South Korea will vote on March 9 to elect the next President to replace the incumbent Moon Jae-in, who will be completing a single term five-year presidency in May 2022. The president is elected through a direct popular vote, conducted using the first-past-the-post method. The main contenders are the ruling Democratic Party's Lee Jae-myung and Yoon Suk-yeol of the main opposition, the People's Power Party. So far, Governor Lee and Prosecutor Yoon are in a neck-to-neck competition in the run-up to the election that features a high degree of negative campaigning targeting the candidates' moral character. The recent event of the unification of the Yoon camp with the third candidate Ahn Cheol-soo of the People Party is a development that give Yoon an edge over Lee.
Candidate Lee, who is known in the political circles as a "bulldozer" for getting things done as an administrator, proved his leadership as the mayor of Seongnam city and later as governor of Gyeonggi Province, the largest province encircling the capital city of Seoul. Candidate Lee has a background similar to two previous progressive party candidates before him, President Moon Jae-in and former President Roh Moo-hyun (2003-2007). They rose to political prominence, having built a career as human rights lawyers despite being born into poor background.
On the other hand, Yoon is a political outsider who surprisingly came into politics a year ago. Candidate Yoon has an impeccable record as a bold public prosecutor who investigated many high-profile cases, including the corruption case against former President Park Guen-hye. He emerged to become the icon of the opposition after having a fallout with the current administration that led to his resignation from the post of the powerful chief prosecutor.
Foreign Policy Discourse
Like in most democratic countries, domestic issues occupy much attention in the run-up to the presidential election, while foreign and security policy issues have received limited attention. As Korea faces the largest wave of COVID, much of the policy debate has been focused on managing the pandemic and economic recovery. While there is no significant difference in economic pledges such as real estate and jobs, each candidate's views on diplomatic and security pledges are markedly different. All the candidates agree that Korea's strategic environment has significantly transformed with the intensification of the United States (US)-China rivalry, and addressing it will be a challenge as significant as dealing with North Korea. However, divergence in their approach to the US-China dynamics indicates their differing perceptions of national interest and foreign policy priority.
Under the theme of 'practical vision', Governor Lee advocates a foreign policy based on pragmatism and problem solving without subjecting to any ideology. [1] His foreign policy vision appears to prioritise the North Korea issue, as was the case with the current Moon administration, through a mixture of deterrence, diplomacy and dialogue. While concerned about growing Chinese assertiveness, Lee argued that "South Korea must ... maintain a partnership with China, which is the country's largest trading partner."[2] Further, he stated that "pragmatism dictates that in order to address critical issues such as North Korea's nuclear program, peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, cross-border environmental pollution, and the COVID-19 response, Seoul needs to get along with Beijing".[3] He proposed to "conduct an active and forward-looking diplomacy that utilises the US-China competition as an opportunity to promote national interest".[4] He vehemently opposed the idea of choosing sides. In this regard, he said;
"South Korea is the world's 10th largest economy while possessing the world's sixth-most-powerful military, so why should we be pressured to make a choice in accordance with other countries' interests? I think the situation is coming where we can make decisions independently, putting our national interests first… Rather than South Korea having to pick a side, it will take diplomatic prowess to encourage the US and China to reach out to us for cooperation… The nation needs to make decisions case by case, based on national interest."[5]
By proposing to conduct a pragmatic approach in its China policy and adopt Korea's position on issues subject to competition between the US and China on a case-by-case basis, candidate Lee would most likely continue the Moon administration's approach of 'balanced diplomacy' of maintaining alliance relations with the US and strategic partnership with China.
