U.S. Elections and South Korea

John McCain will represent the Republicans in November’s U.S. elections, while Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will represent the Democrats. South Korea now has a new president who strongly advocates the reinvigoration of the U.S.-South Korea alliance and strong strategic cooperation between the two countries. In view of these developments, it is useful for South Korea to examine the foreign policy postures of these three candidates, one of whom will become the next president.

American leaders and scholars have long argued over American foreign policy principles: realism vs. idealism, isolationism vs. internationalism, and unilateralism vs. multilateralism. The first set of principles is related to goals, the second the scope of activity, and the third means.

The Bush foreign policy doctrine is epitomized as American internationalism. President Bush says that American internationalism is a combination of idealism and realism. Idealism embodies American values and ideals (democracy and capitalism), and realism a mandate to lead the world. According to him, idealism is needed to uphold and spread American values and ideals, and realism to serve idealism. Since American values and ideals represent “God’s justice and man’s dignity,” the United States should preserve its predominant position in the world and prevent the emergence of any great power competitor. Therefore, the United States, if necessary, may have to act unilaterally in the international arena.

Based on this worldview, President Bush believes that democratic states do not fight with each other and democracy and the free market economy are mutually reinforcing. On this premise, Bush has launched a transformational diplomacy: The United States needs to transform non-democratic states into democratic states, and then economic development in those countries will follow. A unipolar system under U.S. leadership is the best way to preserve world peace and therefore the United States should be always wary of any challenge to American hegemony. China and Russia are potential challengers and therefore the United States should counter them in coalition with Japan, Europe, India and other allies. For the same purpose, the nuclear nonproliferation regime should be preserved, the international financial and trade regimes be led by the United States, and the international antiterrorism regime initiated by the United States be strengthened and expanded.

McCain shares basically the same worldview. There are some minor differences, but they are concerned with the means, not the purpose, of U.S. foreign policy. He emphasizes soft power without depreciating hard power. He values multilateralism but multilateralism only with U.S. allies and friends. He proposes the formation of a global league of democracies to strengthen Bush’s transformational diplomacy. Through this league, American leadership can be preserved and the fight against extreme Islamism and autocracy can be forged. He does not ignore the positive role of the U.N. and other international organizations in the maintenance of world peace and global prosperity, but he values them because American values and ideals can be better realized through them.

Clinton’s and Obama’s foreign policy postures are basically the same, and can be characterized as liberal internationalism. Liberal internationalism is similar to American internationalism: Both believe that American values and ideals are the best in the world and therefore the United States is entitled to lead the world; a unipolar world led by the United States can guarantee world peace and global prosperity better than any other international order and therefore any challenge to American hegemony should not be tolerated. This worldview calls for opposition to the challenge of China and Russia to American hegemony, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the spread of terrorism. Both the Democratic and Republican leaders advocate selective engagement in relations with China and Russia for the same reason.

The two Democratic leaders differ from the Republican leaders mainly on the means to preserve American hegemony. The former emphasize multilateralism and soft power, while the latter value unilateralism and hard power, although Clinton does not reject hard power completely. Obama more strongly supports soft power and multilateralism and emphasizes moral leadership than Clinton. On the other hand, both support the democratic peace theory but reject the transplantation of democracy and the democratic prerequisite for economic development theory, which are the theoretical foundation of Bush’s transformational diplomacy and Iraq policy.

The implications for South Korea are that McCain, Clinton and Obama support the existing orders in the Asia-Pacific and Northeast Asia, which the United States maintains in alliance with Japan, South Korea, and Australia and in cooperation with other friendly countries. In concrete terms, they are all committed to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. As to the means to achieve it, McCain seems to support Bush’s hard-line approach, stressing the stick over the carrot, while Clinton and Obama are in favor of the carrot over the stick. Obama stresses the establishment of “a more effective framework in Asia” and “an inclusive infrastructure” in East Asia.

For the security of South Korea and peace and stability in the Korean peninsula, President Lee has proposed a new Asia diplomacy, a trans-Asian energy belt, an East Asian community, and a Northeast Asian security community. However, the concrete action plans are yet to be drawn. Since his plans are founded on a strong South Korea-U.S. alliance system, he should carefully examine whether the future American president’s idea of the Asia-Pacific security order will be harmonious with or supportive of his plans. In this regard, Obama’s ideas of a more effective framework in Asia and an inclusive infrastructure in East Asia as well as Bush’s preference for bilateralism rather than multilateralism in the Asia-Pacific and McCain’s proposal for a global league of democracies need to be carefully scrutinized.

President Lee’s three part-proposal for inter-Korean relations (denuclearization-opening-$3,000 per capita GNI) is compatible with Bush’s and the three presidential candidates’ North Korea policies. If a Democrat becomes the next president, he/she is likely to be more conciliatory toward North Korea and to resort more to U.S.-N.K. bilateral negotiations than the six-party framework. At the same time the Democratic president is more likely to allow South Korea to play an active intermediary role between the United States and North Korea.

No matter who becomes the next American president, South Korea will be able to play a more independent and active role on the Korean Ppeninsula, but in the other areas President Lee’s creative pragmatic diplomacy will be tested.

Park Sang-seek is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University. — Ed.