Asian Affairs: An American Review

ISSN: 0092-7678 (Print) 1940-1590 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vasa20

Political Dilemmas in the Republic of Korea

Hahm Pyong-Choon

To cite this article: Hahm Pyong-Choon (1974) Political Dilemmas in the Republic of Korea,
Asian Affairs: An American Review, 1:5, 297-301, DOI: 10.1080/00927678.1974.10587725

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00927678.1974.10587725

Published online: 17 Oct 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vasa20

Download by: [University of California, San Diego] Date: 29 June 2016, At: 13:20
 Political Dilemmas in the Republic of Korea
HAHM PYONG-CHOON

ANY ANALYSIS of the Republic of Korea must begin with its

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 13:20 29 June 2016

geopolitical setting. 1 The Korean Peninsula is surrounded by three

major world powers-Russia, China, and Japan. When Korea opened
its doors to the outside world, less than a hundred years ago, it almost
immediately found itself victimized by the competition and conflict
among these three powers to gain hegemony over the Peninsula. From
the beginning, our ancestors understood that they had to find some
distant but powerful friend, without territorial ambitions in Korea, but
friendly enough to give us some kind of leverage against the rapacity
of our immediate neighbors. Since the recovery of our independence
after World War II, the Republic of Korea has had such support from
the United States. Close friendship with the United States has thus
become the cornerstone of our foreign policy, and this will continue
to be so in the future.
Another consequence of our geopolitical position is that Korea
must maintain friendly ties with its immediate neighbors. It is exhilar-
ating but dangerous to live among the elephants. We have to share
our bed with three of them, and this poses tremendous problems. Some-
how, we have to coexist with them in a friendly relationship, to prevent
them from turning over and crushing us.
We do not yet know how much of a friendship we can have with
the two Communist giants. Certainly we have tried, and we shall con-
tinue to try in the period ahead. At the very least, the Republic of
Korea has to establish a nonhostile relationship with both of them.
With respect to Japan, we have succeeded in working out a fairly good
relationship, especially in the economic field.
Another problem that a small country like Korea faces is to get
1 This article is adapted from an informal address given by Ambassador Hahm in New York
on June 7, 1974, and transcribed with his permission. The Editor takes full responsibility for
the accuracy of this edited version of his remarks.

297
 298 Asian Affairs

the kind of respect that we think we are entitled to as a sovereign state.

We do not want to be a mere appendage to any of the three giants.
When Chou En-lai set forth certain principles of PRC policy relating
to Taiwan, he somehow included the Republic of Korea in the same
category as the Republic of China. Thus, he declared that Communist
China would not do business with any Japanese (or American) com-
pany that did business with either Taiwan or South Korea. But Korea
is certainly not a part of China; and we do not understand Peking's
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 13:20 29 June 2016

perspective in looking at the Republic of Korea and Taiwan as more

or less the same.
We have a similar problem with Japan. Korea was once a colony
of Japan, and sometimes the Japanese tend to look at Korea as if it
were still a colony. Of course, if one makes a point about this, the
Japanese will deny it and insist that they never treat Korea as a colony
any more. But there is this habit of thinking that Korea is somehow
Japan's ward, and that we still need Japanese guidance to make our
way in the world.
With respect to the North, the overriding objective of our policy
is to prevent another war on the Peninsula. This commitment, this
orientation, colors every aspect of our policy-how to prevent war,
how to spare the nation another fratricidal holocaust. The North
Koreans still describe the 1950-53 conflict as a war for the liberation
of the fatherland. They deny that they committed aggression against
the South. In their concept, Koreans could not commit aggression
against other Koreans on what was indisputably Korean territory. It
was the Americans who committed aggression when they "invaded"
the Peninsula.
In face of such an approach, the Seoul government has decided
to propose peaceful coexistence, almost in so many words, as the
guiding modality for regulating relations between the South and North.
So far, the North Koreans have rejected this approach, on the ground
that peaceful coexistence is an inapplicable basis for improving re-
lations between the South and North, which are not two separate
nations, but inseparable parts of the same nation. Reunification is a
highly emotional and overriding national issue. The Seoul government
agrees that it is important. But we attach one condition, namely, that
unification must be achieved by peaceful means. Without elaborating
 Political Dilemmas in the Republic of Korea 299

here on what the term "peaceful" implies in this context, we do insist

on nonrevolutionary means. The North Koreans argue that revolu-
tionary means, although violent, are nevertheless peaceful. We can-
not accept this.

