September 27, 2024
SEOUL – In diplomacy, the national interest should be the highest priority. Yet, a country’s internal political dynamics can significantly impact its ability to engage in diplomatic issues effectively. The recent controversy surrounding the bid for the Czech nuclear power plant becomes a case study of how internal political strife can undermine diplomatic efforts.
The blame game between the ruling and opposition parties in South Korea reflects a lack of bipartisan cooperation in diplomacy. The opposition party accuses the government of trying to win the contract through the tactic of “dumping” — offering an abnormally low price. President Yoon Suk Yeol rebuts this accusation, dismissing the claims as baseless. However, the back-and-forth between the ruling and opposition parties highlights a deeper issue: the damaging effect of partisan infighting on the nation’s diplomatic efforts.
The recent controversy is not an isolated incident. South Korea has a history of domestic political struggles spilling over into its diplomatic efforts. One notable example occurred at the end of the Moon Jae-in administration in 2021. At that time, there was a desperate diplomatic push to adopt a declaration of an end to the Korean War — a move that could initiate a groundbreaking peace process in the Korean Peninsula and that requires the positive cooperation of the US.
At that time, the government and the ruling Democratic Party were making a lot of diplomatic efforts to secure the support of the US, sending delegations to Washington to persuade key American figures. However, these efforts were complicated by the actions of the then-opposition party, the People Power Party. While the ruling party members were trying hard to sell the initiative on the streets of Washington, an opposition leader also visited there and met with opinion leaders, including politicians and think tank scholars.
Still, the opposition’s argument was totally different, saying the potential declaration might be premature and politically motivated. The conflicting messages from South Korea’s political leadership likely created confusion and hesitation among US elites, ultimately contributing to the United States’ ambiguous stance on the issue. After the change in administration, the policy idea was quietly shelved.
Another example of the negative impact of partisan politics on diplomacy occurred in February 2018, just before the rare summit between North Korea and the US in Hanoi, Vietnam. The summit was seen as a critical opportunity to make progress on denuclearization and peace on the Korean Peninsula.
At the time, the crucial issue was whether the US would agree to lift some economic sanctions in exchange for North Korea’s dismantling of its Yongbyon nuclear complex. The ruling party in South Korea asked the US to back the idea. However, the opposition party disagreed. It argued that dismantling the Yongbyon nuclear complex alone was a “small deal,” so it was a “bad deal.” This stark division within South Korea’s political leadership sent conflicting signals to the United States, contributing to the breakdown of the negotiations.
In the wake of the Czech nuclear power plant controversy, President Yoon Suk Yeol strongly called for stopping domestic political strife before the border. As he pointed out, bipartisan cooperation is essential for successful diplomacy. However, achieving it is never easy because the opposition party might expect no gains in terms of realigning government policies.
One potential solution lies in the concept of political compromise via incentives. The president could offer to share power or influence with the opposition in exchange for their cooperation on diplomatic initiatives. This could be joint committees on foreign affairs, shared decision-making authority on critical issues, or even power-sharing agreements. It might seem like a significant concession, but the benefits of such an arrangement far outweigh the costs.
We remember some cases where former presidents took bipartisan approaches and garnered policy victories in diplomatic issues. Former President Roh Tae-woo embraced bipartisan recommendations when he adopted the Unification Formula for the Korean National Community in 1989. The plan was inherited by his successors and contributed to functioning as a backbone for policies on reunification. Former President Kim Dae-jung also tried to take a bipartisan approach in the field of foreign policy. Even though he was a progressive politician, he designated a prominent conservative scholar as unification minister.
From the president’s perspective, the primary benefit of bipartisanship in diplomacy is the increased likelihood of achieving tangible results on policy fronts. Absent the confrontation with domestic opponents, the chance of attaining diplomatic results would increase. Even calculating from a defensive perspective, bipartisan diplomacy can help shield the government from domestic criticism when diplomacy fails. This can be particularly important in sensitive areas of foreign policy, where public opinion can be sharply divided.
Of course, the ruling party cannot accomplish this task alone. The opposition must also be willing to engage in good faith and prioritize the national interest over party politics. This will require a significant shift in mindset and a willingness to compromise. Still, the initiative on bipartisan cooperation in diplomacy is in the hands of the president and the ruling party because the president has exclusive authority to decide foreign policy.
Bipartisan cooperation is not just a lofty ideal; it is a practical necessity in the field of diplomacy. The recent controversy over the Czech nuclear power plant bid illustrates the high cost of partisan infighting. When political leaders allow domestic disputes to spill over into the international arena, they weaken the country’s position and undermine its ability to achieve its diplomatic goals.
In the end, the true measure of a great leader is not just the ability to win elections or push through domestic policies, but rather the capacity to unite the country in pursuit of common goals. In the realm of diplomacy, where national interests are at stake, this ability is more important. By embracing bipartisan cooperation, President Yoon Suk Yeol would see his support rise in opinion polls and could be remembered as a great president like former Presidents Park Chung-hee or Kim Dae-jung.