[Professor Hwang Jae-ho's Diplomatic Odyssey] Former Minister Yoon Young-kwan: "South Korea, a Top 10 Global Power, Still Views the International Order Through a 19th-Century Lens"

First Foreign Minister from the Participatory Government... "The 'Alliance or Nation' Dichotomy Is a Misguided Binary"
The Historical Uniqueness of the Korean Peninsula as a Battleground Between Maritime and Continental Powers Must Be Communicated to the U.S.
If the U.S.-China New Cold War Ideological Confrontation Deepens, Grand Compromise Will Be Difficult

[Asia Economy Reporter Lee Ji-eun]

[Professor Hwang Jae-ho's Diplomatic Odyssey] Former Minister Yoon Young-kwan: "South Korea, a Top 10 Global Power, Still Views the International Order Through a 19th-Century Lens"

The 'Big 2' of the United States and China are engaged in an intense battle for global supremacy. The U.S. and China are competing fiercely not only in military matters but also in economic and human rights issues without any concessions.

In the midst of the Big 2, South Korea's diplomacy must find an even more balanced position. North Korea is not giving up its nuclear weapons. Japan is in conflict with us over historical issues and the Dokdo dispute. This is why precise policies toward North Korea and Japan are necessary.

Accordingly, Asia Economy seeks to explore insights on Korean Peninsula policies through domestic and international diplomatic experts and scholars. Professor Hwang Jae-ho, an expert on Korean Peninsula policy and a contributor to Asia Economy as well as a professor in the Department of International Studies at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, will hold weekly dialogues with diplomatic experts and scholars under the title "Professor Hwang Jae-ho's Diplomatic Odyssey."

2. The first foreign minister of the Roh Moo-hyun administration, Yoon Young-kwan, Professor Emeritus of Political Science and International Relations at Seoul National University (former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade)

Interview / Professor Hwang Jae-ho, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies

Professor Hwang Jae-ho of the Department of International Studies at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies serves as a member of the Presidential Policy Planning Committee and as the director of the Global Strategy Cooperation Institute. He earned his Ph.D. in International Relations from the London School of Economics (LSE).

Former Foreign Minister Yoon Young-kwan and Professor Hwang Jae-ho of Hankuk University of Foreign Studies are having a conversation in the Asia Economy conference room on the 10th. Photo by Moon Ho-nam munonam@

- On March 12, the 'Quad,' a consultative body of four countries including the U.S., Japan, India, and Australia, held its first summit. This week, 2+2 meetings between the foreign and defense ministers of the U.S. and Japan, and South Korea and the U.S. were held in Tokyo and Seoul. Subsequently, on the 18th, the top diplomatic leaders of the U.S. and China held direct talks in Anchorage, U.S., and the U.S. Secretary of Defense separately visited India. Amid the U.S.'s comprehensive and all-directional diplomatic and security moves, it demonstrated that the U.S. remains at the center of the global stage. I suppose we should start by asking about the U.S.'s foreign strategy. On March 3, President Biden announced the 'Interim National Security Strategic Guidance' through the White House, outlining the blueprint for national diplomatic and military strategy. How do you evaluate and anticipate Biden's new four-year strategy?

▲ The series of diplomatic moves you mentioned clearly show that the U.S. intends to actively restore its international leadership, which is completely different from the Trump era. The recently announced 'Interim National Security Strategic Guidance' presents four keywords for the Biden administration's foreign strategy: democracy, alliances, multilateralism, and the middle class. The goal is to strengthen U.S. leadership by restoring and spreading democracy domestically and internationally through alliances and multilateral networks. The foreign economic policy also aims to benefit the middle class rather than large corporations. The question is whether these strategic goals will succeed. For success, President Biden's leadership in uniting a deeply divided America is crucial. If he fails to unify and the Democratic Party loses the 2022 midterm elections, the implementation of U.S. foreign strategy and the restoration of international leadership will become difficult, potentially shaking not only the U.S. but the entire international order.

- In a sense, Biden's diplomacy could be called 'Barump,' a blend of Biden and Trump, meaning that although it appears to be the Biden administration, it maintains the policy direction of the Trump era.

▲ According to your statement, the difference might be one of degree rather than kind, suggesting Biden's foreign policy is not very different from Trump's. However, I believe there is a qualitative difference. Trump pursued a diplomatic line that abandoned the U.S.'s leadership role in the international community, whereas Biden intends to actively participate and exercise leadership internationally. However, the Biden administration is also aware of the relative decline in U.S. power and thinks it cannot act alone but must exert influence through alliances and multilateral networks.

- The late former Secretary of State George Shultz compared international politics to a garden. Between a landscaper who fundamentally changes the international order and a gardener who manages it, which do you think Biden corresponds to?

▲ I think whether one is a landscaper or gardener depends on the era's circumstances. The current Interim National Security Strategic Guidance describes the present situation as a historical turning point. In this context, I believe Biden is closer to a landscaper who proposes a new direction different from Trump and seeks to change the international order. Of course, Trump also showed traits of a landscaper as he tried to change the paradigm of U.S. foreign policy since World War II.

- You mentioned that both Trump and Biden have strong landscaper aspects. As the phrase 'historical turning point' suggests, we are all at a moment of great change. What should our choices and responses be in the U.S.-China competitive structure?

