Talking Points The Advent of Obama and a Paradigm Shift in Governance and Foreign Policy: Ramifications for the Korean Peninsula Han S. Park University of Georgia In the first decade of the 21st Century, the United States of America elected Barack Hussein Obama as its 44th president. He was elected with the singular message of CHANGE. In order to understand the Obama Administration’s policies, one must begin with an in-depth analysis of the concept of CHANGE that was advocated by him. The Meaning of CHANGE: The concept of change as advocated by President Obama stood for breaking away and resetting the Conventional Politics and policies as epitomized by the Bush Administration. Although one must examine the whole spectrum of the change for an adequate reading of Obama’s message of CHANGE, in this deliberation, I am limiting my remarks to the foreign and international policy arena. CHANGE from: Worldview of a Great Dichotomy: During the Bush era, the world was divided into, and consisted of the “good” and the “evil.” Some states were considered as “rogue” and these rogue states had to be forcefully removed from the face of Earth. The infamous notion of the “axis of evil” was thus created. This great divide might reflect some Christian circles view that the world population is ultimately categorized into the “heaven” goers and the “hell” goers. This is coupled by the belief that going to the “utmost end of the world” is a sacred duty for Christians. Arrogance: “We are always right and we will set the agenda for all countries.” “The world is destined to fallow America for its own sake.” This arrogance comes from the mistaken view that the Cold War was won by the good guy as believed by Ronald Regan and other neo-Conservatives. Unilateralism “Only the United States of America has the wisdom, knowledge, capability to shape the world history with the unshakable belief that liberal and participatory ‘democracy’ is for all humanity.” Accordingly, the US does not need to consult anyone else to develop and implement a foreign policy. Even the traditional European allies were pushed aside as representing the “old Europe” of the Cold War era (Bush’s Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld surprised the world by coining this term) Militarism The will of the Almighty resides with the “barrel of gun” of the United States. This militarism might be seen as the reincarnation of the Western frontier expansionist dogma. The above doctrines provided the rationale for the invasion of Iraq by the Bush Administration. All the disruptive and destructive militant campaigns for a nation-building were legitimized by the same doctrines. CHANGE to: From Dichotomy to Diversity in Worldview: A new belief system for “multiculturalism” and the “diverse ethnic and religious composition of human race” emerged. Obama’s personal profile as a person with inter-racial, inter-national, and multi-cultural background might have impacted his beliefs and values.. From Arrogance to the admission that the United States may be relatively stronger and richer, but it is one member of the Community of Nations (Relativism). Obama’s compassionate interest in alleviating the plight of Africa may have a profound impact in forging his belief system of Relativism. His passionate interest in Universal and Common values and rights for all human race should also be seen in this vein From Unilateralism to Dialogue in search of the Common Good: Obama seems to be convinced that all nations and states are mutually interdependent, and cooperation is imperative if peace is to be established and preserved. From Militarism to Foreign Policy as a strategy or tactical policy maneuver. What is expected her is a Strategic shift from Militarism to Dialogue and Negotiations with the adversarial powers. Based on these new doctrines that comprise the change, we expect a string of policy goals and strategic choices to emerge gradually and certainly through Obama’s presidency. Among them: COOPERATION, not DOMINATION is the desired objective of US foreign policy. The preferred strategy is Engagement (not Unilateralism) of all nations toward a common goal, and the goal has to be PEACE. History was Ripe for such CHANGE During the waning years of the Bush Administration, America was ripe for a change. Change was deemed not a choice but an imperative! Who spearheaded the change? The young and the learned! (I will share a few observations to make it convincing that history has progressed to a point where the status quo and conventional wisdom faced a great and desperate challenge. I will make comments on a wide range of areas such as environment, health, security, distributive injustice, deterioration of the civic mind, destruction of the human community, consumerism, market culture, and other effects of globalization (a process widely construed as Americanization). Foreign Policy Orientation: Ramifications for US-DPRK Relations President Obama declared that he will “reset” foreign policy on all fronts: He called for a “new era” for Europe and Russia, a “new beginning” for the Arab world, and a “break” from the old policy. The principles, as discerned