 |
|
|
|
||
|
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
|
|
December
19, 2002, 11:45 a.m. By Reihan M. Salam |
|
oon after the Spanish Navy's seizure of the So San, a North Korean vessel
filled to the brim with Scud missiles, the conspiracy mongers, with visions
of power-mad Strangelovians dancing in their heads, sprung into action.
Surely this was an American plot to secure the election of Lee Hoi-chang,
candidate of the pro-American Grand National party, in the upcoming neck-and-neck
South Korean presidential election!
Judging by the fallout from the operation — the United States has apologized to Spain for putting its sailors at risk and the missiles are heading to their new home, Yemen, despite the fact that our Yemeni friends have repeatedly lied about the shipment — it's difficult to imagine that an elaborate deception is what our foreign-policy mandarins had in mind, and it's a damn shame: While no one likes dirty tricks, the Bush administration should be pulling out all the stops for Lee, who represents the best hope for peace on the Korean peninsula after five years of destructive engagement.
Shouldn't our leaders stay out of domestic controversies in friendly or neutral countries? That's the argument against the Defense Department's proposal to discredit anti-American elements in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe. But it's a little late for that. Back in May 1999, the Clinton White House was positively elated by the defeat of Benjamin Netanyahu, who had been a thorn in Clinton's side for years. Some of Clinton's own former campaign advisers helped orchestrate Ehud Barak's victory, and the president, though publicly neutral, was hardly subtle about his own allegiances. Behind the scenes, Clinton pressed Yasser Arafat not to make a unilateral declaration of independence for his Palestinian Authority, a move that would have almost certainly helped Bibi. Though Barak's tenure was disastrous, there's no doubt that (in the short term, at least) Clinton achieved his objectives. Far be it from me to offer Bill Clinton as a model for President Bush, but, in this instance, he had the right idea: to pursue American interests, he was willing to get his hands dirty.
Clinton's effort on behalf of his buddy Barak was far from the first time the United States intervened in an ally's election. During the dark days that followed World War II, the United States generously assisted democratic political parties and trade unions in Western Europe in an effort to prevent Communist victories at the polls. Had the U.S. allowed events to run their course, it may well have meant the end of free elections, thus allowing Stalin to achieve his ends without firing a shot.
Granted, Lee Hoi Chang's rival, Roh Moo Hyun, the center-left candidate of South Korea's ruling Millennium Democratic party, is no stalking horse for the Bolsheviks — but the stakes are high. While Roh himself is committed to South Korea's alliance with the United States, he's become the candidate of anti-American nationalism, which has surged since two Korean girls were killed by an American armored vehicle this past summer. Since then, South Korea's major cities have been rocked by violent protests. Millions of younger South Koreans, for whom the Korean War is a distant memory, see the United States as an obstacle to peaceful reunification, and American military personnel are seen less as heroic defenders than as predatory imperialist bullies. Indeed, anti-American sentiments are running so strong that some South Koreans have called for a boycott of the highly entertaining new James Bond movie, Die Another Day, because it shows an American bossing around the South Korean armed forces — "Have we become a U.S. colony?" writes one protester.
Because so many South
Koreans see the U.S. as an arrogant nation, a distressingly large number
of them continue to support President Kim Dae-jung's all-carrots, no-sticks
"sunshine policy," which, with the help of economic inducements,
technical assistance, and cross-border ties, was supposed to wean the
North from rogue-like behavior. Instead, North Korea's Dear Leader is
hocking aging Scuds and reactivating deadly nuclear facilities. What's
Roh's solution? Brighter sunshine!
This is exactly why the Bush administration needs to back Lee. Like the
Bushies, Lee, a widely respected former supreme-court justice known for
his steely determination, believes that the time has come for a tougher
approach. While Lee believes that engagement has its place, he also believes
that North Korean truculence should have consequences. And, most importantly,
he strongly and unambiguously supports South Korea's alliance with the
United States — not that the U.S. has made this an easy position
to take. After the deaths that sparked mass demonstrations, President
Bush waited several months to issue an apology, and it was a tepid one
at that. Had he acted sooner, much of the bitterness that followed could
have been avoided and Lee would have had a stronger shot.
Might American efforts to influence our allies make matters worse? If influencing our allies means heavy-handed interventions, absolutely — that's a sure-fire recipe for angering South Korea's nationalist public. But if, on the other hand, it means paying close attention to an evolving political landscape and doing everything possible to advance American interests, then it can only do good for all parties involved (except the North Koreans, of course). And, lest we forget, a strict policy of non-intervention on the information front leaves America's enemies free to spread misrepresentations without challenge. This weekend's protests in Seoul were organized by the pro-Communist Korean Democratic Labor Party, along with other groups aligned with North Korea. Evidently, Pyongyang has no qualms about spreading its influence.
Last week, the U.S. agreed to consider a revision of the 1966 Status of Forces Agreement between the two countries, a sure sign that this recent bout of anti-Americanism will have lasting consequences. In a sense, the damage to U.S.-South Korean relations has already been done, but there's always the next election.
— Reihan M Salam is a research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations.