Korean Mitt Romney?
by James Na ~ December 21st, 2007. Filed under: Anti-Americanism, Korean Politics, North Korea, U.S.-Korea Relations.On my drive home, I was listening to a radio program, in which Korea “experts” were discussing the Lee Myung-Bak victory. Someone from the audience asked the question to the effect of, “With which American presidential candidate would Lee be the most comfortable?”
Experts were stumped, beyond the usual “He will get along with George Bush” (news flash, GWB is not running for president) and “He will hedge.” Thank you, “experts.”
I can tell you that Lee would most certainly not be comfortable with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
In fact, I could not believe no one mentioned Mitt Romney. Both are pragmatic and both are religious (although likely Lee’s church would see Romney’s faith as a cult). More importantly, both mean business, literally. They aim to be CEOs of Korea, Inc. and America, Inc., respectively, rather than statesmen or commanders-in-chief. They understand profit and loss, and have that smooth tendency of CEOs to try to be all things to all people. They are also the choice of the establishment conservatives in their respective countries.
Is Lee Myung-Bak, the Korean Mitt Romney? (I am pretty sure Mitt Romney would like to be the American Lee Myung-Bak, if only in the sense of winning the presidency.) I think he just might be.
I take President-elect Lee at his words about what he intends to do as president of ROK: namely, renewed emphasis on economic growth. That will mean lower taxes, more favorable regulatory environment for business and encouragement for more exports. The Roh-era war on the rich will end.
Furthermore, Lee will strengthen South Korea’s badly frayed ties with the United States. Just as French President Sarkozy’s election converted what was an almost overtly hostile French government into a very cooperative one, Lee’s election means that South Korea will be a more earnest partner of the United States in Asia.
However, those who harbor nostalgia of the days when South Korea was a sobbing, grateful “little brother” or a client-state of the United States will be disappointed. The power disparity is no longer as one-sided and the geopolitical balance is no longer so bipolar. After all, mutual strategic interests are what fueled the alliance, not any melodramatic “forged in blood” talk.
Lee’s administration will not be subservient to the United States, but it will be warmer and friendlier. It will, of course, try to increase South Korea’s autonomy and capacity for independent action, but will do so in the context of the understanding that a strong alliance with the United States will increase that capacity rather than diminish it. There will be a marked departure from the previous administration, which treated the U.S. as a “necessary evil” at best and plain evil at worst.
Those who want South Korea to take a stand against North Korea and to help destroy the vile regime that runs it will also be disappointed. Lee has been quite clear on this issue: he will not be a sucker who keeps putting coins into a twisted vending machine that spews only venom and acid, but he will try to keep North Korea alive so long as it “behaves” more-or-less, if only to abide by the majority will of South Koreans, who want North Korea to just go away or, put another way, not implode or explode into ruining their high standard of living.
I have maintained for years that South Koreans do not want reunification deep in their hearts. The term means a lot for them emotionally and symbolically, especially for the older South Koreans who either come from what is now North Korea or their immediate descendants. And that is a sizable piece of the electoral pie that no politician ever admits plainly that reunification is no longer a serious goal.
But the majority will is rather clear. As of now, South Koreans value their economic standing and living standards over most other issues. They do not wish to expend massive resources to absorb North Korea. Moreover, they are concerned about the establishment of a permament underclass of former North Koreans that is sure to occur should there be reunification. Many South Koreans no longer view North Koreans as fellow Koreans to be rescued and embraced, but rather as strange, violent, sullen and lazy people made so by a bizzare society.
Lee’s policies on North Korea will reflect this majority view, which will mean encouragement to North Korea to become like China or Vietnam — economic reform decoupled from political liberalization.
As The Economist reported recently, there is some evidence that North Korean elites in Pyongyang are enjoying some gains from relaxed economic policies. But unlike China and Vietnam where political leadership is more diffused (read: not run like a family cult), North Korea’s regime will be unlikely or unable to expand modest economic relaxation without endangering its hold on supreme power.
And therein lies Lee’s greatest challenge. If North Korea turned out to be incapable of being reformed or even maintained in status quo, how would he deal with it? Turn Roh-like in pursuit of engagement at all costs or take the politically difficult (and possibly very dangerous) step of pursuing regime change?
We shall see.
For now, I, for one, take heart from Lee’s victory in South Korea. It is a new day in the U.S.-South Korean relationship.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:09 am
[...] Studies » Korean Mitt Romney?Posted 6 hours ago On my drive home, I was listening to a radio program, in which Korea [...]
December 21st, 2007 at 9:40 am
[...] This is a pretty good posting about Lee’s victory. This commentary shows some of his views on some of the implications of Lee’s possible future for the ROK’s economy, North Korea and the ROK/U.S. alliance. SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Read James Na’s entry”, url: “http://dprkforum.com/2007/12/21/read-james-nas-entry/” }); Sphere: Related Content [...]
December 21st, 2007 at 4:03 pm
I have maintained for years that South Koreans do not want reunification deep in their hearts.
