[Opinion] Criticism Toward the President Who Entered the Diplomatic Battlefield

Economic and Security Tightrope Diplomacy War
Is Unconditional Criticism of Camp Logic the Answer?

What is striking is the intensity of the words that appeared in this recent South Korea-U.S. summit. Terms like nuclear attack, overwhelming response, and the end of a regime stood out, whereas two years ago, during the Moon Jae-in-Biden summit, words such as peace, stability, and inclusion were mainly exchanged. This starkly reflects the solidified confrontation structure between South Korea-U.S.-Japan and North Korea-China-Russia. However, the criticism that the Yoon Seok-yeol administration has brought about this change in the situation is excessive.

The Moon Jae-in administration, which was inclined toward China, is evaluated to have moved a step closer to the U.S. side following the 2021 South Korea-U.S. summit. The Yoon administration merely added to that reaction. While this may be a judgment based on the Yoon administration’s own security perspective, above all, it is an inevitable choice in response to the external environmental changes where the U.S. and China have become more sharply confrontational. Denying this reality is no different from arguing that when the U.S. and China clash, we should choose to retreat closer to China and Russia.

About ten days before President Yoon left for the U.S., Chinese President Xi Jinping inspected the LG Display factory in Guangzhou. What is the message behind this unusual move? One possibility is that it was a warning against the various controversies that had been pouring out even before the South Korea-U.S. summit and President Yoon’s remarks that provoked China and Russia. China is closely watching the messages that will come out of the summit, and especially regarding the Taiwan issue, it might have meant not to cross certain lines. The second possibility is a kind of gesture to try to prevent South Korea from becoming completely aligned with the U.S. and Japan, an attempt to pull South Korea closer. Assuming these two contrasting intentions coexist in President Xi’s mind, our response should be appropriate to that.

President Yoon’s statement in a foreign media interview opposing any use of force that disrupts international order can be interpreted as a principle of “speaking out.” This is a proper response of a sovereign nation to the first intention in President Xi’s mind. On the other hand, the declaration of “strategic ambiguity” to maintain constructive cooperation with either China or Russia can be a response to the second intention. Both South Korea-China and South Korea-Russia are well aware that neither a complete break nor full alignment is possible economically or in terms of security.

The criticism that if South Korea firmly sides with the U.S. on security, it should at least bring economic gifts is the same. The claim that there are insufficient achievements related to the Semiconductor Act or the Inflation Reduction Act seems to imply that South Korea should obtain some kind of special privilege from the U.S., but these laws are “multilateral” laws, not made by the U.S. targeting South Korea. However, some caveats or clauses might be expected as a consideration for the blood alliance, but such negotiation details are not the kind to be openly disclosed at a joint press conference.

Balancing diplomacy between great powers is a challenge every administration has faced. And President Yoon is probably the person who took office during the most difficult period of upheaval. In this situation, one cannot help but question how much the sarcastic attitude of “it’s fortunate if no accidents happen” really helps national interests. As a famous politician said that if aliens invade, we should ally with Japan, in the face of national interests against foreign powers, factions are meaningless and division is fatal. Even if I do not support the president, his mistakes change the fate of the country I love.

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