with the North when elected to the Presidency. While security analysts paint grim scenario on the future of North Korea as a nation with some supporting the wild-card scenario of a regime collapse, none of the scenarios seem credible. But with two powerful leaders in the US and North Korea unwilling to bend from their tough stances towards the other, the situation could go out of hand if sober influence is abandoned. The danger is President Trump has declared that there would no longer be a policy of strategic restraint in the US foreign policy basket. In this context, the future course of developments in the peninsula could be determined to a large extent on the kind of policy that a New South Korean president would adopt.
N KOREA AND SECURITY ISSUE
President Trump has repeatedly said his government is considering a pre-emptive strike on the North and informed the allies — Japan and South Korea — of a plan to intercept a North Korean missile if Pyongyang launches another. While opinions build up in the US for a possible strike on North Korea, opinions in South Korea seem to be muted. South Korea knows that if a conflict erupts in the peninsula, the biggest and immediate victim would be South Korea itself and therefore would be cautious to avoid such a scenario to unfold. This is what at the core of the election debate among political parties, informing their stances on North Korea before the electorate.
The realistic scenario could be if North Korea conducts its sixth nuclear test and launches an intercontinental ballistic missile or if the signs become evident, the US could take a military countermeasure, be it missile interception or a pre-emptive strike. Given Trump’s instinctive decision-making and Kim Jong-un’s reckless brinkmanship, a collision of policies could result in an untended military clash whose consequences for the region and beyond would be far-reaching.
The national security issue is therefore at the core of presidential campaign, having shifted quickly from the impeachment issue. The battle ground seems to be between the conservatives and the liberals, with the former seem to be having an edge. Moon Jae-in, the contender from the liberal Democratic Party, has taken up position on the national security issue that is opposed to the conservatives which ramp up rumours of a security crisis if such a stance serves their interests. While the conservatives would prefer to take on Pyongyang head-on, Moon’s Democratic Party prefers preventing a war on the peninsula and would work against a pre-emptive strike by the US on the North without South’s consent. The conservatives argue that Moon’s “no pre-emptive strike” would adversely affect the US deterrence on the North’s reckless provocation and send a wrong signal to Pyongyang. Are we to believe then the Roman adage that “if you want peace, prepare for war”IJ Put it differently, “to prepare for war is the best means to maintain peace”. Whichever way one looks, the glass is half-full or half-empty, the situation remains the same.
North Korea’s nuclear weapon and missile development programme is too complex an issue that doesn’t have any easy answer. Kim Jong-un has invested a lot of political capital and is unlikely to abandon. On the other hand, the new administration at the White House is clearly distancing itself from its predecessor’s policy of denial and delay. Trump is in excessive hurry for a solution that he may never achieve. While another neighbour, Japan, under Abe Shinzo is prepared to go overboard and retains prompt-strike option against North Korea, China still prefers dialogue and holds the card to prevent an escalation. Under the circumstance, Kim Jong-un is unlikely to take seriously Trump’s threat to deal with North Korea alone if China is unwilling to support. This scenario makes the presidential election in South Korea more interesting as well as intriguing.
Coping with the threats from the North is the key election issue. When the election results are out, it would put to an end to the political turmoil that has continued in South Korea since last autumn and see a return to stability. The campaign has witnessed the battle between the left winger liberal Moon Jae In, who leads in terms of support ratings, and the centre-left conservative AhnCheolSoo, whose support base is plummeting hit by the scandal involving Park. As it appears, the conventional structure in which the liberals and conservatives swing in power comes to the fore once again.
Apart from the issue of security in the wake of threats from North Korea, other domestic issues such as political reforms, economic rehabilitation and employment measures are matters that concern the voters. The liberal Moon argues for the need of North-South cooperation in areas such as economy and respect for ethnic integrity though remaining critical of North’s nuclear tests and missile launches. In contrast, the conservatives’ Ahn attaches importance to the alliance relationship with the US and favours economic sanctions on Pyongyang.
ON MISSIlE DEFENCE
In the meantime, the US military forces in South Korea delivered the main equipment of their latest missile defence system to the already selected site, a date advanced because of the North Korean threat. The Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) deployment issue can have an impact on the election outcome as there is considerable domestic opposition to it. Such a situation could favour the liberal Democratic Party led by Moon. Moon has said that the THAAD deployment issue would be decided by the next government as he has given considerable consideration to the sensitivity to the Chinese stance, which opposes this. But given the agreement between the present administration and the US, it is to be seen how a liberal government, if elected to power, would deal with this as THAAD has already been deployed.
