South Korea is a heavily polarized society in which progressives and conservatives often struggle to reach a consensus on even the most trivial matters. 

But domestic media’s portrayal of President Yoon Suk-yeol’s recent state visit to the U.S. offers a rare instance of agreement, with both ideological camps critiquing the president for reasons that, at times, overlap.

The Chosun Ilbo, South Korea’s most prominent conservative daily newspaper, endorsed the joint decision by South Korea and the U.S. to bolster extended deterrence. However, the op-ed expressed unease that the creation of the Nuclear Consultation Group (NCG) might curtail South Korea’s ability to develop its own nuclear deterrent in the future.

The editorial observes, “It seems that South Korean consent for the establishment of the Nuclear Consultation Group hinged on surrendering any aspirations for nuclear arms acquisition or redeployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Korea.”

“The Washington Declaration appears to prioritize U.S. apprehensions over South Korea developing its own nuclear arsenal rather than addressing the North Korean nuclear threat that prompts such aspirations,” the paper states. 

It adds that while the U.S.-ROK alliance serves as the cornerstone of ROK national security, “the responsibility for our defense ultimately lies with us.”

In an unusual departure from conservative orthodoxy, Dong-A Ilbo, another prominent conservative newspaper, responded to Yoon’s U.S. visit by publishing a column warning against provoking China. 

The prevailing conservative viewpoint typically contends that the ROK should firmly align with the U.S. amid the escalating rivalry between Washington and Beijing.

On the whole, pro-American conservatives have reacted positively to the outcomes of the visit. Both the Chosun Ilbo and the JoongAng Ilbo newspaper — another conservative media titan — underscored Yoon’s diplomatic successes on its front page, despite the myriad challenges he faces in domestic affairs. 

PROGRESSIVE CRITICISM

Progressive media outlets have offered stinging critiques of Yoon Suk-yeol, and their arguments surprisingly echo those made by conservatives. The Hankyoreh, a leading progressive newspaper, featured a guest essay by Lee Jong-seok — a former unification minister and a prominent figure on the left.

“Yoon Suk-yeol is not content with merely adopting a hardline North Korea policy; he inflames tensions by provoking China and Russia when discussing values-based diplomacy, taking cues from the U.S,” Lee opined. “Notably absent from the joint statement was any acknowledgment of Korea’s unique circumstances.”

Lee’s critique shares much in common with the conservative criticisms of Yoon’s diplomacy mentioned earlier. His essay asserts, “The South Korean government presented the U.S. with a considerable gift by explicitly forgoing its own nuclear armament aspirations in exchange for extended deterrence assurances amounting to little more than rhetoric.”

Lee Jong-seok was not the sole progressive who advocated a pro-nuclear stance. Lee Je-hoon, a reporter at Hankyoreh, made an argument that bore striking resemblances to both Lee Jong-seok’s commentary and the Chosun Ilbo newspaper’s editorial, which is customarily seen as a bastion for his most ardent ideological adversaries.

Lee Je-hoon wrote that the true crux of the Washington Declaration is U.S. President Joe Biden’s receipt of Yoon’s assurance that South Korea would not acquire nuclear weapons.

An editorial in the Kyunghyang Shinmun, another influential progressive newspaper, proclaimed that “Korea has gone all-in with the U.S.” The publication posits that improving ties between the U.S., South Korea, and Japan will inevitably draw North Korea, China and Russia closer together. 

In contrast, the newspaper was critical of the merits of bolstering extended deterrence, maintaining that it could potentially exacerbate tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

President Yoon Suk-yeol addresses a joint meeting of Congress, April 27, 2023 | Image: ROK Presidential Office

ECONOMY

Conservative and progressive critiques of Yoon also converge on economic matters, such as the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the CHIPS and Science Act. A consensus has emerged across most newspapers, suggesting that the summit produced few tangible outcomes beyond discussing principles, and Yoon Suk-yeol’s performance was deemed weak.

Conservative media outlets, while critical, were somewhat more lenient toward the president. The Chosun Ilbo’s Kang Gyeong-hee wrote, “Follow-up efforts must be properly executed to ensure that the declarative promise to transition from a security alliance to a technological one has tangible effects. We must persuade the U.S. to ease provisions unfavorable to us.”

The JoongAng Ilbo expressed dissatisfaction with “U.S. nationalist egoism” but acknowledged that South Korea had no other option than to participate in a U.S.-centered supply chain.

The progressive newspaper Kyunghyang Shinmun voiced skepticism about South Korea’s prospects for persuading U.S. officials to revise the IRA or the CHIPS and Science Act in its favor, considering the country’s increasingly pro-U.S. strategy. 

The newspaper cautioned that it might become increasingly challenging for the ROK to avoid making further trade and economic concessions to the U.S.

The Hankyoreh reminded its readers that since Biden’s inauguration, South Korea has committed $100 billion to American high-tech industries, including battery production. In return, the daily asserts, South Koreans have been met with questionable security guarantees.

The paper also cited China’s Global Times, which castigated the South Korean government for its “overwhelmingly pro-U.S. policy.” The Chinese publication contended that the economic and security losses South Korea will endure will outweigh the advantages garnered from closer cooperation with the U.S.

President Yoon Suk-yeol may have received a warm reception at the White House, in the U.S. Congress, and friendly Western media outlets. 

However, Yoon confronts a far more challenging and adversarial political landscape at home.

Edited by John Lee