During the campaign, under the vision of making Korea a 'global pivotal power', prosecutor Yoon, has proposed a 'predictable' foreign policy.[6] He has been critical of the Moon administration's foreign policy for its North Korea centrism, China appeasement and a passive and ambiguous regional approach in the Indo-Pacific.[7] He has also criticised the Moon administration for its approach of 'strategic ambiguity' of not taking a principled stand on issues of intense competition between Washington and Beijing and for its silence on human rights issues in China.[8] According to Yoon, the timidity in the Korean foreign policy has further undermined Korea's global and regional standing. Critical elements of Yoon's foreign policy proposal include a hard-line approach to North Korea prioritising denuclearisation and conditional engagement, strengthening relations with the US that, according to him, were weakened under Moon and a reset in relations with Beijing and a proactive approach to Indo-Pacific.[9]
The difference between the two candidates is starker and clearly articulated in their respective approaches to North Korea, which is a 'difficult among difficult problems'.[10] Candidate Lee said he would build on the Moon Jae-in administration's policies, featuring a simultaneous step-by-step and dual-track approach.[11] It proposes to advance simultaneous advancement of denuclearisation and peace processes by taking corresponding actions to compensate North Korea for each action that it takes in the direction of denuclearisation and making attempts to synchronise the two tracks. In this regard, candidate Lee sees merit in the Moon administration's 'End of War Declaration'[12] proposal as an opportunity to break the stalemate of the US-North Korea nuclear dialogue that has been in limbo after the Hanoi Summit in 2019. On the other hand, candidate Yoon proposes a hard-line stance that prioritises the denuclearisation of North Korea and ensures peace through strength. Yoon's emphasis on conditional engagement with North Korea based on the principle of 'reciprocity' sounds similar to North Korea policy of the previous conservative governments under President Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye administrations. Yoon's hard-line position was further illustrated with his consideration of 'pre-emptive strike as a means to deal with North Korean belligerence.[13]
While candidates Lee and Yoon both agree that the ROK-US alliance is the basis of Korean foreign policy, they differ in their approach to the US, reflecting their respective evaluation and perception of the current state of the US-Korea alliance relationship. Candidate Lee emphasised 'realisation of the comprehensive alliance development of the ROK-US alliance' by expanding the scope of the alliance partnership beyond the areas of the military to areas including emerging technologies, supply chain, climate changes and other non-traditional security challenges.[14] Candidate Lee's perception of the ROK-US alliance effectively inherits from the Moon Jae-in administration's perception that 'the existing security alliance should be expanded to include the economy and other comprehensive fields'.[15] On the other hand, candidate Yoon emphasised 'recovery of trust in the ROK-US alliance' that, according to him, was deteriorated during the current administration. In this regard, he proposed strengthening the strategic dimension of the alliance with additional deployment of the THAAD missile system and upgrading South Korea-US extended deterrence.[16]
Unlike the past elections, China and Korea's relations with Beijing have also become a debated subject between the presidential candidates. Candidate Lee pitched his argument for maintaining friendly relations with China, and the need to avoid taking sides between US and China is primarily premised on economic logic. Lee's position on China-Korea relations is largely in tune with the Moon administration's policy. For instance, Lee supports Moon's controversial 'Three No' position[17] saying that "considering economic cooperation with China, the policy is proper".[18] Candidate Yoon has taken a more assertive posture on Seoul's relations with Beijing. Criticising Moon's policy on China policy, candidate Yoon argued that that "the complex relationship with China needs to be retooled" and that "the new era of South Korea-China cooperation should be based on the principle that security issues should not affect economic issues" and "should be based on mutual respect". Raising the level of attack on the Moon administration's China policy, Yoon characterised it as 'submissive'. According to him, the adoption of the "Three No", Seoul "succumbed to China's economic sanctions and sacrificed security interests". He also pledged the deployment of additional THAAD batteries in South Korea.[19]