But public opinion could change in the wake of continuous threat coming from the neighbouring North. For example, an April 17 ChosunIlbo newspaper survey found 60 per cent of the South Korean public in favour of THAAD while 30 per cent opposed. So the situation is quite fluid.
Days before the nation goes to the polls, Trump injected a new dimension to the deployment of the THAAD missile defence system by demanding that the Korean government should pay one billion dollars, which was quickly rejected by South Korea. The position of the Defence Ministry in South Korea is that as per the Status of Forces Agreement South Korea provides the land, supports and build related facilities and the US bears the cost of THAAD system’s deployment, operation and maintenance. Trump further complicated the matter by hinting to terminate the South Korea-US free trade agreement unless the deal is renegotiated for better trade terms for the US. The free trade pact can be terminated 180 days after one side notifies its partner of its intention to finish the deal.
While Moon is opposed to THAAD deployment, conservative People’s Party candidate Ahn supports THAAD as a needed defence measure despite the fact that it would further provoke North Korea and alienate China. Beijing’s opposition to the THAAD deployment rests on the argument that the system’s radar could be used to spy on China and already retaliated by limiting tourism to South Korea, imports of Korean cosmetics and entertainment, besides shutting down some South Korean department stores like lotte duty free shops in China.
Even for Ahn, Trump’s demand came as a surprise and now he says that his party would be unwilling to support THAAD deployment under such a condition. In the meantime, the details of the terms of agreement reached between Park Geun-Hye and Barack Obama are not revealed, further adding to the mystery. There is more demand now than before in South Korea to reveal what obligations were agreed for South Korea when the agreement was reached by the Park government. Interestingly, the Conservative liberty Korea Party candidate Hong Joon-pyo, a strong THAAD supporter, did not comment on Trump’s demand for $1 billion in THAAD reimbursement costs, though his chances at the polls are poor. Moon is also critical of the General Security of Military Information Agreement reached between South Korea and the US. On the contrary, Ahn endorses the agreement.
COMFORT WOMEN & DOKDO
On the issue of comfort women, both Moon and Ahn call for renegotiation of the agreement reached between Japan and South Korea in 2015. Interestingly, Moon supports the installation of the statue of a girl symbolising comfort women erected in front of the Japanese Consulate in Busan. This issue sparked off a diplomatic stand-off between Japan and South Korea when Japan in protest decided to recall its ambassador and Consulate General for almost four months. The diplomats were finally sent back with the hope that the new government would have a re-look on the issue.
While Moon takes a conciliatory stance towards North Korea, he is critical of the conservatives’ policy towards Japan. He asserts that “pro-Japan” people in the conservative government yield considerable influence in building a nexus between politicians and business circles. He infuriated Japan and showed his anti-Japan stance when he visited the disputed Takeshima islands (called Dokdo in South Korea) in July 2016. In contrast, Ahn’s approach is more conciliatory on the comfort women issue, taking the position that the 2015 deal should be amended in consideration of the wishes of former comfort women, thereby endorsing the popular opinion. It seems whichever party comes to power, the comfort women issue is likely to remain a burning issue that would beg a resolution.
Though there are 12 candidates in the fray for the presidential race, the stage is set for a tight two-way race between Moon and Ahn. Park Geun-hye’s indulgent in the scandal has tarnished the conservatives’ credibility and this clearly works to Ahn’s disadvantage. With conservatives’ support base weakening, those who had voted the conservative candidate Park Geun-hye are having a rethink following her unprecedented dismissal and arrest. Resurrecting conservatives’ reputation so soon after Park’s involvement in scandal is not easy. As a result, the conservative group could face virtual extinction or at least politically irrelevant in South Korean politics for some time. As things stand now, national security issue shall have an overwhelming bearing on the ultimate election outcome. The liberal Democratic Party candidate Moon Jae-in is the front-runner and likely to be the new President.
Professor (Dr) Panda is currently Indian Council for Cultural Relations India Chair Visiting Professor at Reitaku University, Japan. The views expressed are the author’s own and do not represent either of the ICCR or the Government of India. rajaram.panda@gmail.com