Roh Geon-ho, the only son of the late former liberal President Roh Moo-hyun, called the conservative Saenuri Party leader Rep. Kim Moo-sung a political opportunist in a sarcastic speech Saturday at a service commemorating his father’s death in 2009.

The senior Roh killed himself amid a politicized graft probe targeting his family, largely pushed for by conservatives such as Kim. Roh had rightly vouched for his father, supporters said.

But critics of the late president said Roh had wrongfully attacked a conservative who attended the service in good faith. Kim was the first conservative party chairman to attend the memorial service of the liberal Roh.

But the domestic debate surrounding Roh’s Saturday speech seemed to miss the point.

Roh’s speech wasn’t about hitting back, although the junior Roh did little to conceal his hatred for Kim.

Whatever his true intentions, and whichever political inclinations it belied, Roh’s words were echoed by many regardless of their political standing.

Ultimately, it was more of a request to Kim ― a leading contender for the presidency in 2017 ― or the current administration, to think of the bigger picture, amid an ever-changing Northeast Asian order triggered by a rising China, a revisionist Japan, a nervous U.S., and an unpredictable, nuclear-armed North Korea.

Roh began his speech by sarcastically thanking Kim for “making the difficult trip” to attend the event. He then accused Kim of falsely calling President Roh a pro-North Korean politician to woo centrist and conservative voters during the 2012 presidential race.

But the words that followed these initial expressions were what mattered.

“Please don’t take my words the wrong way,” Roh said. “I am not asking for an apology. Nor am I asking for words of contrition.”

“I am merely asking you to consider the reality. The reality that we are surrounded by more powerful countries,” he added.

“A leader who uses ideology and regional domestic rivalries to divide and conquer votes for political power cannot lead.”

“China has risen high during the past three decades. Nothing says we cannot fall just as swiftly in the next 30 years,” Roh said. “Please think of the larger picture.”

Roh appeared to touch on Korea’s history of becoming the unwanted center of great power struggles in Northeast Asia, often fought between a rising power and an established one.

Those wars were often fought in Korea, due to the absence of a balanced foreign policy able to convince opposing powers that Korea would stay neutral.

That absence, in turn, was based on factionalist politics, not unlike the politics of modern Korea, where differences of opinion are shelved as either “ultraconservative” or “pro-North Korean.”

In 1592, Korea was invaded by an assertive Japan with ambitions of conquering China’s Ming Dynasty. In 1627 and 1636, the Manchus, the immediate forefathers of China’s Qing Dyansty, invaded Korea, to force them to their side against the Mings, the then-most powerful Asian nation.

The first Sino-Japanese War, fought for influence over Korea between the dominant power at the time, the Qings, and a swiftly rising Imperial Japan in 1894-5, resulted in more Korean civilian deaths than those of the main combatants.

These conflicts were preceded by factionalist domestic politics in Korea.

Before the 1592 Japanese invasions, officials were split between those arguing a Japanese invasion was imminent and those arguing against. These arguments were based more on party loyalty than on deep, discerning analyses.

Before the 1627 and 1636 Manchu invasions, Korean politicians were similarly split between factions supporting the Mings and those supporting the Qings. Again, these loyalties had more relevance in domestic political affiliations than insightful foreign policy thinking.

In 1894, Korean leaders were split into the pro-Japanese, the pro-Qing, the pro-West and the pro-Russian factions.

Today, Korea is likewise split into the left and right, into the liberals and the conservatives. Differences of political opinions are shunned, rather than embraced.

Korea is facing a growing security and foreign policy dilemma. Its dependence on China for exports and animosity toward Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s revisionist views on World War II draws Seoul closer to Beijing.

But Seoul’s security requirements against Pyongyang compel South Korean officials to stay under the U.S. security umbrella, and appease Washington officials.

Roh’s speech has a point.

Factionalist politics will only worsen this dilemma. A relatively united Korea on the other hand will be free to design a well-thought foreign policy, able to implement a subtle but effective balancing act.

By Jeong Hunny ()


koreaherald@heraldcorp.com