Korean media: "The South Korea-US summit was a great success"? The real "bill" is still to come

On the 25th local time, the South Korean presidential office evaluated the first South Korea-US summit between President Lee Jae-myung of South Korea and President Trump in Washington, D.C., as follows: "There was a clear consensus on building a close relationship, which can be boldly called a successful summit" – by Park Yoo-jin, spokesperson for the South Korean presidential office.

If the goal of this meeting is to restart the South Korea-US summit diplomacy that was interrupted in December last year due to the emergency martial law situation and to build a close relationship with Trump, thus consolidating the alliance, then this meeting is fully qualified to receive a "high score", just as the presidential office evaluated. The so-called "Trump-style sudden incidents" previously worried about did not occur.

But if we observe this meeting under a "microscope," the evaluation may differ. Because many unresolved issues in key areas such as trade and security were not sufficiently discussed.

Regarding this, Park Yoo-jin, the spokesperson for the presidential office, explained, "The atmosphere was so good that there was no time to discuss other issues." However, as of the day after the meeting ended, neither South Korea nor the United States had released any official documents containing specific agreement items, indicating that this meeting might leave behind "residual effects." As analyzed by the British BBC, "on sensitive issues, they merely avoided open disagreements."

Although no visualized agreements were reached, only the "verbal statements" of the two heads of state, the fact that both sides agreed on the general direction of dialogue and engagement with North Korea is something the South Korean government can call a "success." President Lee Jae-myung said, "It's not easy to improve inter-Korean relations through my intervention; in fact, the only person who can solve this problem is President Trump." In response, Trump also repeatedly stated his willingness to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

In the public 53-minute speech and Q&A session, the South Korea and US leaders mentioned "Kim Jong-un" 13 times (based on the English original), showing significant attention. The South Korean government gained support from the US side for its policy toward North Korea through this meeting.

On the same day, Chief of the National Security Office, Wi Seong-lok, told the media during a press briefing, "To restart dialogue with North Korea, someone needs to open the door first. From the current situation, compared to the North-South side, the US has a greater possibility, and we exchanged views on this."

When talking about the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit to be held at the end of October this year, Trump referred to it as a "trade meeting," but also expressed his willingness to visit South Korea soon, showing a positive attitude towards participation. The successful holding of the APEC Summit is an important opportunity for South Korea to restore its international status shaken by the martial law.

President Lee Jae-myung announced an increase in defense budget, seen as a proactive response to the US' call for "modernization of the alliance." However, core issues such as the role and scale adjustment of US forces in South Korea were not disclosed any specific discussion results.

Wi Seong-lok, chief of the National Security Office, said, "We have reached a consensus on the general direction of South Korea playing a more active role and strengthening joint defense capabilities." But such a "general direction" of agreement may also mean that there are still differences on many specific issues.

Therefore, some analysts believe that the US temporarily "put aside the security bill." It is expected that the upcoming U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) and Defense Strategy document (NDS) will reveal the outline of the security policy in Trump's second term. Before that, South Korea and the United States should have formed a consensus on the direction of the alliance and defense commitments at the head-of-state level and conducted detailed coordination. However, the task was postponed, which is regrettable.

President Lee Jae-myung also said, "South Korea indeed took an 'anti-China' approach (security relies on the US, economy on China) in the past, but it can no longer take the same position as before." This statement aims to dispel the widespread "pro-China" concerns in Washington, and can also be considered an diplomatic achievement. However, this statement may also put pressure on South Korea's foreign policy toward China.

Just before the South Korea-US summit, China had already asked South Korea to maintain a "balanced diplomacy" between the US and China to show control. If President Lee Jae-myung makes different statements in the future, it could damage diplomatic consistency and even lose the trust of both the US and China.

During this summit, South Korean companies decided to make direct investments (FDI) of approximately USD 150 billion (about 209 trillion won) in the US, which can largely respond to Trump's request for large-scale investment. However, in the trade negotiations last month, South Korea had committed to establishing a large-scale investment fund of USD 3.5 trillion (about 488 trillion won) for the US, but the specific operational plan and implementation method remained undetermined even after the summit.

Regarding this, Kim Yong-bum, director of the presidential office's policy room, said, "Both sides have agreed to proceed with a non-binding memorandum of understanding (MoU)." Although this is intended to alleviate the burden on South Korea, whether they can find common ground between the two countries on specific matters remains uncertain.

Kim Yong-bum also added, "We are currently discussing the practical aspects required by the law." Usually, all issues should be basically finalized by the practical teams before the summit, and the heads of state would only approve or make final decisions that leaders can make. However, if practical coordination continues after the summit, it may indicate that there are still major differences in text adjustments and other aspects.

Source: JoongAng Ilbo

Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1841602708495428/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author himself.