[Viewpoint] Submissive Policies Toward China Must Be Broken

Lee Yong-jun, Former Ambassador for North Korean Nuclear Affairs and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs

Most countries in the world, excluding communist states, have an electoral system that selects the ruling party or political leaders every few years. Political changes resulting from these elections often lead to modifications in policies and systems, and sometimes the major direction a country pursues is adjusted. However, it is a long-standing practice in the international community that a country's foreign policy maintains broad continuity regardless of domestic political shifts. This is because foreign relations involve other parties and are governed by numerous treaties, agreements, and international communities independent of domestic political changes.

For example, even if the Socialist Party comes to power in France, it would not withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to join the pro-Russian camp, nor would a change in Japan's ruling party alter its policies toward the United States, China, or its stance on the Dokdo issue. During the administrations of Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun, despite their radical conciliatory policies toward North Korea, the fundamental framework of South Korea's foreign relations with the U.S. and Japan remained intact.

However, the upheaval in South Korea's foreign relations over the past five years under the Moon Jae-in administration, which imposed political and ideological standards on diplomatic and security policies and pushed them through, is better described as 'destruction' rather than 'change.' As Hermann Hesse famously said, "Those who want to be born must destroy a world," they may have destroyed the basic order of the country's foreign relations to create something new. Yet, nothing was created. They destroyed the ROK-U.S. alliance and ROK-U.S.-Japan cooperation while aligning with the Chinese camp, and in trying to appease North Korea, they dismantled the international nuclear response system and South Korea's defense posture. Nevertheless, there was not even a speck of progress in ROK-China or inter-Korean relations, and the attitude toward South Korea was one of disregard and belittlement.

The most urgent foreign policy task for the new government to be inaugurated through next month's presidential election is to restore this country from an 'abnormal state never seen before' to a normal state that is a member of the international civilized community. The core tasks for this are, first, to end the pro-China submissive diplomacy caused by the Moon administration's ideological bias and servility, and second, to awaken from the illusion of pro-North Korean policies driven by misguided ideological obsession and return to the real world. Above all, it is urgent to stop the voluntary submission to China, which has been our virtual adversary since 2000, and regain autonomy.

China today is not the China that Koreans had vague illusions about 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, China was a developing country practicing "taoguang yanghui" (韜光養晦, hiding strength and biding time), but with its recent rapid growth in national power, it has revealed the claws of Sinocentrism reminiscent of Japanese imperialism a century ago by threatening weaker neighboring countries with military force to expand its territory and plundering developing countries' economic infrastructure under the pretext of providing loans. The uncivilized and uncultural face of China, as displayed during the recent Beijing Winter Olympics, is a continuation of such an anachronistic policy.

Reflecting China's changes over the past 20 years, South Koreans' unfavorable views of China have surged from 31% in 2002 to 77% in 2021, ranking fourth worldwide after Japan, Sweden, and Australia. An overwhelming majority of South Korean citizens hope that the government will break away from submissive diplomacy toward China, restore sovereignty and autonomy, and return to the ROK-U.S. alliance and the world of liberal democracy. Amid this, there is a heated debate among presidential candidates over whether to abolish the 'Three No's Promise,' a symbol of submissive diplomacy toward China. As a citizen, it is frustrating and shameful that such an obvious proposition has become a political controversy in this country.