Whether candidate Yoon's excessive statements on China will translate into policy if he is elected is something that remains to be seen. However, it is undoubtedly an election strategy in the backdrop of rising anti-China sentiment in Korea, especially among young voters.[20] Negative sentiment towards China has been on the rise since 2016 after the THAAD controversy and which further worsened due to controversial decisions in the Beijing Winter Olympics that favoured Chinese athletes over Korean and allegations of Chinese appropriation of Korean culture. Reflecting this sentiment, candidate Yoon Seok-yeol said, "Most Koreans, especially young people, hate China."[21]
The conflict between Korea and Japan, sparked by history issues, continued throughout the five years of the Moon Jae-in administration. In a context where anti-Japanese sentiment is still prevalent in Korea, both candidates avoided specific positions on Korea-Japan relations, except that they seek to improve relations with Japan. Both candidates were trying to avoid being branded as 'pro-Japanese'.[22]
Korea and the Indo-Pacific
Though in passing, Korea's approach to the Indo-Pacific also received mention in the candidate's foreign policy debate. Despite its initial hesitation on Indo-Pacific, Seoul's approach has evolved over the last three years.[23] The Moon administration has taken steps to find synergy between Korea's New Southern Policy[24] and Indo-Pacific strategies of various countries at a regional level on public health, green growth, connectivity and other non-traditional security issues.[25] However, a notable aspect of Korea's regional approach has been Seoul's reluctance to participate in the mini/multilateral initiatives that drive the new institutional architecture of the Indo-Pacific. Candidate Lee in his foreign policy vision highlighted his intention to continue with the New Southern Policy to create a "free and open Indo-Pacific".[26]
Candidate Yoon on the other hand is calling for a reinvigorated Korean approach to Indo-Pacific as part of seeking Korea’s 'global pivotal state' status. Drawing a parallel between the impact of Chinese assertiveness towards the QUAD countries and Korea, he criticised the Moon administration for taking a passive and reactive approach to the changing international environment and argued for the need to "actively promote a free, open and inclusive order in the Indo-Pacific." In this regard, he proposed Korea's active participation in QUAD working groups and other regional multi/minilateral initiatives
Conclusion
Despite the different political identities and rhetoric during the election campaign, both the conservative and progressive parties tend to adopt a moderate approach to foreign policy after coming to power. However, the difference in their respective outlook cannot be overlooked as it could potentially take Korea in a significantly different foreign policy direction.
With a worldview built on an understanding of Korea's history of a century of suffering under external imposition, first by the Japanese during the colonial period and then during the Cold War period with the US support to the dictatorship, the progressive political dispensation emphasises independence and autonomy in their foreign policy outlook despite maintaining alliance relations with the US. On the other hand, the conservatives tend to be more aligned with the US on issues about North Korea and other regional and global issues. Seoul's approach to North Korea would be much starker in case of a power transfer from the progressives to the conservatives. This would mean a shift from the current engagement approach to a more aggressive policy that emphasises more on denuclearisation than the peace process. Seoul's more aggressive posture on North Korea will put Korea at odds with China as it prioritises stability over denuclearisation. A tense security situation in the Korean Peninsula would also undermine Seoul’s leverage to manoeuvre the US-China dynamics. Much of the dynamics will also depend on how North Korea behaves.
Irrespective of the election outcome, the legacy of Moon administration’s New Southern Policy is likely to continue, if not under the same label, because diversification of Korea’s economic and diplomatic relations through strengthening ties with ASEAN countries and India enjoys bipartisan support and is a trend that has been evolving over the last two decades. However, under a conservative regime, the nature and scope of the engagement could be significantly enhanced as proposed under a proactive approach towards Indo-Pacific, including participation in several mini and multilateral initiatives.
*****
*Dr. Jojin V. John is a research fellow at the Indian Council of World Affairs.
Disclaimer: Views are personal.
Endnotes
[1] Lee Jae-myung, "A Practical Vision for South Korea", Foreign Affairs, February 23, 2022, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/east-asia/2022-02-23/practical-vision-south-korea (Accessed on February 28, 2022).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] "'Succession to the Moon Jae-in government' vs 'differentiated from Moon Jae-in': Comparison of Lee's Diplomatic Commitment, Nate, February 19, 2022, shttps://news.nate.com/view/print?aid=20220219n04315, (Accessed on February 28, 2022).
