By Ahn Ho-young
In the past six or so weeks since the fall of Kabul, Korean news media have been abuzz with the lessons Korea must learn from the incident. They ranged from warning that U.S. troops may one day depart from Korea suddenly to suggestions that Korea must seriously consider diversifying its foreign and security policy in view of the waning power of the U.S. Some articles expressed "dismay" that U.S. President Joe Biden, in spite of his trademark declaration that "America is back," seems to share the "America first" penchant of Donald Trump. Let me start by addressing this dismay.
In the first place, there is no need for dismay. During the presidential election of 2016, the Republican Party used to provide opportunities for diplomats to meet with foreign policy advisers of candidate Trump. These advisers used to defend Trump's "America first" policy by saying that it is only reasonable for a U.S. president to put America first, as the head of any country around the world would do. I thought it was a smart point, and said to myself that in fact U.S. presidents, all the way from George Washington, must have done exactly that.
At the same time, I think the real point is how a U.S. president tried to implement "America first" in a given situation. A U.S. president tried to do it in the middle of a world war by preparing for post-war institutions for peace and prosperity, based on the belief that such institutions will best protect U.S. national interests. That was Franklin Roosevelt's approach.
Another U.S. president tried to do it through a "transactional approach" as Trump did. The objectives they pursued may have been the same. However, the different approaches they took made all the difference for the world.
Several years ago, Stephen Sestanovich wrote a book titled "Maximalist: America in the World from Truman to Obama." As the title suggests, the book was an overview of the foreign policies of U.S. presidents starting from Truman all the way to Obama. The book was based on the observation that the foreign policies of successive U.S. presidents used to oscillate between maximalist and its opposite approach, depending on the time and on the president. There were over-simplifications in the book here and there, but I still found the book to be a helpful tool for understanding U.S. foreign policy.
Reading through the book, I naturally thought a lot about what impact different approaches of different U.S. presidents brought on Korea. Truman, in Sestanovich's pendulum, was a maximalist president. On the very day that the Korean War broke out, he convened a meeting at Blair House and requested General McArthur's observation and recommendation.
In only several days' time, Truman followed McArthur's recommendation and sent ground troops from the U.S., which arrived in Korea just in time to help defend the Pusan Perimeter and turn around the war from a total defeat to a counter-offensive. The Korean War could have ended in a very different place with a different president sitting in the White House.
Nixon looked upon a re-orientation of U.S. foreign policy as his mission in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and was a minimalist president in Sestanovich's pendulum. Nixon's Guam Doctrine placed Asia's defense squarely on the shoulders of Asians.
It was a heavy load for Korea at the time when the security situation was so precarious that many feared the start of a "second Korean War." Korea responded by embarking on an ambitious plan to modernize its military, start a large-scale military exercise with the U.S. called "Team Spirit" and agreeing with the U.S. to form the NATO-style Combined Forces Command.
Fast forward to today, I think Biden is not so different from any of his predecessors in that his objective must be "America first" as well. What is encouraging about the incumbent U.S. leader is that he believes he can pursue it best by re-establishing U.S. leadership in cooperation with allies, based on the common values of liberal democracy, market economy, human rights and rule of law.
This is not the time to question the capacity or sincerity of Biden's commitment to renewed U.S. leadership, as is becoming fashionable in the post-Kabul blame game. Rather, it is time to make the most of Biden's commitment and further strengthen the basis for Korea's security and prosperity.
As for the suggestion of diversifying Korea's foreign policy, we must be clear about what we mean by diversification. Diversification in fact has already been an important pillar of Korea's foreign policy, which has been manifested in the form of the Northern Policy and Southern Policy, both of which have met with much success. In conceiving and implementing these policies, we have based them on the alliance with the U.S. for the simple reason that we share strategic interests and values with the U.S.
Ahn Ho-young (hyahn78@mofa.or.kr) is president of the University of North Korean Studies. He served as Korean ambassador to the United States and first vice foreign minister.
 |
In the first place, there is no need for dismay. During the presidential election of 2016, the Republican Party used to provide opportunities for diplomats to meet with foreign policy advisers of candidate Trump. These advisers used to defend Trump's "America first" policy by saying that it is only reasonable for a U.S. president to put America first, as the head of any country around the world would do. I thought it was a smart point, and said to myself that in fact U.S. presidents, all the way from George Washington, must have done exactly that.
At the same time, I think the real point is how a U.S. president tried to implement "America first" in a given situation. A U.S. president tried to do it in the middle of a world war by preparing for post-war institutions for peace and prosperity, based on the belief that such institutions will best protect U.S. national interests. That was Franklin Roosevelt's approach.
Another U.S. president tried to do it through a "transactional approach" as Trump did. The objectives they pursued may have been the same. However, the different approaches they took made all the difference for the world.
Several years ago, Stephen Sestanovich wrote a book titled "Maximalist: America in the World from Truman to Obama." As the title suggests, the book was an overview of the foreign policies of U.S. presidents starting from Truman all the way to Obama. The book was based on the observation that the foreign policies of successive U.S. presidents used to oscillate between maximalist and its opposite approach, depending on the time and on the president. There were over-simplifications in the book here and there, but I still found the book to be a helpful tool for understanding U.S. foreign policy.
Reading through the book, I naturally thought a lot about what impact different approaches of different U.S. presidents brought on Korea. Truman, in Sestanovich's pendulum, was a maximalist president. On the very day that the Korean War broke out, he convened a meeting at Blair House and requested General McArthur's observation and recommendation.
In only several days' time, Truman followed McArthur's recommendation and sent ground troops from the U.S., which arrived in Korea just in time to help defend the Pusan Perimeter and turn around the war from a total defeat to a counter-offensive. The Korean War could have ended in a very different place with a different president sitting in the White House.
Nixon looked upon a re-orientation of U.S. foreign policy as his mission in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and was a minimalist president in Sestanovich's pendulum. Nixon's Guam Doctrine placed Asia's defense squarely on the shoulders of Asians.
It was a heavy load for Korea at the time when the security situation was so precarious that many feared the start of a "second Korean War." Korea responded by embarking on an ambitious plan to modernize its military, start a large-scale military exercise with the U.S. called "Team Spirit" and agreeing with the U.S. to form the NATO-style Combined Forces Command.
Fast forward to today, I think Biden is not so different from any of his predecessors in that his objective must be "America first" as well. What is encouraging about the incumbent U.S. leader is that he believes he can pursue it best by re-establishing U.S. leadership in cooperation with allies, based on the common values of liberal democracy, market economy, human rights and rule of law.
This is not the time to question the capacity or sincerity of Biden's commitment to renewed U.S. leadership, as is becoming fashionable in the post-Kabul blame game. Rather, it is time to make the most of Biden's commitment and further strengthen the basis for Korea's security and prosperity.
As for the suggestion of diversifying Korea's foreign policy, we must be clear about what we mean by diversification. Diversification in fact has already been an important pillar of Korea's foreign policy, which has been manifested in the form of the Northern Policy and Southern Policy, both of which have met with much success. In conceiving and implementing these policies, we have based them on the alliance with the U.S. for the simple reason that we share strategic interests and values with the U.S.
Ahn Ho-young (hyahn78@mofa.or.kr) is president of the University of North Korean Studies. He served as Korean ambassador to the United States and first vice foreign minister.
![[INTERVIEW] 'Money Heist: Korea' writer feels satisfied to expand series' franchise](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/e264f8d5589442489d72f9494ca3f1c7.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