above, were peacemaking, dialogue, direct negotiations even with adversaries, multilateralism or bilateralism (not unilateralism). Grounded on the foreign policy orientations inferred from the overall Obama doctrines, one can ascertain a series of policy directions toward the DPRK: Direct Talks with the DPRK It is not a significant issue which and what kind of forums might be utilized. One is overly concerned about the Six-Party Talks. Regardless of the specific venues that might be available, there will be direct contacts and negotiations. The objections by the Lee government of South Korea or even within the leadership circles in the United States, bilateral dialogue is likely to continue. The Policy Goal is limited to de-nuclearization of the region, not Regime Change Within the last twenty years, all efforts by the United States and the United Nations have failed to curb Pyongyang’s persistent and effective drive toward becoming a nuclear state. The single most important reason has been that most of these efforts are overtly or implicitly designed for a regime change. This was particularly the case during the Bush Administration. A Prognosis of DPRK Response It will respond POSITIVELY, because: NK has wanted and demanded a direct negotiation and diplomatic improvement with the US all along. Then, what might have prevented a positive development? The answer is remarkably simple. There have been two contradictory and mutually irreconcilable policy positions. The lack of security consideration by the US: The US and its allies of Japan and South Korea have almost always demanded North Korea to relinquish its nuclear program BEFORE ant talks can take place or concessions be given. I trust and hope that the Obama Administration’s policy might deviate from the previous policy in this regard. To the extent that this is the case, North Korea is likely to respond constructively. North Korea is a sovereign state, a member of the United Nations, AND technically still at war with the United States. The regime (Rightly or wrongly) believes that the only deterrence it has against a possible US invasion are its nuclear weapons. To ask such a state to give up its nuclear capability without any devise for alleviation of security threat is tantamount to asking it to commit suicide. It is logical to assume that such a demand will never be acceptable to the regime. Then, why has the US has refused to deal with the security issue? I will make some observations about the enormous interest on the part of the defense industry (the military-industrial complex), with emphasis on the dynamic interest of the missile defense system. NK’s Unwillingness to Compromise on Security: All the name calling and characterization of the DPRK as being “unreliable,” “un- trust-worthy,” and a “liar” (e.g., “brinkmanship” diplomacy) is precisely due to Pyongyang’s insistence that it must first survive as a regime. Pyongyang is not expected to alter its stance on this. If it says that it will give up the weapons and programs to produce them before any security arrangement, one can be certain that it is lying. If one believes that lie, one is a fool! Is denuclearization possible? Will NK relinquish it? I believe that it will for the following three reasons: 1) Pyongyang cannot want or tolerate a nuclear arms race in the region involving Japan, China, South Korea, and Taiwan that may be brought about by its becoming a formidable and legitimate nuclear state. 2) Once the nuclear issue is resolved, its prospect for economic prosperity is bright. 3) It can be de-nuked but the inherent capability to develop nuclear devise will still continue to exist with the country and with the people for good (Due to the presence of indigenous science and raw material). 4) The late Great Leader, Kim Il Sung, desired (desires) a nuclear-free Korea. BUT the DPRK will have to first see its security threat alleviated through legal and institutional arrangements! Ending Remarks It is clear that the advent of the Obama Administration has made, at least in principle, the prospect for an improvement of bilateral relations between The United States and the DPRK. If the two sides decide to cooperate, there is ample room for either side to do so. One such great prospect is in the exciting possibility of developing a strategic cooperation for global denuclearization of President Obama and a pivotal contribution that can be made by the DPRK. However, if President Obama is going to implement his doctrines in the specific areas of foreign policy such as the DPRK and the Korean peninsula, he must overcome the age-old domination of American lobbyists in politics, especially the military-industrial-oil interest. Will he be able to muddle through and survive the formidable resistance from the old benefactors of the conventional economic and political establishment? Let us hope so. Additionally, South Korea and Japan will continue to play a role in US policy toward the DPRK. To what extent, will the Obama Administration be able to deal with the conservative Cold War remnants in Seoul and Tokyo? These questions are likely to be cleared up in the months ahead.