[5] "'Choosing between US, China is disgraceful,' ruling party's presidential candidate says", Korea Times, December 30, 2021, https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2021/12/356_321410.html, (Accessed on February 28, 2022).
[6] Yoon Suk-yeol, "South Korea Needs to Step Up", Foreign Affairs, February 8, 2022, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-korea/2022-02-08/south-korea-needs-step, (Accessed on February 28, 2022).
[7] Op.cit Yoon 2022.
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid
[10] "Lee, Yoon offer diverging views on dealing with N. Korea", Korea Herald, January 17, 2022, http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220117000761, (Accessed on February 28, 2022).
[11] Op.cit. Lee, 2022.
[12] ‘End of the War Declaration’ is proposal made by President Moon Jae-in of South Korea to formally declare the end of the Korea War by the parties involved through a joint declaration. Jojin V. John, "President Moon’s Last Push for Korean Peninsula Peace Initiative", ICWA, December 15, 2021, /show_content.php?lang=1&level=3&ls_id=6681&lid=4582, (Accessed on February 28, 2022).
[13] "Yoon cites preemptive strike as option to deal with N.K. threat", Yonhap News, January 11, 2022, https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20220111009200315, (Accessed on February 28, 2022).
[14] Op.cit. Lee, 2022.
[15] "'Succession to the Moon Jae-in government' vs 'differentiated from Moon Jae-in': Comparison of Lee's Diplomatic Commitment, Nate, February 19, 2022, shttps://news.nate.com/view/print?aid=20220219n04315, (Accessed on February 28, 2022).
[16] "Yoon says S. Korea is free to upgrade THAAD", Yonhap News, November 12, 2021, https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20211112008551315, (Accessed on February 28, 2022).
[17] In the wake of the THAAD retaliation, the Moon administration agreed with the Chinese government on so-called "Three-Nos" policy in order to normalise relations with China. The policy includes no additional THAAD deployments, no participation in the US-led strategic missile defence system and no trilateral military alliance with the United States and Japan. See, Jojin V John, "Towards a “New Normal”: Explaining Developments in South Korea- China Relations", ICWA, February 27, 2018, /show_content.php?lang=1&level=3&ls_id=4935&lid=1734, (Accessed on February 28, 2022).
[18] "'3 Nos,' THAAD pit leading presidential candidates against each other", Korea Times, February 17, 2022, https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2022/02/113_324039.html, (Accessed on February 28, 2022).
[19] "Strong ROK-U.S. alliance... Korea-China relations, security should not affect the economy", Yonhap News, February 8, 2022, https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20220208150600001, (Accessed on February 28, 2022).
[20] "Olympic-sparked anti-Chinese sentiment rises as political issue”, Korea Herald, February 9, 2022, http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220209000801, (Accessed on February 28, 2022).
[21] "Yoon Seok-yeol, "Most people and young people hate China"", Yonhap News, December 28, 2021, https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20211228106352001, (Accessed on February 28, 2022).
[22] "“New Korea-Japan Partnership Initiative” VS “We will not be buried in the past”, Kyunghyang Shinmun, February 13, 2022, , https://m.khan.co.kr/politics/election/article/202202130802001, (Accessed on February 28, 2022).
[23] Jojin V John, "South Korean Approach to Indo-Pacific: Engaging without Endorsing", ICWA, June 20, 2020, /show_content.php?lang=1&level=3&ls_id=5023&lid=3656 (Accessed on February 28, 2022).
[24] New Southern Policy is a policy initiated by the Moon Jae-in administration in 2017, aimed to diversify and expand Korea's economic and diplomatic interest beyond Northeast East by strengthening relations with India and ASEAN countries.
[25] Op.cit., John 2020.
[26] Op.cit., Lee 2022.