뉴욕 컬럼

An op-ed criticizing the Lee Jae-myung administration was published in the conservative American newspaper, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ). The op-ed claimed that South Korea is shifting leftward against the United States, and that the Lee Jae-myung administration is weakening the ROK-US alliance. Citing the search and seizure at Osan Air Base, the investigation into Coupang's personal information leak, and statements by the Minister of Unification, it criticized the South Korean government's foreign and security policy for clashing with American strategic interests. The authors of the op-ed characterized the Lee Jae-myung administration as 'radical left' and expressed strong concerns about the future direction of Korean politics.

However, if one carefully examines this op-ed, it sounds as if South Korea is acting like a bully, making things difficult for the United States, which is the weaker party. It whines and acts petulantly, as if there were South Korean troops stationed in the US, or as if the Korean company Coupang had made the mistake of leaking American citizens' information. At least, if one is an author writing an op-ed, how can they not notice the contradiction where the logic not only flows strangely but also leads to a text where hegemony is reversed? Why does it feel this way when it's not actually the case? It seems the US is in a hurry.

However, to what extent are these claims truly justified? The attitude shown by American conservative forces towards Korean politics goes beyond mere advice or concern for an ally; it is virtually akin to interference in internal affairs. This controversy should, therefore, serve as an opportunity to question how much American conservative media and political circles respect Korea's sovereignty and democracy, and whether their own political conduct is appropriate.

Although the Republic of Korea is not a protectorate of the United States, the beginning of the USFK's political involvement after liberation has served as an administrative body reminiscent of another colonial government-general. However, that was 81 years ago. Time has passed, the Korean people have sacrificed and strived, and there is no reason whatsoever for them to be subjected to excessive American interference. The Korean people are citizens of an independent sovereign state, and the government is formed by the choice of the Korean people. Who will elect the President of Korea, which party will take power, and what policies will be pursued are matters for Korean voters to decide. For the American conservative establishment to label a specific regime as 'radical left' and question its very existence is less about respecting democratic principles and more about imposing their ideological standards on another country.

Moreover, the double standard shown by the United States towards Korean politics has been repeated for a long time, but no Korean government in history has been able to resist or correct it. They failed in both practice and ability, or rather, they had no intention of challenging it. The quality of National Assembly members, which began with the Syngman Rhee regime, deteriorated under Park Chung-hee, producing truly incompetent, self-serving, third-rate politicians. Politicians from the democratization movement, observing them, followed suit and were indifferent to correcting politics and history. Taking advantage of this internal corruption, the United States has freely enjoyed its status. It was easy to deal with Korea, which, with just a pat on the head of self-serving Korean politicians, would readily bow and act as an obedient dog.

When the Korean government aligns with America's strategic interests, it is praised as a model democracy, but as soon as it begins to voice its own opinions, it is immediately branded as pro-China, anti-American, or leftist. This is a remnant of Cold War thinking that perceives alliances as hierarchical rather than horizontal relationships. An alliance is a cooperative relationship, not a subordinate one. Disagreeing with American policy does not automatically make a country anti-American.

Let's look at the issue of the search and seizure at Osan Air Base. It is a natural right of a sovereign nation for Korean investigative agencies to conduct investigations according to domestic law. The conservative faction in the United States has portrayed this as if it were an act threatening the ROK-US alliance, but law enforcement and alliances are separate issues. The United States also does not defer to foreign governments on matters that occur within its own country. Therefore, Korea also has the right to conduct investigations according to its own laws. If this is problematic, it is not an issue of alliance but an issue of sovereignty.

The investigation into Coupang's personal information leak is also the same. A company cannot be exempt from investigation simply because it is connected to American capital. Personal information protection and consumer rights are important values in any democratic country. If American companies were an exception, that would be a violation of the rule of law. Nevertheless, some conservative figures in the United States connect these issues with the Korean government's anti-American tendencies. If legal issues are interpreted through a political framework, the Korean judiciary will sort it out on its own, and it will lead to thorough isolation in diplomatic circles. Until now, patriots could not survive in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, nor are there any patriots in the National Intelligence Service. In this reality, it is impossible to expect a leader who will change the nation's constitution to emerge. No one would have expected a moment to come when we would try to overcome that impossibility, and especially, third-rate lives and low-class lives who follow the United States and Japan cannot distinguish between dung and doenjang.

