Two Koreas, One Ally...For Now

JEJU-DO, SOUTH KOREA – The odds are good that most presidential candidates haven’t considered Jae Seok’s* opinion.

Never mind that Jae Seok is the model of a future global citizen: fluent in English and Korean, conversational in Chinese, the well-educated son of a prosperous businessman in this small island province. Never mind that even at the age of 14, he’s articulate and thoughtful, plans to study in America and has access to all the information that money can buy. Never mind that, despite the fact that he’s a citizen of one of America’s most prosperous and crucial allies, he’s already declared himself a supporter of North Korea. Presidential campaigns aren’t paying attention to Jae Seok. But maybe they should.

From the American political perspective, South and North Korea are two very separate entities. South Korea, with its strong development indicators and phenomenal technological sector, is an American ally in a historically volatile region. North Korea, meanwhile, is still considered part of the “axis of evil,” with a pompadoured, cognac-swilling dictator who’s long been a favorite bogeyman of politicians on both ends of the spectrum.

For many Koreans, however, the two countries are separate halves in need of reunification, parts of a whole split by a war that today exists largely on paper. And while the vilification of the one may seem unrelated to the support of the other, the complex ties at play here mean that politicians’ bombastic rhetoric may inadvertently cause serious damage to America’s relationship with one of its most important friends.

At face value, candidates’ strong stances against Kim Jong-Il’s regime may seem logical; nuclear proliferation, after all, poses a risk to far more countries than just the United States. It’s unsurprising, then, that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) has compared Kim to Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez; that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has publicly said that he “has not taken the military option off the table;” that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) has argued that rewarding North Korea’s “bad behavior” has never gotten America anything more than “worse behavior.” Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) is worried that if a viable non-proliferation agreement is reached North Korea might be caught “cheating.” Strong words, yes, but if anything, they would seem to induce support from other countries whose security might be put at risk by a rogue state with large, dangerous weapons.

Here in South Korea, though, support for reunification remains strong. Soccer spectators carry pro-unification signs. Bags of rice in the local Hanaro Mart proclaim themselves to be farmed in the Demilitarized Zone, or the DMZ, and bear the word “unity” next to a pair of doves. In an August 2007 Media Research poll, 73.9 percent of South Koreans supported the October summit that occurred between Kim and South Korean president Roh Moo-Hyun – a summit that was covered with breathless play-by-play by national media group Arirang. More troubling, however, are the indicators that should a conflict between the United States and North Korea arise, support from the South Korean citizenry might not be as dependable as the American government might like to think. A 2006 AP poll reveals that almost half of youth surveyed believe that in such an event, South Korea should back its neighbor to the north. Meanwhile, only 11 percent argued that South Korea should support its American ally.

In order, then, to retain South Korean support – support that is needed not only economically, but politically and militarily as well – a shift in worldview is needed, along with a better understanding of the factors that tie both halves of the Korean peninsula together. Cultural and ethnic loyalties, the legacy of a shared history that extends back more than a millennium, contribute to the idea of two Koreas that share one people.

Growing restiveness with America’s influence – especially the continued presence of American military bases – has contributed to the sort of distrust that might lead to reactionary support for North Korea. And just as in America, domestic politics are as crucial for a government’s power as international ones; Roh faced significant opposition when he took only a moderate position on North Korean talks, with South Koreans accusing him of kowtowing to the Bush administration.

So where does this leave the American presidential contenders? While their rhetoric may earn them brownie points among potential U.S. voters, candidates will eventually have to acknowledge the fact that our allies and our enemies, to a certain degree, see themselves as one and the same. Aside from the fact that the perpetual time bomb that is the Kim regime could explode at any time, alienating South Korea – its politicians, its businessmen, its media – means alienating a major trade partner and a global military supporter.

Stump speeches aren’t known for their nuanced discussion of foreign policy, but it takes little effort to acknowledge that South Korean support simply can’t be taken for granted, and that in being a democracy tethered to a dictatorship, the country finds itself between a rock and a very hard place. It may be a slight change in tune, but it might be enough to make future American partners – like Jae Seok – reconsider theirs.

*Name has been changed.