▲ Looking at the history of the Korean Peninsula, it has suffered tremendous hardships whenever continental and maritime powers clashed militarily here. Examples include the Imjin War, the First Sino-Japanese War, the Russo-Japanese War, colonization, division, and the Korean War. Even now, we are divided and have China as a direct neighbor. However, Americans generally lack a deep understanding of this geopolitical peculiarity. They view global countries from the perspective of a superpower, so their time span for viewing Korean issues is much shorter, generally starting from the 1950s when the Korean War broke out. Therefore, it is very important to make Americans aware of the special nature of Korea and the Korean Peninsula. While cooperating with the U.S. as an ally in terms of democracy, value diplomacy, and global cooperation, we should persuade them not to extend the alliance's military target to China in the Korean Peninsula. In this regard, differentiated alliance management from Australia or Japan is necessary. Regarding China, since we are a democracy, we expect them to understand our diplomatic direction accordingly, but we must also make efforts to resolve China's military concerns.

- You have emphasized the importance of principled diplomacy unless one is a great power in several writings. What does Korean diplomacy lack: principles or flexibility?

▲ I think past Korean governments have not deeply considered the utility of principles in diplomacy. As a country that defines democracy as its national ideology and is an ally of the U.S., it is desirable to agree with the U.S.'s emphasis on democracy and values and set them as general principles of our diplomacy. By cooperating on democracy, values, and global issues emphasized by the U.S., and inducing the U.S. to be more actively involved in establishing peace on the Korean Peninsula, we can implement a 'using America' (용미) strategy, which I consider highly flexible diplomacy.

- The U.S. emphasizes trilateral cooperation among South Korea, the U.S., and Japan, and South Korea seems to have recently sought to improve relations with Japan to induce support for the U.S.'s North Korea policy. Does this correspond to flexibility?

▲ The Korea-Japan relationship is very important to South Korea. Since the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1965, there have been many ups and downs. However, one principle both countries maintained was to separate historical issues from economic, security, and other matters and approach them on two tracks. This principle was broken first by Prime Minister Abe when he imposed economic sanctions on South Korea. Regardless, efforts by our government to restore this principle and improve relations are flexible and desirable. Restoring Korea-Japan relations not only benefits that bilateral relationship but also strengthens our strategic position toward China and the U.S.

- Then, what are your thoughts on Quad Plus?

▲ I think this relates to the geopolitical peculiarity of Korea I mentioned earlier. It is a sensitive issue. In that context, a cautious approach is necessary. Regarding the U.S.'s Indo-Pacific strategy, I believe there are sufficient areas for cooperation in non-military aspects. However, for the Quad, we need to observe how it develops, especially how much emphasis will be placed on military cooperation. Also, it will take considerable time before it fully enters the Plus Three (+3) phase. There is no need to rush.

- What practical cooperation would strengthen the South Korea-U.S. alliance?

▲ Focusing on global cooperation, South Korea has developed considerable capabilities. This includes climate change, disease control, and development cooperation. Examples are green growth and the 2050 carbon neutrality declaration, COVID-19 response, and sharing economic development experiences. Additionally, South Korea plays a leading role in IT and advanced industries. Based on these capabilities, I believe South Korea can contribute to achieving the goals of global cooperation promoted by the U.S.

- Domestically, many view the U.S.-China relationship as the start of a new Cold War. However, is a grand compromise between the U.S. and China possible?

▲ I think the most important variable if the current U.S.-China confrontation deepens into a new Cold War is ideology. If ideological confrontation between the U.S. and China intensifies, a grand compromise will become increasingly difficult. One essential condition for a grand compromise is that China reverses its current trend of authoritarianism, and the U.S. succeeds in domestic unification to establish democratic leadership both domestically and internationally.

- In 2015, you wrote a book titled 'The Era of Diplomacy ? Asking the Path of the Korean Peninsula.' Are we still living in the era of diplomacy? What suggestions do you have for the direction of our diplomacy?

▲ For our diplomacy to develop, first, we must cast aside domestic partisan perspectives and ideological preferences and coldly see through the flow of politics around the Korean Peninsula and the world. Within that flow, we must thoroughly calculate our national interests and gather strategy, tactics, and wisdom across party lines to realize those interests.

- You have taught international politics both as a diplomatic field commander and in the ivory tower of academia. When you served as minister, what was the biggest gap or alignment between reality and theory?

▲ One issue I wrestled with as minister was the mistaken dichotomy of "alliance or nation." Alliance and nation are not contradictory. I have consistently argued that using alliances is important for the future of the nation. For the peace and prosperity of our nation, cooperation with alliances is essential. Although South Korea's national power has risen to the top 10 globally, I think our perspective on the international order is still heavily influenced by 19th-century resistant nationalism. Going forward, we must respond to issues arising in the international community with a more active and open perspective.

- If you were to describe yourself in one word, what would it be?

▲ Since middle and high school, I have thought a lot about "Why was Korea divided, and why do people live difficult lives because of it?" which led me to major in international politics. However, the division and peace issues of the Korean Peninsula remain unresolved. Therefore, regarding the theme that runs through my life, if I were to describe myself in one word, I think it would be 'a person dreaming of peace on the Korean Peninsula.'

Compiled by / Reporter Lee Ji-eun leezn@

Transcription / Shin Ui-chan, Researcher at the Global Strategy Cooperation Institute