[The Editors' Verdict] We Must Oppose Moon Jae-in's Style of Diplomacy and Trade Policy

At first, I thought the government, hastily launched without a transition committee, was simply lacking in capability. Every time they declared "dignified diplomacy leading international cooperation" as a core policy tool, I felt uneasy. Which country in the world would refuse "dignified" and "leading" diplomacy if it were possible? Actually pushing such diplomacy forward is a problem of a different dimension. Still, I understood it only as an amateur government confusing diplomatic goals and means. However, seeing the government deceive the public at crucial diplomatic moments, I sensed this was not mere incompetence but a massive conspiracy to move toward a new dimension of the world we have never experienced.

First, between April 2017 and January 2018, the Blue House and the government maintained the position that the U.S. side's demand for renegotiation of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) required "mutual agreement by both countries to start revision negotiations" and that "a joint study on the mutual benefits of the FTA should be conducted first." This was despite the Korea-U.S. FTA explicitly stipulating that a special joint committee must be "mandatorily convened" upon "request by either party" to discuss amendments (Article 22, Paragraph 2). Ignoring even the FTA provisions and insisting stubbornly, U.S. President Donald Trump even pulled out the "FTA termination card," pushing Korea-U.S. economic relations to the brink of collapse. This raises suspicion that they intended to simultaneously provoke anti-American sentiment within Korea and anti-Korean sentiment in the U.S. by exploiting the FTA renegotiation phase.

Second, when interpretations differed on whether the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement resolved compensation for victims of forced labor under Japanese colonial rule, they ignored the clause (Article 3) stating that disputes should be referred to international arbitration "upon request by either party," and insisted that arbitration would not commence without Korea's consent. Violating clear procedural rules in the agreement, they provoked Japan, triggering trade retaliation, and despite U.S. opposition, declared the termination of the Korea-Japan General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), fueling anti-Japanese and anti-American sentiments.

Third, to truly "lead" North Korea denuclearization policy, it is common sense to use sanctions and cooperation measures in a balanced way. The image of only giving to North Korea, enduring humiliations such as being told "do not interfere in talks between North Korea and the U.S." and "do not get ahead of yourself," makes one question who is actually leading the diplomacy. While dismantling our own nuclear-related infrastructure through the nuclear phase-out policy, voices around the Blue House mention "withdrawal of U.S. Forces Korea" and "China's nuclear umbrella theory." Despite U.S. opposition, they recently even introduced measures to liberalize individual tourism to North Korea. There are even claims that the hidden goal of all Moon Jae-in-style diplomacy and trade policies is to support the realization of a "South-North Korean federation."

Fourth, domestically, they are trying to build a power base to create a "quasi-totalitarian Korea" under the pretext of prosecutorial reform. To form and maintain a totalitarian society, concentration and hyper-expansion of ruling power are essential. To this end, they are pushing for a reorganization of power institutions that undermines the principle of separation of powers, allowing the Blue House to manipulate the courts and prosecution to its liking. Policies targeting deep-rooted issues in diplomacy and trade, attacking Japan, and stirring anti-American sentiment provide the rationale and atmosphere to justify this concentration of political power.

Along with ideology-biased diplomacy that even undermines national interests, diplomacy and trade policies are being mobilized to solidify domestic power bases. How much longer should the sovereign people tolerate this? It is urgent to drastically improve the government's diplomatic and trade advisory system and establish a strategic planning system based on discussion rather than unilateral command between the Blue House and the main diplomatic and trade ministries. A policy formulation and execution mechanism based on the concept of national interest must be quickly established so that domestic ideological and political considerations do not dominate diplomacy and trade policies.

Choi Won-mok, Professor, Ewha Womans University Law School

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.