Korea is being forced to make some important choices about its future amidst the reshuffle in the international order that has come in the wake of the events of September 11. Ultimately we are being forced to choose whether we are going to stand on the side of "civilization" or those who would like to challenge it.

The terrorism of September 11 hit the US harder than we could ever know. Over here we have been interpreting that incident and the events that have followed as a "clash of civilizations," a confrontation between Christian and Islamic civilizations, or a new attempt by the US to hold on to its hegemony. Some theorists and members of the press are calling the US's attacks on Afghanistan an expression of American neo-imperialism, and have tended to portray Osama bin Laden a hero for resisting the US's "suppression of Islam." Some perceive it as an expression of the strained relations between powerful and weak nations.

Whatever the true nature of what is transpiring, one thing that is clear is that US leadership is declaring to the world that it will no longer put up with being a terrorist target, and is forcing the countries of the world to chose whether to be on "their side" or the "terrorists' side." The value judgment of whether the US is right or not is a separate issue; the choice before us is a real one, and for a country like ours, where relations with the US are always an important variable. The fact is that, all abstract debate aside, we are left with no choice, but to make a choice.

To force this choice the US is employing new weapons. Under former US global strategy it was the White House and the State Department that operated from the center, but now it is the Defense Department and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) that are taking center stage. Instead of dialogue and words (from the State Department), the US will be speaking with physical strength (from the Defense Department) and economic strength (from the USTR), and signs of this are already apparent. Against all elements that oppose the US's interests and the interests of the "civilization" they speak of will be subject to that physical and economic strength.

The problem, then, is what our choice will be and how our government approaches the situation. The government of Kim Dae-jung is either unaware of the changes in the US, or lacks sufficient understanding of what is taking place. It would not be too much to say that this government's policies towards the US have been the worst in modern Korean history. There are no high-level private channels to the White House, no mid-level channels to the State Department, and the country completely lacks the military and economic teams that would engage the Defense Department or the USTR. Such is the situation, and yet President Kim is openly declaring that Korea has to look past the US market and diversify to include the European market.

"When Korea was asked for ground troops for Afghanistan, they avoided doing anything until the last moment, and now are acting all proud for sending support troops," said a former Korean diplomat. "Then they suddenly call out demonstrators to oppose the construction of an apartment on a US installation, even though the US authorities had asked permission to do so long ago. [This government] goes out of its way to do things that annoy the US," he added. A former US diplomat said that "this government might as well not have a diplomatic strategy towards the US," noting that everyone from the president down to working-level diplomats show no interest in the US. He says that with the Bush Administration stirred up as it is over Afghanistan, its attitude towards Korea will be all to easy to predict, and it appears that this government thinks Korea's choice is waiting for the next government. The Korea experts in Washington say that under the Kim Dae-jung government anti-American sentiment has been allowed to run wild, and are concerned.

It looks like in Korea, it is national sentiment that is dominant, rather than the interest of the US and 'civilization.' That is not necessarily a bad thing. National sentiment is important and we need to maintain our own originality, but any nation that wants to survive internationally cannot live on ideals alone. From time to time it has to say things it does not really mean and do things it does not want to do. Having to do this is part of a leader's fate.

(December 29, 2001)