Impact of US election on Korea-US ties

An examination of Seoul-Washington relations turns up patterns that may be useful in assessing the impact Barack Obama or Mitt Romney will have on Korea after the U.S. presidential election on Tuesday.

Neither of the candidates has indicated that they would tamper with the Korea-U.S. alliance. Both candidates, backed by their parties, would continue to support a strong U.S. defense of Korea.

Experts, however, disagree on how each candidate’s policy would affect the Korea-U.S. relations. Bruce Klingner, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that Republicans “disagree with Obama’s drastic cuts to the defense budget which will lead to a smaller U.S. military. Despite Obama’s claims of an ‘Asia Pivot,’ no new U.S. forces are likely to go to the Pacific. It is a case of strong rhetoric but no new resources.”

Balbina Hwang, a professor at Georgetown University, offers a contrasting view: “Koreans may believe that Romney will be any tougher on North Korea than Obama has been or that Romney’s policy will be significantly different. But in reality, there is very little room for his policies to be much different.”

In fact, recent U.S. presidents have consistently endorsed a North Korea policy similar to that of the South Korean presidents, apparently so as not to give the impression of meddling in internal affairs.

For instance, President Bill Clinton had thought of attacking North Korea in 1994, but in 1998 he embraced President Kim Dae-jung’s Sunshine Policy. Similarly, despite his initial hard-line rhetoric, President George W. Bush accepted President Roh Moo-hyun’s engagement policy with the North.

President Obama came into office with a policy toward North Korea similar to that of President Roh, but within four months had switched to the policy of President Lee Myung-bak. Ironically, he adopted harsher sanctions toward the North than his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The Obama administration may boast that it has the strongest U.S. sanctions ever levied against the North, and Pyongyang seems to have concluded that Obama is no different from Bush. However, no matter what policies Korea and the United States have adopted, Pyongyang has consistently sought aid without scrapping its nuclear weapons.

Both Obama and Romney are likely to continue to prioritize denuclearization as the main agenda for relations with North Korea; however, the need to coordinate with South Korea may require a more flexible approach from theUnited States.

Obama’s approach already has a built-in capacity for flexibility because he has prioritized coordination with allies as a foundation of his approach toward the North. However, he will not completely sacrifice denuclearization as an objective. This may introduce tension in Korea-U.S. relations, as South Korea attempts to reengage with the North, but it should be manageable. On the other hand, if South Korea abandons the denuclearization of North Korea as a priority, this might lead to tension regardless of whether Obama or Romney wins the presidency.

In addition to their North Korea policy, Republicans and Democrats also significantly disagree on international trade. Republicans are more favorable toward free trade, while Democrats are inherently protectionist. Had the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress during the George W. Bush administration, the KORUS FTA would have been approved in 2007. It is also no coincidence that the Samsung-Apple patent disputes took place under the liberal Obama administration.

President Obama has been an enthusiastic fan of Korea and Koreans. However, Koreans know little about Romney. During the third televised presidential debate, Romney mentioned his “intolerance of dictators and commitment to promoting freedom around the world.” He also criticized Obama’s attempts at engagement with North Korea as weak. He vowed to impose harsher sanctions on North Korea, and work with China to dissuade North Korea from advancing its nuclear programs.

Romney is surrounded by both neocons and moderate conservatives. However, it is still unclear whether a Romney administration will choose pragmatism or ideology as the driving characteristic of his foreign policy team. Robert Zoellick would probably take a pragmatic approach to foreign policy. Others on his team, such as John Bolton, might take a more ideological approach.

Many American liberals portray Romney as an “intellectual chameleon,” who says whatever he thinks a particular audience wants to hear. However, Romney’s fans say he is the most qualified U.S. presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan. They say he is careful and methodical, and praise his ability to work with his opponents.

For instance, according to Chang Se-moon, the chief economist of the U.S. Gulf Coast Center for Impact Studies, Romney is “totally opposite to being reckless. He is very tough and not afraid of making tough decisions, albeit methodically. That is how he transformed the debt-ridden Salt Lake City Winter Olympics into a success with a surplus.”

The new Korean president will also affect the Korea-U.S. relations. Conservative candidate Park Geun-hye’s stance on North Korea is more flexible than President Lee’s. She might inherit President Lee’s strong Korea-U.S. alliance. Meanwhile, liberal candidates Moon Jae-in’s and Ahn Cheol-soo’s stances are even more flexible than Park’s. Moon and Ahn will reengage with North Korea.

Former U.S. ambassador to Korea Donald Gregg advised that whoever wins the U.S. presidency will need to adopt a policy of loving and respecting both South Koreans and North Koreans. <The Korea Times/Lee Chang-sup>