China, THAAD and Moon Jae-in
Despite China’s fierce opposition and economic retaliation, a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery is likely to be operational before the May 9 presidential election. The brouhaha over the deployment of the U.S. anti-missile system has shown what “two-faced China” is like — being docile to America offering the controversial missile shield while being utterly ruthless to South Korea facing the North’s mounting missile and nuclear threats.
Fearing that THAAD could erode its nuclear deterrent and spy on its military activities, China appears to be relying heavily on presidential front-runner Moon Jae-in. China expects Moon, a former student activist and ex-chairman of the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), to pull the missile defense battery out of South Korea in consultation with the United States, if elected.
But it remains to be seen whether China’s expectations will be realized.
True, Moon, the liberal presidential hopeful, has been leading all opinion polls. Many political watchers see his election as a fait accompli. Given that the nation’s conservative bloc almost crumbled in the run-up to the removal of Park Geun-hye from presidential office, this prospect is persuasive.
Ominously enough for Moon, however, his approval ratings have been at a standstill even after Park’s impeachment. At a time when more than 80 percent of the people want a change of government, arguing that Moon, with support of only 30 to 35 percent at present, will be unbeatable seems far-fetched.
In fact, it is no secret that there are a considerable number of people here who say absolutely no to him being the next president. And the primary reason is anxiety about his views on diplomacy and national security, as has been displayed through his ambiguous position concerning THAAD.
It’s true that the disgraced former president did a flip-flop irrationally over the missile defense issue. Her administration made a decision hastily, although North Korea’s threats didn’t heighten conspicuously.
Moon’s opponents have accused him of consistently opposing Seoul’s hosting of the U.S. missile shield. More recently, he reiterated that the THAAD deployment must be halted and handed over to the next administration. Moon says he would be able to resolve the THAAD conflict by talking with the U.S. and China after being sworn in as president.
Moon describes his position as “strategic ambiguity,” but pundits say he has never altered his opposing stance. He is said to be just not articulating his thinking, conscious of conservative voters ahead of the presidential election.
His liberal views on other security issues also cause conservatives to reject him, although Moon’s aides say that is unfair, claiming that his real intentions have often been distorted or inflated.
For example, Moon, a key aide to the late liberal President Roh Moo-hyun, said he would reopen the joint industrial complex in the North Korean border city of Gaeseong. He was battered for being pro-North Korea and naive amid criticism that his remarks go against the strengthening international sanctions against the isolated regime in Pyongyang.
Moon’s aides explain that he just raised the need to begin talks with the North early in consideration of international circumstances, saying he didn’t intend to reopen the factory zone upon being elected. A retired soldier of the Special Warfare Command, Moon says he has always been victimized by the conservatives’ red-baiting ploy.
But people’s uneasy feeling about Moon is not without reason. He is surrounded by a number of liberal hawks who argue single-handedly that the new administration should follow the “Sunshine Policy” of engaging North Korea like previous liberal governments despite the drastic changes in our security environment. Given Koreans’ sensitivity to security issues, his poor handling of the THAAD deployment might derail his presidential dream.
Also, could Moon overturn the THAAD decision even after being elected?
More than half of Koreans support the introduction of the anti-missile system particularly because of a lack of feasible means to counter North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats. So any hasty decision to upend THAAD from his initial years in office might prompt a strong backlash from the middle-of-the roaders as well as from conservatives.
In a sense, security is more powerful in inciting the public than corruption or abuse of power — all the more so considering that many Koreans still vividly remember the scourge of the 1950-53 Korean War. Who knows if Seoul’s downtown streets might be filled with candlelit protesters, demanding Moon’s impeachment this time?
What unnerves conservative voters most is whether the alliance with Washington, Seoul’s cornerstone of security and foreign policy, would run smoothly if Moon, who has anti-American sentiments like the late President Roh, must deal with Donald Trump, the conservative and wayward U.S. president. What would Trump’s reactions be if a liberal Korean president proposes a meeting to discuss the withdrawal of THAAD? One cannot but recall the time when Korean-American relations were in their worst state amid fierce clashes in the Roh Moo-hyun administration between his lieutenants who strongly called for an independent foreign policy and orthodox diplomats who prioritized the Seoul-Washington alliance.
Conservatives’ attacks on Moon over his views on security are surely overblown. But his blunt dismissal of their uneasiness about security is never an answer. He needs to ask himself why many people think this way.