South Korea Post-Impeachment Round-up

I haven't been able to keep up, much less write about the South Korean impeachment, but I'm posting some analysis and discussion for later reading written by friends and colleagues here.

I begin with the Asan Institute's biweekly newsletter, Asan Korea Perspective which gives us a barebones explanation of the grounds for impeachment and outcome of the South Korean Supreme Court's decision to impeach President Park Geunhye. There's also public opinion data related to the impeachment with 77% approving impeachment.

Charges and Court's Ruling. Source: Asan Korea Perspective Vol 2, no.6)

The Washington Post provided a video summary of the impeachment.

Celeste Arrington provides her thoughts at the Monkey Cage and the next steps for an election in which a progressive candidate is assumed to win.

Many praised the Court's ruling as a win for democracy and  South Korea's own democratic process. This included the editorial board of the Washington Post, but they also reminded us that the impeachment itself doesn't solve Korea's many domestic and foreign policy problems. Darcie Draudt also reminds us that several dimensions of South Korean democracy (most notably freedom of speech) the past few years have been in decline. She asks whether the impeachment will actually lead to longer reaching domestic institutional reforms to reduce corruption. And Kathy Moon weighs in with a provocative, but dead center quote in Quartz, "I find worrisome this glorification of South Korea’s protests. If governance structures were working properly then citizens normally would be channeling their concerns through institutional processes—reaching out to their elected leaders, going to the courts. Spilling out into the street is a sign of political dysfunction.”

Anna Fifield provided a barrage of reportage on the effects of the impeachment on everything from North Korea-China relations to the joy and images of celebration of Park's impeachment.

Worldviews, Beliefs, and Psychology

So apparently, neither Trump nor Clinton supporters will change their minds according to this study. More relevant to my research is the reasoning outlined below:

As much as we like to think that we use reason to evaluate evidence and come to conclusions, “It really goes back assward, a lot of times,” said Peter Ditto, a psychologist at University of California, Irvine. “People already have a firm opinion, and that shapes the way they process information.” We hold beliefs about how the world works and tend to force new information to fit within these pre-existing narratives. Psychologists call this motivated reasoning, and it means that once people have thrown their support behind Trump or Clinton, they will tend to downplay or ignore things that paint their candidate in a bad light.

In a similar vein, once activists (i.e. anti-war groups) adopt a particular position about nukes, drones, bases etc....they rarely change minds and adopt the alternative view often represented by government officials.

Government Shutdown and the Asia Pivot

Stymied by tea party Republican efforts to block the Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare) and the decision of Democrats to stand firm against further delay of the new health care law, the federal government shut-down last week. I try to stay out of politics on this blog, but my own take (along with the majority of the country) is that a group of minority Republicans have forced the Party establishment to make unreasonable demands on a policy which has legitimately passed through several hurdles in our democratic system. A Post op-ed makes this very point. Jon Stewart does it with less grace but way more humor here.

Moving beyond this domestic debacle, others have pontificated on the repercussions of the government shutdown on foreign policy. Josh Busby writes that lawmakers have weakened America’s ability to serve as a force for attraction around the world. Anne Applebaum states that the shutdown has not only damaged U.S. credibility abroad, but democracy itself. The Post argues national security faces greater risks with intelligence and security forces not operating at full capacity. And Ralph Cossa at CSIS, Pacific Forum had a tongue-in-cheek memo for Republicans and the President:

Memo to Congressional Republicans: Remember Ronald Reagan's "shining city on a hill"? You just turned the lights off.

Memo to President Obama: remember your "pivot" to Asia? Its credibility is fading even faster than Congressional approval ratings.

One major foreign policy casualty of the government shutdown last week was Obama's cancellation of his Asia trip - specifically his attendance at the APEC and ASEAN summit meetings in Indonesia and Brunei, as well as stops to Malaysia and the Philippines. Now most Americans will agree that the President has no business flying off to Asia given the political mess back at home. But considering the pivot to Asia as one of the most touted foreign policy initiatives of the Administration, it sends mixed signals when the President bails on a trip to the region, even if he does send Secretary of State John Kerry as a stand in. Beyond missed opportunities to reassure partners in Asia and hold discussion with leaders from China and Russia, several critics have argued that Washington's absence opens the door for China to exert greater influence in the region. An article in the Global Post goes further by contrasting Washington's uneven attention towards Asia while Beijing's strengthened diplomatic, military, and economic influence in the region.

I'm not a China alarmist by any means, and we shouldn't read too much into Obama's absence in Asia. Also, in the past few weeks, Sec Def Chuck Hagel spent an unprecedented four days in South Korea reaffirming the U.S.-ROK alliance while both he and Sec State John Kerry traveled to Tokyo for the 2+2 meetings to strengthen U.S.-Japan ties (including permission from Japan to house U.S. drones on Japanese soil). Still,  lingering concerns remain about U.S. commitment to the region from our allies. Mike Green and Matt Goodman at CSIS address this point and suggest how Washington might rectify the situation: 1) reschedule a visit to the region early next year; 2) provide greater clarity and Congressional support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade negotiations; 3) protect the U.S. defense budget from making deep cuts on Asia.

I do think the Obama Administration recognizes the long-term strategic value of engaging Asia. But there have been too many fires to put out (i.e. Arab Spring, Libya, Syria, and now the federal shutdown) which pull us away from our longer term strategic goals whether on foreign or domestic policy. We can rebound from temporary setbacks, but we shouldn't lose our eye on the ball. While we fix our gaze on China wondering whether the U.S. is in relative decline, the rest of the world will closely follow the U.S. and our increasing polarization and gridlock in Washington for signs of American decline. Why? Because the decline of great powers often begins at home, not abroad.
-----------
Update: The Washington Post published an article with the headline "China's Xi takes advantage of Obama absence." Yes, this is an opportunity for China to exercise its charm, but I wonder if the media is overplaying this tune. I'm sure Xi's trip to parts of Indonesia and Malaysia were already planned. Another article suggests that U.S. and China are "grappling for influence" in Southeast Asia. Yes, but this competition is not new. The question is whether it's a benign, competitive (for lack of a distinct adjective), or hostile form of competition.

Finally, Elina Noor argues that Obama missed a chance to promote the TPP and gave up some ground to China to elevate ties with countries such as Malaysia. However, an Obama trip would have been more symbol than substance and in the long run does not affect US-Malaysia ties. Citing Malaysia's relationship with Beijing and Washington, she writes "To view them in mutually exclusive terms would be a simplistic reduction of what in reality are rich, cross-cutting, and commonly reinforcing interests between and among all three in a messy noodle bowl of regional economic and security frameworks."