This is the first in a series of articles evaluating the Lee Myung-bak administration’s foreign policy. ― Ed.

The first foreign policy challenge President Lee Myung-bak faced after his inauguration in February 2008 came from China. His pronounced goal of “restoring” a genuine Korea-U.S. alliance raised eyebrows among officials in Beijing, including one who publicly condemned the military alliance as a remnant of the Cold War while Lee was in Beijing for a state visit.

During his administration, Lee’s foreign policymakers have attempted a delicate balancing act ― enhancing ties with the U.S. while not compromising relations with China.

But the efforts have not seemed evenly successful. While the decades-old ties with Washington have progressed into a value-based partnership, uncertainty still lingers over the relationship with China, the staunch ally of the North, despite deepening economic interdependence.

Restored trust between allies

Under what Lee calls “practicality-based” policy, Seoul has restored trust with Washington, with which his liberal predecessors had differed over how to handle Pyongyang and the vision for the long-standing alliance.

The North’s relentless provocations have brought the allies even closer in their joint efforts for peninsular security, which culminated in their recent agreement to allow Seoul to develop longer-range ballistic missiles.

During Roh Moo-hyun’s presidency, the Seoul-Washington relationship was strained. Vowing not to kowtow to the U.S., the liberal leader came to power in 2003 amid widespread anti-American sentiment triggered by the deaths of two girls run over by a U.S. military vehicle during an exercise in 2002.

As Roh sought a fairer relationship with the U.S. with his vision of South Korea becoming a “balancer” in Northeast Asia, Washington was apparently uncertain about Seoul’s intentions behind its foreign policy.

The balancing strategy spawned speculation that Seoul would maintain a neutral position between the U.S. and China, which apparently added to the diplomatic friction between the allies. Roh’s engagement policy with North Korea had also been in conflict with Washington’s tougher policy stance.

Lee, a conservative, adopted a pro-U.S. approach, which has shored up the eroding bilateral trust. In close tandem with the U.S., Lee adopted a stricter reciprocal policy toward North Korea based on his belief that the Korea-U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of peninsular security.

During Lee’s presidency, the two allies have developed their military alliance into a global, multifaceted and value-based partnership, a move to deal with a variety of peninsular, regional and global challenges together.

Based on the improved relationship, Washington agreed to amend a bilateral missile guideline to allow Seoul to develop longer-range, stronger ballistic missiles although it could undermine its initiatives of non-proliferation and arms control.

“When there is a laxity in an alliance between a strong power and a middle-scale country, it is quite difficult and takes much time to patch things up,” said Chung Sung-yoon at Ilmin International Relations Institute of Korea University.

“But over a relatively short period of time, Seoul has restored the ties and overcome the alliance’s cracks during Lee’s presidency.”

Nam Chang-hee, international politics professor at Inha University, agreed.

“Lee has maintained a strong personal friendship with Barack Obama, which has apparently positively affected the alliance and improved mutual trust,” he said. “Despite much political difficulty, they clinched the free trade deal, and moved in close cooperation over North Korea without much difference in their approach.” 

Washington has long stood firm in support of Seoul as the North launched a series of provocations including the two deadly attacks in 2010 that killed a total of 50 South Koreans.

Some argue that the improvement in the relationship was inevitable as the U.S. seeks to rebalance its diplomatic priorities in the region emerging as the fulcrum of the global economy and security.

Critics also charged that Seoul, in some cases, was pressured to make decisions that had little to do with its national interest.

One case was its participation in the U.S.-led sanctions against Tehran over its controversial nuclear programs. The decision was a tough one as Seoul has expanded economic ties with Iran while it is not in a position to be lenient over nuclear issues given its pursuit of peninsular denuclearization.

“Iran has a great potential and a future market for Korea. It is about 16 times bigger than Korea in terms of the territorial size, it has huge resources including oil and natural gas as well as cultural and historical assets of the Persian Civilization,” said Chang Byung-ock, an Iran expert at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.

“The Lee administration has maintained good ties with pro-U.S. states in the Middle East including the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council ― but its relationship with Iran is at its worst.”

Korea-China relations

The relations between South Korea and China have suffered a series of setbacks in recent years over forcibly repatriated North Korean refugees, the spat concerning the jurisdiction over a submerged rock in the East China Sea, Chinese fishermen illegally operating in Korean-controlled waters and historical misunderstandings.

As all these issues coalign, the bilateral relations, on the surface, appear to have seriously deteriorated, even as the two countries mark the 20th anniversary of their diplomatic ties this year.

What has dismayed South Koreans most was China’s stance in favor of its unruly ally North Korea. The different stances over Pyongyang, some argued, sparked Cold War era-like tension between the democratic and communist blocs.

Below the surface, however, there has also been much progress in their relationship, experts pointed out.

The two countries elevated their relationship to a “strategic cooperative partnership” in 2008, leading to an increase in high-level contacts.

Last year, Seoul and Beijing opened strategic defense dialogue, though some argue the talks may not go into a deeper level of security discussion as Seoul maintains the alliance with the U.S. They also began FTA negotiations last May.

China is South Korea’s largest trading partner. The two-way trade volume, which stood at $6.3 billion in 1992, topped $200 billion last year ― one-fifth of Korea’s total trade volume.

Lee Tai-hwan, senior fellow at the think tank Sejong Institute, said that to maintain such a rapid progress, the two neighbors should work more closely to enhance their mutual trust.

“There has been a significant increase in exchanges and cooperation in a variety of realms. But amid this increase, there have also been as many misunderstandings,” he said. “There should be more systemized and institutionalized channels of communication to minimize them.”

Experts argue that as the U.S. is refocusing on the Asia Pacific, South Korea should have a more sophisticated diplomatic policy toward Beijing, considering that some recognize America’s strategic engagement in the region as part of a move to counter the rise of China.

“Given our national power for now, to strengthen the Korea-U.S. alliance, undoubtedly, meshes with Korea’s national interest. But that has fueled the discourse about Seoul siding with the U.S. to keep China in check,” said Kim tae-hyun, politics professor at Chung-Ang University.

“It is regrettable that Seoul failed to block such a discourse and forge a strategic position amid the Sino-U.S. rivalry.” 

By Song Sang-ho (sshluck@heraldcorp.com)