On Thursday, Cheong Wa Dae senior secretary for civil affairs Chung Chan-yong said "A certain few individuals at the foreign ministry have been unable to grow beyond the dependent foreign policy of the past. They have not adequately followed the basic spirit and direction of the new independent foreign policy."
The result of a case that began with questionable comments from foreign ministry officials ended with what might as well be an open declaration, to domestic and foreign audiences, that the government of Roh Moo-hyun would be changing diplomats who do not meet with its standards of "independent" diplomacy. The episode therefore becomes something bigger than just punitive action or "instilling discipline" in civil servants for the inappropriate remarks of a few career foreign service officials. It must instead be seen as directly connected to the grave issue of re-establishing the directions and principles of Korean diplomacy.
It is imperative that Cheong Wa Dae tell the people exactly what its "independent diplomacy" is about, and how it intends to implement that approach. Roh's government began with a cynical stance towards the United States. While on an official visit there, he spoke an acted in a style viewed as pro-American. Since then, the "independence faction" has risen in influence within his government. It has been an uneasy process, and the people have had to watch with profound concern, this while wondering where it is this government wants to take the diplomacy on which hinges the country's destiny. In the end, the country witnessed a case unprecedented since the founding of the Republic, where everyone in the foreign ministry working as the government's America contacts, from working-level officials to the minister, has been censured en masse for being "dependent." With perhaps the exception of newly formed African states in the 60's and 70's, this is clearly the first time this has happened anywhere.
That being the case, the people have the right to know about Cheong Wa Dae's ideas on "independent diplomacy," since it will determine the future direction of the country.
Now that Cheong Wa Dae has itself called its foreign policy "independent" and removed the foreign minister for not conforming to that policy, Korea's "independent diplomacy" now becomes something of international interest. The United States will clearly be watching very closely to see where Korea independent foreign policy will turn next, on the occasion of this unprecedented event in the 50 years of the Korean-American alliance. China, Russia, and Japan will also be watching to see what "Korean independence" is made of and what its goals are.
Meanwhile, it is only Korea and the North that dichotomize foreign policy with standards of "independence." "The dichotomy of 'independent' and 'alliance' is misled," said Yoon in his departure speech at the foreign ministry. "Korea exists in the relational context of international politics, not in a vacuum. We have to pursue our national interests while respecting that relational context." This is something Cheong Wa Dae needs to hear more than anyone else.
Korea's chief executive lives with nuclear issues hanging over his head, but in his New Year's address President Roh said nothing of particular note about the North Korean nuclear issue beyond the usual basics. He did not display any great determination about Japan and its claims of sovereignty over Dokdo. China is trying to sell Goguryeo as part of its own history, but the Minister of Culture and Tourism, someone who speaks for the ideological tendencies of the current government, actually speaks as if he wants to defend the Chinese. That's the current government's "independent diplomacy" for you. All said and done, this government's ideas of "independence" mean nothing more and nothing less than "independence towards the Untied States."
In this day and age, all countries mix a little independence and alliance to preserve statehood and maximize their national interests. Even the U.S., the world's only superpower, is busy maintaining and strengthening its many alliances, which spread out like a network. You can understand this just by looking at how it allowed itself to get tied down in trying to have more of its allies participate in the attack on Iraq, right down to the last moment. France and Germany, which opposed the U.S., are still part of NATO and the European Union. Japan is betting its existence on how well it can strengthen its alliance with the U.S. to hold back Chinese expansionism and its increasingly naked tendencies towards regional hegemony. Korea is stuck between the economic powerhouse of Japan and a China that has growing interest in exchanging its regional hegemony for a global one, so choosing and maintaining alliances is clearly Korea's single greatest task in protecting the state.
In this sense the government's approach is a classic anachronism, dividing its advisers and working-level officials into "independence faction" and "alliance faction," and, to use the government's terms, factions of "independent diplomacy" and "dependent diplomacy." A hundred years ago in Korean history, we walked down a course of ruin by being ignorant of international affairs and confusedly unable to chose and maintain the right alliances. The northern half of the Korean Peninsula became the most isolated country on the face of the earth by going on about sovereignty and independence like there was no tomorrow, and that system of government has dragged its people into starvation and collapse. You feel yourself in a cold sweat when you realize what the world and neighboring countries will think, seeing us willingly movin towards the same pitfall, having seen the ignorance of the North's regime and the situation there for decades.
They call themselves "independent," and say those who espouse a foreign policy that places importance on the alliance are "worshiping" the U.S. This view within the ruling camp has infiltrated the foreign policy that will determine the country's destiny. Its ideas are extremely dangerous, "of the movement," and of the style of the Cultural Revolution.
And so the people ask. What is the object of the Roh government's "independence"? Does this country keep alliances? If so, how will Roh's government explain this episode to those alliances? The government must explain how it intends to realize that independence in the North Korean nuclear crisis, which is not far off in time, and how that independence will protect the people and the state. The people have a right to know, and the government has an obligation to answer.