I recall hearing South Koreans and longtime expats express the same idea during my sojourn back in the 90s. While Hanchongnyeon was ready to march to Pyongyang, the average university student wasn’t too keen on the short-term prospects of reunification.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:28 pm
I’ve just discovered this site and think it’s a really good idea to have a platform for discussing NK without the piss-taking and train crash gawping that other sites (including YouTube) exhibit. Having said that, I’m obviously interested in NK because it is so extreme, and can also understand why so many South Koreans don’t want reunification: it’s actually pretty much official SK policy to not want this to happen.
Keep it up!
December 21st, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Well for all things North Korea, this is certainly the place. I got my start here, and is a great resource.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Since Richardson is away on vacation, let me express, on his behalf, a warm welcome!
I wrote about this almost three years ago (see here).
As I wrote before, containment has been the unofficial South Korean policy even as unification is symbolically and officially bandied about.
Rollback or regime change had been the official Bush administration policy, but it seems the administration, of late, has conceded to the South Korean position on this one as its term runs out.
For me, personally, this causes some internal emotional conflict. On the one hand, I consider the North Korean regime vile and wish for its rapid downfall. However, my primary consideration is the long-term strategic interest of my adopted country, the United States, and I do not believe that actions that are necessary to bring down North Korea’s regime rapidly are in the best geopolitical interest of the United States at this time.
By the way, let me add a disclosure to my predictions about the Lee Myung-Bak victory. Were I a still South Korean national, I would have supported his candidacy. I think he was the best possible choice for South Koreans among the major candidates and for a warmer U.S.-ROK relationship as well.
Let me also state, in the interest of full disclosure, that I have had professional and personal contacts with those, in South Korea, who supported and campaigned for Lee Myung-Bak. So color me biased for Lee Myung-Bak.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:01 pm
[...] I just love how Chung Dong-young is described as "their guy". - Lee Myung-bak, the Korean Mitt Romney?- I learn something new every day, like who Hooker Hill in Itaewon is named after. - Speaking [...]
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:48 pm
The war on the rich in Korea maybe over……BUT ITS JUST GETTING STARTED HERE IN THE US. KDJ and Roh have f’d so badly over the last ten years that they actually made South Koreans see a difference between liberans and conservatives and thats why the liberals get the butt whipping they got on Wednesday.
However, I say this as a conservative…Bush has just been a lousy president. Out of control spending with GOP congress for 6 years, but now Dems take over and he realizes he has a veto pen. Iraq seems to be getting better but the American people are just worn out. Finally, it needs to be said that America didn’t turn left with the 06′ midterms, the Dems didnt win, the GOP just lost.
A good CEO knows how to be a good manager and I see that in Romney and Lee. Thats why I like Romney and cant stand Obama and Hillary. Those two wouldnt know how to run a lemonade stand, yet they want free healthcare for every welfare mother in the country. Like typical politicians they got law degrees and went into politics, Obama and her royal thighness wouldn’t know the difference between a margin call and a spreadsheet.
Congrats to SK on electing Lee Myung Bak.
December 25th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
I do not disagree that the leading Democrats in the US are largely advocating socialist economic policies (especially Edwards), if for no other reason than to appeal to their union and champaign liberal base.
However, I am not sure that, in turn, requires a CEO-sytle president to master. “Korea, Inc.” is closer to reality than “America, Inc.” For better or worse (better in my view), the United States is a far more complex country with global military, political and economic leadership.
As such, the leader of our country has to be more than a CEO and ought to be someone who is keenly aware of the long-term, moral consequences for this large, complex, great country and, in fact, the rest of the world.
By the way, I wish to make it clear that my post was, while an endorsement of Lee Myung-Bak for South Korea, in no way an endorsement of Mitt Romney for the United States.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Those two wouldnt know how to run a lemonade stand, yet they want free healthcare for every welfare mother in the country.
Welfare moms already get free health care. It’s called Medicaid, and poor working families are eligible, too. One of the unfortunate things about democracy is that knowledge and critical thinking skills are not prerequisites to voting.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Why would you need critical thinking and knowledge to vote, just let the candidate get Oprah or Chuck Norris to campaign with them in order to draw in supporters. Get some hip-hop artist to scream FCUK BUSH while your at it.
My countrymen by and large are just stupid and here is perfect example. Majoring in economics and political science, I have a much better understanding of why oil prices are going up. There are numerous factors such as the weak dollar, instability in Nigeria, underproduction in Venezuela along with continuing rising demand in China and India. Mix that in with the fact that America hasn’t built a new oil refinery in 31 YEARS, and you get gas at $3.05. NO NEW REFINERIES, NO DRILLING IN THE GULF OR ANWAR, NO NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS yet who do the American people (who dont give a lick about global events) and politicians with law degrees blame?….THE GREEDY OIL COMPANIES.
Looking at how foolish America’s energy policy is, do you now see why the Chinese dont give a damn about drilling for oil in Sudan or Iran. If I had the responsibility of making sure 1.3 billion people had a enough energy to go about their daily lives, the last thing I would do is listen to a nation that has allowed itself to get chocked by gasoline prices due to its own stupidity.
January 4th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Now, wait just a minute. It’s fine and dandy to knock Oprah worshippers, but when you go about criticizing someone who, “pushes the earth down” when he does a pushup, you’ve crossed the line!
January 4th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Ok James, I’ll lay off Chuck but Oprah isnt getting off easy…..unless she gives me a free car that is.