Rough waters in NE Asia

Do presidential candidates have sailing strategies?

In most countries, presidential elections are about domestic issues, mainly the economy and public welfare. In Korea this year, both voters and candidates can hardly afford to focus solely on the economic wellbeing of individuals. At stake is the entire nation’s diplomatic survival amid the great power shift taking place in this region, within the global political context.

On Wednesday, Shinzo Abe, leader of Japan’s largest opposition Liberal Democratic Party, paid his respects at the Yasukuni Shrine which honors the country’s war dead, including Class A war criminals. If Abe puts his pledge to visit the shrine as the prime minister into action next year, the already strained trilateral relationship with Korea and China will hit another low.

A day before, the U.S. Center for Strategic and International Studies said China’s military spending in 2011 quadrupled that of 2000 to $89.9 billion. Beijing’s growth rate of defense outlays in the past decade stood at 13.4 percent, compared with Korea’s 4.8 percent and Japan’s 3.5 percent.

An increasing number of historians and political scientists are comparing the current situation in Northeast Asia to that in the late 19th century when China and Japan vied for control of the Korean Peninsula.

Of course, Korea is no longer the weak, poor prey of larger countries, and the balance of power between Beijing and Tokyo has changed considerably. What has remained unchanged, however, is that the nation cannot equally compete with its giant neighbors, the world’s second and third largest economies, respectively, in most areas. No doubt Korea should maintain a strong alliance with the United States, but Seoul cannot put its fate in Washington’s hands entirely, either.

How should this country sail through the increasingly rough waters of change in Northeast Asia by both competing and cooperating with strong rivals?

Answers from major presidential candidates at a diplomatic forum Monday were not very impressive, however. Park Geun-hye, nominee of the conservative Saenuri Party, said she would push for a new initiative for peace and cooperation in Northeast Asia to overcome the “Asian paradox.” It was too abstract to provide any real vision or relief. Independent candidate Ahn Cheol-soo was no more specific or practical, saying, “If the three countries can pull their positive forces together, they will be able to form stronger and warmer ties.”

Admittedly, these were mere addresses to congratulate the first anniversary of the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat, a permanent organ composed of working-group diplomats from the three countries to help enhance regional cooperation, including the promotion of a free trade bloc among the three countries, which accounts for roughly one-fifth of the world’s population as well as its gross domestic product. It is rather ironic that the three capitals fell to an unprecedented series of historical and territorial war of nerves less than a year after the secretariat’s birth.

The three major candidates should offer far more detailed and practicable diplomatic blueprints to help the nation survive and prosper, attain reunification, and play a more active role in regional peace.

A recent survey, however, indicates that voters are not very confident of their capacity to handle diplomacy and national security, as shown by their low approval rating in this area ranging from 27.8 percent to 12.9 percent.

We hope they would improve these figures as voting day approaches, but frankly and unfortunately, we are not very optimistic about this either. <The Korea Times>