But now that distinction has begun. Through the destruction of the global environment and the realistic data resulting from it, the way of looking at the world is changing, questioning the sustainability of the system Koreans have built. Is democracy the most ideal system for humans? Is it desirable for humans with double-digit IQs to vote as constituents? These are questions one would not dare to think, but humans are not that smart. We live in an era where we must decide whether to accelerate the decline of current human civilization, so we have the right to reject political interference from those responsible for the massacres of the last century and the century before, who instilled the illusion that all humans think with the same depth. Only then can we overcome the next mountain.

The problem is that the conservative camp in the United States is uncomfortable with South Korea's political choices. Whatever party the South Korean people choose, it is the result of democracy. However, claiming that the ROK-US alliance is endangered when a specific party comes to power and even questioning discussions about constitutional amendments is, in effect, interference in internal affairs. It has always been this way, but in the past, due to immature self-esteem, we didn't realize it, and now we can question the attitude of American conservatives who doubt the choices of South Korean voters. The United States, which emphasizes democracy, shows distrust in the democratic choices of its allies, and at the same time, it must be able to accurately calculate the risks of waging war.

This phenomenon is also related to how the conservative camp in the United States views Northeast Asia. For American conservatives, South Korea is often perceived not as an independent actor but as an outpost for implementing America's strategy against China. Therefore, if the South Korean government adjusts its policies based on its national interests, it immediately becomes an object of suspicion. However, South Korea's diplomacy should not be a means to serve American interests, but rather a means to serve South Korea's interests. Just as the United States prioritizes its own interests, so too should South Korea.

In fact, the United States has long changed its alliance policy according to its own needs. There have been times when it demanded an increase in defense cost sharing from South Korea, and times when it pressured South Korean companies on trade issues. In the semiconductor and battery industries, the U.S. has also pursued policies unfavorable to South Korean companies to protect its own industries. In that process, the U.S. did not prioritize South Korea's position. However, to define South Korea's pursuit of its own interests as a departure from the alliance is a one-sided logic.

The attitude of conservative American media is also problematic in that it internationalizes political conflicts within South Korean society. The conflict between the ruling and opposition parties in South Korea is a problem that the South Korean people must resolve. However, when foreign media effectively represent the logic of a specific political faction and take sides, it can have an unnecessary impact on domestic politics. This does not help a healthy alliance relationship.

A true alliance begins with a relationship that respects the autonomy of the other party. If the United States considers South Korea a true ally, it can criticize the South Korean government's policies, but it should not question the choices of the South Korean people themselves. Moreover, the attitude of interpreting South Korea's internal affairs as subservient to America's strategic interests is not appropriate for relations between democratic nations in the 21st century. Even citizens with a two-digit IQ should now understand that there are no eternal allies or eternal enemies. A world is coming where it will be difficult to endure with low-quality politicians and low-quality politics.

The recent controversy over the WSJ op-ed is not just a media debate. It is an anachronistic event that shows that some conservative forces in the U.S. still view South Korea not as an independent sovereign state, but as an object of management and control. Just as South Korea is not a weak nation from the Cold War era, the U.S. is also not the U.S. of the past. It is a democratic nation, a divided country by half, with the world's 10th largest economy, and a sovereign state with the right to decide its own future.

If the American conservative forces are perceived as 'troublemakers,' on par with the level of Korean conservatives, it will not meet the standards of the 'alliance' that America truly desires. If that happens, America's 'alliances' everywhere in the world will become temporary, and the situation will devolve into one where America itself is stabbed in the back, ultimately strangling itself.

The Korean government must move beyond outdated political sensibilities that wish for Korea to be subservient, and instead learn to respect the choices of the Korean people. This is because an alliance is not a relationship of command and obedience, but one of mutual respect and equality. It is time for America, which has taught freedom and equality to the world, to acknowledge that determining the direction of Korean politics is not the role of Washington, nor the Wall Street Journal, but solely the responsibility of the people of the Republic of Korea.