By Oh Young-jin
I recently encountered three foreign residents who asserted that Koreans should take control of our own fate and play a leading role in peace-making efforts on the Korean Peninsula.
Two of them participated in The Korea Times' roundtable discussion last week. They are Lakhvinder Singh, a long-term Indian resident in Korea who is deeply involved in the peace movement, and Prof. Emanuel Yi Pastreich, a critic of modern culture and politics. The third was The Korea Times' Washington-based columnist Stephen Costello, who didn't participate in the discussion.
A sobering voice that provides a cautionary tale against this departure from the status quo is Lee Seong-hyon, works at the Sejong Institute. Lee, Pastreich and Singh were on hand and presented their views on the subject ― in the aftermath of President Moon Jae-in's whirlwind diplomacy starting with U.S. President Donald Trump and moving to Germany for summits with Japan's Shinzo Abe and China's President Xi Jinping while participating in the G20 summit.
At first, I was overwhelmed by the two foreign scholars' assertions that Korea should be more assertive. The way I see their arguments is Korea is so unaccustomed to setting its own terms that others often do the job for it. They see traces of that national characteristic in President Moon's behavior when he met with other countries' leaders.
Pastriech took an in-depth look at what caused Koreans to become so ― attributing it to its history of never being a colonial power that elaborated its goals and pursued them. Rather, Korea was on the receiving end of colonialism.
Prof. Singh took a different path toward Pastriech's conclusion. He came up with an assertive view of India's self in reflection of its colonial past under Britain.
During the roundtable, I wondered loudly whether Americans have been so accustomed to a leadership role that it has been ingrained into their DNA.
Regarding Singh's assertion, I didn't say it but felt that India is free from the threat of being subjugated by a foreign power again, and that freedom in turn boosts his assertiveness. Mixed with it is his reflection of his nation's colonial victimhood ― "never again."
Korea has not had a chance to get leadership DNA with its modern evolutionary path strongly determined by 36 years under Japan's colonial rule, the memories of which Korea are still struggling to unshackle itself from. Then, its six-decade-long confrontation with the North, following the three-year fratricidal war, puts constraints on its national imagination. This standoff also necessitates Korea's reliance on the superpower America in the forefront of the Cold War when the Soviet Union was alive. The structure has been preserved only with the Soviets being replaced by Chinese.
That takes us to Lee's reality-based assessment that it is a matter of time before the North's weapons of mass destruction can hit the U.S. and that this may tempt Washington to go after Pyongyang directly. Our role is to prevent the situation from spiraling out of control. It is in a nutshell a survival strategy. That may explain the lack of enthusiasm on the part of Koreans about Moon's peace initiatives announced in Germany. They are seen being far from reality.
Then, what would Korea have to choose ― immediate survival and growth into leadership role over the long haul? I would say both at the same time.
Oh Young-jin is The Korea Times' chief editorial writer. Contact foolsdie5@ktimes.com and foolsdie@gmail.com.
.jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
Two of them participated in The Korea Times' roundtable discussion last week. They are Lakhvinder Singh, a long-term Indian resident in Korea who is deeply involved in the peace movement, and Prof. Emanuel Yi Pastreich, a critic of modern culture and politics. The third was The Korea Times' Washington-based columnist Stephen Costello, who didn't participate in the discussion.
A sobering voice that provides a cautionary tale against this departure from the status quo is Lee Seong-hyon, works at the Sejong Institute. Lee, Pastreich and Singh were on hand and presented their views on the subject ― in the aftermath of President Moon Jae-in's whirlwind diplomacy starting with U.S. President Donald Trump and moving to Germany for summits with Japan's Shinzo Abe and China's President Xi Jinping while participating in the G20 summit.
At first, I was overwhelmed by the two foreign scholars' assertions that Korea should be more assertive. The way I see their arguments is Korea is so unaccustomed to setting its own terms that others often do the job for it. They see traces of that national characteristic in President Moon's behavior when he met with other countries' leaders.
Pastriech took an in-depth look at what caused Koreans to become so ― attributing it to its history of never being a colonial power that elaborated its goals and pursued them. Rather, Korea was on the receiving end of colonialism.
Prof. Singh took a different path toward Pastriech's conclusion. He came up with an assertive view of India's self in reflection of its colonial past under Britain.
During the roundtable, I wondered loudly whether Americans have been so accustomed to a leadership role that it has been ingrained into their DNA.
Regarding Singh's assertion, I didn't say it but felt that India is free from the threat of being subjugated by a foreign power again, and that freedom in turn boosts his assertiveness. Mixed with it is his reflection of his nation's colonial victimhood ― "never again."
Korea has not had a chance to get leadership DNA with its modern evolutionary path strongly determined by 36 years under Japan's colonial rule, the memories of which Korea are still struggling to unshackle itself from. Then, its six-decade-long confrontation with the North, following the three-year fratricidal war, puts constraints on its national imagination. This standoff also necessitates Korea's reliance on the superpower America in the forefront of the Cold War when the Soviet Union was alive. The structure has been preserved only with the Soviets being replaced by Chinese.
That takes us to Lee's reality-based assessment that it is a matter of time before the North's weapons of mass destruction can hit the U.S. and that this may tempt Washington to go after Pyongyang directly. Our role is to prevent the situation from spiraling out of control. It is in a nutshell a survival strategy. That may explain the lack of enthusiasm on the part of Koreans about Moon's peace initiatives announced in Germany. They are seen being far from reality.
Then, what would Korea have to choose ― immediate survival and growth into leadership role over the long haul? I would say both at the same time.
Oh Young-jin is The Korea Times' chief editorial writer. Contact foolsdie5@ktimes.com and foolsdie@gmail.com.
