Leading candidates hit for narrow-minded views
Diplomatic acumen is one of the qualifications required by presidential contenders. Yet it is questionable if the leading candidates of the ruling and opposition parties have any diplomatic sense or proper foreign policy proposals.
Lee Jae-myung, the candidate of the governing Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), is under attack for a diplomatic discourtesy. During a meeting with U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff last Friday, Lee said that America played a part in helping Japan colonize Korea in 1910 through a secret pact.
He mentioned the Taft-Katsura Agreement to remind Sen. Ossoff that the U.S. was responsible ― one way or another ― for the loss of Korea’s sovereignty to Japan. The secret deal was made in 1905 between former U.S. Secretary of War William Howard Taft and then Japanese Prime Minister Katsura Taro.
It is an established historical fact that under the “pact,” America condoned Japanese rule over the Korean Peninsula in return for U.S. control over the Philippines. But Lee’s remarks were abrupt and out of context. It was improper to refer to the agreement when he met with the Democratic U.S. senator who was visiting Korea to advocate for the Seoul-Washington alliance.
Later Lee explained that he mentioned the agreement because Ossoff showed interest in Korean history. This, however, sounded like a lame excuse. He has only invited criticism for committing a diplomatic discourtesy. He should have realized that such remarks could be seen as an expression of his anti-U.S. sentiment.
As some critics argued, the progressive candidate might have been trying to rally his supporters around anti-American sentiment in the lead-up to the March 9 presidential election. If that is the case, Lee cannot avoid criticism that he is hell-bent on winning the poll even at the cost of the South Korea-U.S. alliance.
It is not the first time that Lee has triggered controversy over Seoul-Washington ties. In July, he said that U.S. troops who entered the peninsula following Korea’s August 1945 liberation from Japan were “occupation forces.”
He cannot lead the country in the right direction with such anachronistic views, if he is elected president. He should immediately discard his narrow-minded viewpoint about history and the alliance with the U.S.
Yoon Seok-youl, the candidate of the main opposition People Power Party (PPP), has also touched off controversy. During a press conference hosted by the Seoul Foreign Correspondents’ Club last Friday, he said that Korea can allow additional deployments of the U.S. anti-missile system, known as THAAD, on its soil as it is a matter of sovereignty.
Yoon should have taken a more cautious approach to such a sensitive security issue, considering a feared backlash from China, which imposed economic retaliation on Korea for the 2017 deployment of a single THAAD battery here.
He also promised to change the “master-servant” approach in inter-Korean relations, criticizing President Moon Jae-in for playing into the hands of North Korea to promote his active engagement with Pyongyang. However it is wrong to describe the North as a master and the South as servant.
We urge both Lee and Yoon to have a better understanding of key diplomatic and security issues. They should present better foreign policy visions designed to protect our national interests and enhance our international status and reputation.
Diplomatic acumen is one of the qualifications required by presidential contenders. Yet it is questionable if the leading candidates of the ruling and opposition parties have any diplomatic sense or proper foreign policy proposals.
Lee Jae-myung, the candidate of the governing Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), is under attack for a diplomatic discourtesy. During a meeting with U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff last Friday, Lee said that America played a part in helping Japan colonize Korea in 1910 through a secret pact.
He mentioned the Taft-Katsura Agreement to remind Sen. Ossoff that the U.S. was responsible ― one way or another ― for the loss of Korea’s sovereignty to Japan. The secret deal was made in 1905 between former U.S. Secretary of War William Howard Taft and then Japanese Prime Minister Katsura Taro.
It is an established historical fact that under the “pact,” America condoned Japanese rule over the Korean Peninsula in return for U.S. control over the Philippines. But Lee’s remarks were abrupt and out of context. It was improper to refer to the agreement when he met with the Democratic U.S. senator who was visiting Korea to advocate for the Seoul-Washington alliance.
Later Lee explained that he mentioned the agreement because Ossoff showed interest in Korean history. This, however, sounded like a lame excuse. He has only invited criticism for committing a diplomatic discourtesy. He should have realized that such remarks could be seen as an expression of his anti-U.S. sentiment.
As some critics argued, the progressive candidate might have been trying to rally his supporters around anti-American sentiment in the lead-up to the March 9 presidential election. If that is the case, Lee cannot avoid criticism that he is hell-bent on winning the poll even at the cost of the South Korea-U.S. alliance.
It is not the first time that Lee has triggered controversy over Seoul-Washington ties. In July, he said that U.S. troops who entered the peninsula following Korea’s August 1945 liberation from Japan were “occupation forces.”
He cannot lead the country in the right direction with such anachronistic views, if he is elected president. He should immediately discard his narrow-minded viewpoint about history and the alliance with the U.S.
Yoon Seok-youl, the candidate of the main opposition People Power Party (PPP), has also touched off controversy. During a press conference hosted by the Seoul Foreign Correspondents’ Club last Friday, he said that Korea can allow additional deployments of the U.S. anti-missile system, known as THAAD, on its soil as it is a matter of sovereignty.
Yoon should have taken a more cautious approach to such a sensitive security issue, considering a feared backlash from China, which imposed economic retaliation on Korea for the 2017 deployment of a single THAAD battery here.
He also promised to change the “master-servant” approach in inter-Korean relations, criticizing President Moon Jae-in for playing into the hands of North Korea to promote his active engagement with Pyongyang. However it is wrong to describe the North as a master and the South as servant.
We urge both Lee and Yoon to have a better understanding of key diplomatic and security issues. They should present better foreign policy visions designed to protect our national interests and enhance our international status and reputation.
Lack of diplomatic acumen
Source: Buhay Kapa PH
0 Comments