hankyoreh

President Moon Jae-in will host US President Donald Trump during his visit to South Korea on Nov. 7 and 8. The two leaders met in a summit at the Lotte Palace Hotel in New York during the UN General Assembly meetings on Sept. 21. (Blue House Photo Pool)

When I heard that US President Donald Trump would be speaking before the National Assembly during his visit to South Korea, a controversy was already brewing about Trump’s visit to the UK and his address to Parliament. Shortly after Trump was elected president, the British royal family announced that it would be inviting him to make a state visit, and Prime Minister Theresa May conveyed the invitation to Trump when she visited the US at the end of January. This created a stir among British politicians and civil society.

A petition to revoke the invitation was posted on the British government’s official petition website and received more than 1.8 million signatures in the space of a week. At one point, it was signed by over a thousand people in a single minute. House of Commons Speaker John Bercow submitted an unusual resolution banning Trump from delivering an address to Parliament because of his racist views. Since Trump would be given a chance to speak before Parliament if he made a state visit, the resolution was aimed at nipping that possibility in the bud. “An address by a foreign leader to both Houses of Parliament is not an automatic right. It is an earned honor,” Bercow said.

Trump’s visit to the UK has been delayed until next year, but it’s unclear whether the visit will even take place – to say nothing of the address to Parliament. When Trump declared he would not visit the UK if there were protests against him, the response from the British public was one of gratitude.

Since the UK’s departure from the EU is forcing it to rely even more on the US, is the denigration of Trump an unrealistic and immature action that harms the national interest? I’m not sure. The opposition to Trump’s address to Parliament, at least, was correct on a pragmatic level. Given Trump’s propensity to spew solipsistic rudeness, the UK would be responsible for cleaning up after him if it gave him a chance to speak to Parliament.

What if, during an address to Parliament, Trump emphasized his “America first” policy; criticized the European integration policies of the EU, one of his favorite punching bags; justified his attempt to restrict immigration from Muslim countries; criticized China for its exchange rate and trade policies; or defended the wall on the border with Mexico?

Given Trump’s usual tendencies and attitudes, what he said in an address to Parliament is unlikely to give a good return on the UK’s investment, no matter how effectively he delivered it. From the moment that Trump’s address to Parliament was settled, the UK would have to squander an immense amount of diplomatic energy on adjusting his message. From that moment, the UK would likely have to play along with Trump. They would be classic victims of Trump’s “madman tactics.”

Some are patting themselves on the back for arranging Trump’s address before the National Assembly, calling it a “diplomatic victory.” When critics complained that South Korea was being disrespected because Trump is only staying in the country for two days – which is shorter than his visits to Japan and China – Seoul quickly noted that South Korea was the only country in which Trump will be addressing the legislature.

Aside from the fact that complaining that Trump’s short visit is disrespectful to South Korea reflects an obsequious attitude toward the US, it’s ridiculous to brag about Trump’s address in the National Assembly as if it were some kind of diplomatic achievement. Since South Korea has given Trump access to the official platform of the National Assembly, it will surely be hampered by the remarks he makes there.

What if, during his address to the National Assembly, Trump argues for the creation of a military alliance that would unify South Korea, the US and Japan (in other words, a northeast Asian version of NATO) on the pretext of dealing with North Korea’s nuclear program; urges China to take bilateral punitive measures against North Korea; or continues his criticism of North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong-un? On all of the issues facing the South Korea and the US – the North Korean nuclear issue, defense costs and other alliance issues, and trade issues – Trump’s typical positions and remarks create a headache for Seoul.

The South Korean government will have to expend a massive amount of diplomatic capital just to ensure that Trump’s remarks do not go beyond generic platitudes. Even if Trump does little more than call on the international community to take part in maximum pressure and engagement on the North Korean nuclear issue, South Korea will have barely “gotten its money worth,” given its current predicament. Trump might be considerate of the South Korean government in his speech, but is that possibility reason to let him into the National Assembly?

Such concerns were also expressed by a majority of discussants who participated in a session on geopolitical changes in Eurasia and the tasks ahead for the government of Moon Jae-in, which was part of the 13th Hankyoreh-Busan International Symposium on Oct. 26 and 27. All the discussants could say was that they sincerely hope that Trump will not cause any incidents during his address to the National Assembly that will put South Korea in an awkward situation.

Thus far, Trump hasn’t given an address to any foreign legislature. There’s a reason that foreign governments haven’t given him that opportunity. Even granting that South Korea plays a subordinate role in its relationship to the US, as long as South Korea continues to act like a subordinate, that relationship will not change, and South Korea will end up suffering even more from the US’s domineering behavior.

By Jung E-gil, senior staff writer

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]