How will South Korea’s incoming leader confront the North?

The poll to decide who succeeds impeached former President Park Geun-hye will be held on May 9. It should put an end to the political turmoil that has gripped the country since last autumn and see a return to stability.
The election campaign is a showdown between two leading candidates – left-winger Moon Jae-in (the front-runner) and centre-left Ahn Cheol-soo. Conservative candidates have been faltering, apparently hit by the scandal involving Park. It can be said that the conventional structure in which the left-wing and conservatives repeatedly vied with each other has completely changed.
Political reforms, economic rehabilitation and employment measures are among the matters of concern for voters.
Debates on security have become more important in light of North Korea, which has been reacting strongly to pressure from the United States.
Different approaches
Moon, while critical of North Korea’s nuclear tests and missile launches, also argues for the need for North-South cooperation on the economy.
On the other hand, Ahn attaches importance to the US-South Korea alliance and argues for the need of economic sanctions on Pyongyang.
On Wednesday, US military forces in South Korea delivered the main equipment of their latest missile defence system to the site where it is to be deployed. The delivery was made earlier than initially planned.
Moon has repeatedly said deployment would be decided by the next administration. He may have given too much consideration to China, which strongly opposes its deployment. It will be difficult to remove it, given that the delivery has been made as the result of an agreement between the present Seoul administration and Washington.
Moon is also critical of the General Security of Military Information Agreement reached between Japan and South Korea. His stance of making light of cooperation among Japan, the United States and South Korea in the security sphere entails dangers. Ahn, meanwhile, has shown understanding toward the accord, saying it is important to grasp North Korea’s movements.
It should not be overlooked that both the leading candidates have disavowed the Japan-South Korea deal on the issue of comfort women that was reached in late 2015, and are calling for its renegotiation.
Park’s dismissal is a domestic issue. Moon’s unilateral emphasis that even this diplomatic achievement of the Park administration is void certainly runs counter to international common sense.
Moon has strongly supported the installation of the statue of a girl symbolising comfort women erected in front of the Japanese Consulate in Busan, South Korea.
He asserts that “pro-Japan” people who cooperated in Japan’s colonial rule continued occupying important posts in political and business circles in the country, even after the founding of the Republic of Korea, resulting in deep-rooted evils in South Korean society, such as collusive ties between the political and business worlds. His anti-Japan words and deeds are conspicuous. For instance, he visited Takeshima island in July last year.
Ahn has gone along with public opinion and indicated that the Japan-South Korea deal should be amended in consideration of the wishes of former comfort women.
No optimistic view seems possible regarding the policies to be taken toward Japan by a new South Korean administration.