II
The Republic of Korea is committed to economic development. In a
sense, this is the most important political issue in the South. Many
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 13:20 29 June 2016

Korean intellectuals oppose this policy orientation, which they de-

nounce as rampant mammonism and as the most dehumanizing aspect
of the present regime. They say that they cannot accept a government
that often appears to be preoccupied with economic development almost
to the exclusion of everything else.
But the government, too, has an argument in this respect. We
are committed to economic development because we believe that we
can never aspire to a genuine, dynamic democratic political system
in the South, or even survive as an alternative to the Communist
system in the North, unless every citizen is assured of a decent standard
of living. This is not mere rhetoric. We are committed to economic
development, and to the emergence of a strong middle class, whose
tolerance and forbearance are so essential to the functioning of a viable
democracy.
Now a capitalist system of economy, based on private property
and private enterprise, is not an easy system to work with, especially
in the early stages of the industrial revolution. One can point to many
things that are wrong, unjust, even inhumane. But we also believe that
private property is one of the fundamental human freedoms, and that
the capitalist system-with all its faults-is the one most compatible
with the liberal democracy to which the government is also committed.
Let me repeat. The Republic of Korea is committed both to the capi-
talist system and to liberal democracy.
In recent years, my country has made a substantial measure of
economic progress, and the Korean people are rightfully proud of this.
On the other hand, there have been all kinds of negative side effects,
and these are plainly visible to anyone who visits the Republic of Korea.
As in most countries, there are pockets of real poverty, and obvious
disparities between the rich and poor. Labor is still cheap in the South,
 300 Asian Affairs

and wages are low; this accounts, in part, for our competitive advantage
over many other developing countries. But the dissatisfied intellectual
sees this, and denounces it as exploitation of the poor by the rich.
We have had to borrow capital from abroad in order to finance
our economic growth. This is another source of intellectual discontent.
Communist propaganda from the North denounces foreign investment
as enslavement by foreign capitalists. The Communists are perhaps
less persuasive when they argue that American business is only out to
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 13:20 29 June 2016

exploit and oppress the Korean people. Our relationship with the
United States has been too close and friendly, and we have received
too much assistance, to be taken in by such propaganda. But because
of our colonial experience during the first half of this century, the
Japanese are another matter. This is one of the reasons why my
country welcomes American investment so openly. It tends to counter-
balance the Japanese, and neutralize the political bad effects of their
economic presence. We never want to be in the position where the
Japanese surpass the Americans in this respect.
The Republic of Korea is also going through a social and cultural
revolution, which is the inevitable accompaniment of rapid economic
development--our industrial revolution, if you will. If one takes into ac-
count the rate of economic growth we have had during the past decade,
it is easy to imagine the tremendous changes that have been forced on
the Korean people. Old patterns of life and habits of thought must give
way, no doubt. But it is hardly surprising that the people do not like
having these changes crammed down their throats. Family relationships
are changing, too. It is difficult to maintain the values of the extended
family in a small apartment. Nor does the university-educated Korean
woman any longer wish to live with her in-laws, and take care of a
vast collection of her husband's relatives. Something of the spirit of
filial piety is lost, too, when a son begins to look upon his father in
terms of his efficiency and contribution to productivity. ·

III
How to maintain political stability in the face of all these pressures
converging on this southern half of a small peninsula attached to the
mainland of Asia? Surely one of the requirements is for strong political
leadership. But where do we draw the line between strong leadership
 Political Dilemmas in the Republic of Korea 301

and dictatorship? This has been a difficult problem for my country,

and will continue to be so. Wherever the line is drawn, vigorous leader-
ship will be needed to maintain a modicum of stability, so that eco-
nomic development can go forward.
Stability, discipline, efficiency, productivity, hard work-all these
are Victorian work ethics. They no longer rank high with intellectuals,
in the United States or the Republic of Korea. But in my country, we
just have to have them. They are not popular, but our political leader-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 13:20 29 June 2016

ship must insist on them. They may even be dehumanizing, but remem-
ber that the Republic of Korea is now going through its industrial
revolution. For us, this transformation is taking place not over a period
of centuries, but in a mere decade or two. Either we make it now, or
we shall never make it at all.