Survival of the Korean People Needs Grand Strategy

The scope and speed of change on the international stage is growing. On the western side of the Eurasian continent, Russia ignored the strong warnings of the United States and annexed the Crimean Peninsula. On the eastern side, in Shanghai, they met with the Chinese and agreed to build up cooperation between Russia and China. This is reminiscent of the Cold War prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

For the purpose of keeping China in check, the U.S. has connected with Japan and permitted the return to militarization. By allowing an artificial cut in the value of the yen, it has taken a criticizing tone against the smaller issue of the Korean exchange rate policy. The basis for this contradictory American attitude is the strategic calculation that the Japanese economy must be revitalized in order to re-arm its military responsiveness.

Japan’s position of “If North Korea re-opens the investigation of the Japanese abduction issue,* then sanctions and pressure on North Korea will be relaxed,” deviates from the U.S. policy toward North Korea, but the U.S. is not actively restraining Japan. Without our knowledge, Japan’s voice toward the U.S. rose rapidly. It is possible that the U.S. would sit on the fence if the Japanese military were to take action on the Korean Peninsula in the name of self-defense. The U.S. trusts Japan more. This is born from 70 years of Japanese devotion, as compared to South Korea’s relative ambivalence and complacency.

Beneath China’s “New Great Power Order” slogan lies the view that Asia should take the lead on Asian security issues, and China seems on a collision course with the U.S. declaration of a “pivot to Asia.” Now claiming Pyongyang as its own territory, China is using the historical, territorial and collective defense problems to look down on Korea. Without any hesitation, China newly incorporated our land, Leodo Island, as a part of its air defense identification zone and also unilaterally prohibited the import of Korean milk.

The four powers surrounding the Korean Peninsula are making complex moves, but what about us? In addition to the public opinion polls stating that “the best thing we are doing is diplomacy” and crisis awareness growing thin, the shock of the Sewol disaster has raised the need for national reforms. It is difficult now to raise debates about the rapidly changing international situation. This year is the 60th anniversary of the second Sino-Japanese war. The international situation around the Korean Peninsula is similar to the “collision of maritime and continental powers” from the first Sino-Japanese war 120 years ago.

Only moving swiftly on the international stage can secure survival. The president should entrust most domestic issues to her cabinet and actively engage the international stage. A grand strategy should be established and methodically followed to ensure survival. In order to survive, the grand strategy should prioritize diplomatically achievable goals and craft policies to attain those goals.

In the late Chosun period, the extreme conservatives — the pro-Japanese and pro-Russians — were divided and fought over leadership, with the result that no grand strategy was established. We cannot forget that the Korean people were then enslaved. Although the lack of a grand strategy will lead to the collapse of the state, a malformed grand strategy puts the state at risk. Japan, which provoked a war in the Pacific in order to secure national resources, is a prime example. Japan raised two premises and attacked Pearl Harbor: first, that Nazi Germany would win in Europe; second, that the United States did not want a war, and if it could raze Pearl Harbor it would accept negotiation terms. However, Hitler fell, and the United States punished Japan.

During this critical time, where the four great powers are vying for leadership in Asia, the Korean capability has been divided between North and South, assuming a hostile attitude, worse than that during the late Chosun period. The North and South should leave everything behind, get level with each other, and have a discussion for cooperative opportunities for the future of the Korean people. There is no time to wait for North Korea to change to a principled normalization of relations. The North should also discard its hostile attitude and pursue dialogue.

If the North and South continue to remain hostile, they will become easy pickings for the surrounding nations. Although it is a minor example, instead of the North giving blue crab fishing rights to China near the northern limit line in the West Sea, South Korea could have given North Korea blue crab fishing boats and bought the harvests, a win-win situation. However, because of hostilities, only Chinese boats are present.

The hardliners in the North and South who are dependent on North-South conflicts must simultaneously turn over new leaves in order to create a future for Korea. Starting with the joint businesses dependent on each other, North-South cooperation for the survival of the Korean people must be realized. This way, humiliations like the installation of the Lelang Commandery** and the Japanese-Korea Annexation Treaty can be avoided from being repeated. History is teaching us that military conflict between North and South is a trigger for repeating past humiliations: “United we stand, divided we fall.”

*Editor’s note: The “Japanese abduction issue” refers to the abductions of Japanese citizens by North Korean agents in the 1970s and 1980s, as alleged by the Japanese government.

**Editor’s note: The Lelang Commandery was the Chinese garrison and administration of what is present day Pyongyang, invoking an older occupation of Korea by a larger power.