Is South Korea ready for another war among great powers?
The last time the world's three great powers clashed, directly or indirectly, was the Korean War (1950-53).
Seventy-three years later, the U.S. and Russia are engaged in an indirect war in Ukraine. A four-star general at the U.S. Air Force recently told his men to prepare for a war with China "in two years."
More than a few military experts predict the next theater for a great-power conflict could be the Korean Peninsula ― again. Little wonder then that political pundits say South Korea faces the most critical circumstances since the fratricidal war, with some comparing the present to the late 19th century.
It is a scenario South Koreans hate to think about, but nothing seems impossible now.
When Russia invaded Ukraine a year ago, some commentators said the conflict would end in a few weeks. As the war is about to enter its second year, mutually satisfying and face-saving compromise appears unlikely anytime soon. Russia does not hide its intention to use nuclear weapons and some Americans worry about the direct engagement of their troops.
The U.S.-Chinese rivalry is also intensifying. The ongoing war of nerves between the two countries over a Chinese balloon in U.S. airspace shows even a trifling incident could escalate to a military confrontation. Initially, China admitted the balloon was theirs and said sorry. After Washington shot it down due partly to Republican outcries, Beijing is claiming ownership over the debris, also conscious of its domestic audience.
In November, at their summit in Bali, Indonesia, Joe Biden told Xi Jinping, "There need not be a new Cold War." Whatever the U.S. president calls the current situation, the world has split into two ― America and its allies are on one side and Russia and China are on the other. Japan resurges to join the global game. North and South Korea are more divided than ever and liberals and conservatives in the South are also miles apart. Do we need more evidence to compare the present to 130 years ago?
Never in recent history has this country needed a more principled and, at the same time, flexible leadership than now. Sadly, the reality can hardly be more different. South Korea is now governed by a leader absorbed in all-or-nothing, black-or-white thinking, who regards almost everyone, except for a small number of close friends or supporters, as foes, ranging from labor unions to a foreign country with a long friendly relationship and even the governing party's emerging leader. What is more regrettable is that now is the time to turn as many more former enemies into friends.
However, there is a big difference from the late 19th century ― South Korea's status in the international community. If united internally and reconciled with the North instead of remaining stuck in a dilemma of a big power game, Seoul can ― and should ― play a more significant and far more constructive role than now or at least try to do so, be it in saving the earth's ecosystem or preventing a nuclear war.
This country has shown some potential, too, with its economic growth, cultural influence and efficient response to the COVID-19 pandemic. South Korea should continue to go in this direction by uniting with similar middle powers or playing a middleman in the G-20 or even G-7.
All of this could begin with a unifying and broad leadership. A leader who has advocated freedom at home and abroad should be more generous in dealing even with his opponents, giving them the freedom to express their views. However, the incumbent government does not allow even the bereaved families of an enormous man-made disaster the freedom to grieve.
South Koreans want their government to conduct more consistent, predictable, and sustainable diplomacy abroad and handle domestic affairs more harmoniously and embracingly. More than a century ago, the latter-day Joseon Kingdom collapsed by suppressing protestors at home and failing to read international politics correctly.
We hope South Korea will do far better than it did in those days. Koreans showed they could do so ― provided corresponding leadership.