{"id":2208644,"date":"2025-03-06T20:20:01","date_gmt":"2025-03-06T11:20:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/koreapro.org\/?p=2208644"},"modified":"2025-03-07T19:06:57","modified_gmt":"2025-03-07T10:06:57","slug":"what-south-korean-conservatives-get-wrong-about-zelensky-and-the-korean-war","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koreapro.org\/2025\/03\/what-south-korean-conservatives-get-wrong-about-zelensky-and-the-korean-war\/","title":{"rendered":"What South Korean conservatives get wrong about Zelensky and the Korean War"},"content":{"rendered":"
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky\u2019s recent clash with U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office has caught the attention of South Korean conservatives, and not just due to its implications for their country\u2019s alliance with the U.S.<\/span><\/p>\n For many on South Korea\u2019s right, Zelensky\u2019s struggle for U.S. support recalls their country\u2019s precarious position after the Korean War, when President Syngman Rhee faced American pressure to go along with an armistice that he believed didn\u2019t offer sufficient security guarantees. They have used the comparison to burnish the credentials of the former president, an authoritarian leader whom they hold up as a champion of anti-communism.<\/span><\/p>\n However, despite surface similarities, Rhee and Zelensky\u2019s circumstances, leverage and geopolitical realities differ dramatically.<\/span><\/p>\n Instead of venerating Rhee\u2019s legacy through flawed analogies, experts argue that South Korea should focus on lessons from Ukraine\u2019s vulnerabilities \u2014 particularly the importance of prioritizing self-reliance in order to safeguard one\u2019s own security in an era of shifting U.S. commitments.<\/span><\/p>\n HISTORICAL PARALLELS<\/b><\/p>\n The contentious Feb. 28 Oval Office meeting between Trump and Zelensky resonated with South Korean conservatives, who saw echoes of Rhee\u2019s 1953 standoff with the U.S. during Korean War armistice negotiations.<\/span><\/p>\n Conservative lawmakers and <\/span>media<\/span><\/a> coverage<\/span><\/a> have invoked Rhee\u2019s resistance to U.S. pressure as a model of strong leadership, contrasting it with what they perceive as Zelensky\u2019s struggle to secure American support.<\/span><\/p>\n During a <\/span>visit<\/span><\/a> to ruling People Power Party lawmaker Park Soo-young, who is on an indefinite hunger strike, interim party leader Kwon Young-se compared Trump\u2019s treatment of Zelensky to the way U.S. officials dealt with Rhee in 1953.<\/span><\/p>\n Kwon pointed to Rhee\u2019s unilateral <\/span>release<\/span><\/a> of 27,000 North Korean anticommunist prisoners \u2014 an act of defiance that nearly derailed armistice talks but ultimately pressured the U.S. into signing the U.S.-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty.<\/span><\/p>\n Rhee\u2019s opposition to pausing the Korean War with an armistice stemmed from his demand for North Korean disarmament, Chinese troop withdrawal, U.N.-supervised elections in the North, international security guarantees and South Korean participation in prisoners-of-war repatriation talks.<\/span><\/p>\n Although Rhee succeeded in drawing public support for his position among the South Korean people and the legislature, his tactics <\/span>strained relations<\/span><\/a> with Washington to the extent that the Eisenhower administration considered forcibly removing him through \u201cOperation Ever-ready,\u201d according to <\/span>declassified U.S. documents<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n Besides unilaterally releasing the 27,000 prisoners in defiance of the U.N. Command, Rhee also declared a temporary state of emergency across the country, recalled officials from the U.S. and withdrew representatives from armistice negotiations.<\/span><\/p>\n Rhee\u2019s gamble paid off. The U.S. signed the armistice in July 1953 and, three months later, <\/span>formalized<\/span><\/a> security commitments through the U.S.-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty \u2014 an agreement that still underpins South Korea\u2019s defense structure today.<\/span><\/p>\n Syngman Rhee delivering a speech after South Korean forces captured Pyongyang in Oct. 1950 | Image: ROK Presidential Archives<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES<\/b><\/p>\n Despite these historical echoes, experts argue that those comparing Rhee and Zelensky ignore critical differences.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Benjamin Engel, an assistant professor of Korean Studies at Dankook University, told <\/span>Korea Pro<\/span><\/i> that Rhee wielded significantly more leverage than Zelensky does today.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cRhee was essentially installed as the leader of South Korea by the U.S.,\u201d Engel said, noting that Washington backed him over other independence figures like Kim Gu, who <\/span>opposed<\/span><\/a> the division of the two Koreas and the formation of separate governments.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThis made him confident that his brinkmanship would pay off. Meanwhile, Zelensky\u2019s position is far more precarious \u2014 Trump wants him gone.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Engel also pointed to the stark difference in U.S. involvement in the two conflicts, with Washington sending its own troops to intervene in the Korean War after North Korea invaded the South in 1950, unlike Ukraine.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cIt was not only spending enormous amounts of money, but Americans were actively engaged in combat and dying,\u201d he said. \u201cThis made signing an armistice a greater priority for the U.S. and gave Syngman Rhee more leverage.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n By contrast, Engel argued, Trump has no real incentive to force Ukraine into a settlement. \u201cIt costs the U.S. nothing to let Ukraine keep fighting without U.S. aid.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Choi Gi-il, a professor at Sangji University\u2019s National Security Division, added that Washington\u2019s strategic priorities today are different.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cUkraine\u2019s strategic importance to the Western liberal order is undeniable, but the Korean Peninsula\u2019s significance in Northeast Asia is arguably greater,\u201d Choi told <\/span>Korea Pro<\/span><\/i>, highlighting that Trump\u2019s \u201cAmerica First\u201d approach seeks to prioritize U.S. national interests above all else.<\/span><\/p>\n Volodymyr Zelensky and Syngman Rhee | Images: Office of the President of Ukraine<\/a> (April 4, 2022) and ROK Presidential Archives, edited by Korea Pro<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n CONSERVATIVES\u2019 TURN TO RHEE<\/b><\/p>\n As South Korea braces for a possible snap election following President Yoon Suk-yeol\u2019s impeachment, conservative efforts to frame Rhee as a historical parallel to Zelensky appear to be part of a broader <\/span>ideological campaign<\/span><\/a> that has little to do with Ukraine, instead aiming to burnish the reputation of a key anti-communist figure.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cRhee and the founding of the Republic of Korea are important to the conservative bloc\u2019s vision of \u2018liberal democracy\u2019 and \u2018capitalism\u2019 as the foundations of Korean nationalism over the ethno-nationalism that would prioritize unification,\u201d Engel said.<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, many conservatives argue that had Rhee not resorted to brinksmanship in his negotiations with the U.S., which might not have led to the establishment of the U.S.-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty, today\u2019s South Korea might not have existed.<\/span><\/p>\n However, their use of Rhee\u2019s legacy to reinforce national security rhetoric comes with contradictions. For instance, although Rhee himself was fervently <\/span>opposed<\/span><\/a> to working with Japan, which had annexed the Korean Peninsula for most of the first half of the 20th century, Engel noted that modern South Korean conservatives often seek closer ties with Tokyo.<\/span><\/p>\n To strengthen their vision of nationalism, the expert noted that South Korean conservatives turn to \u201cheroes\u201d like Rhee who helped establish the country and \u201cfought back the communist invasion,\u201d as opposed to progressives seeking engagement with North Korea.<\/span><\/p>\n The revival of Rhee as an \u201canti-communist\u201d hero thus aligns with conservative efforts to paint their opponents as \u201canti-state\u201d forces aligned with North Korea, a clarion call taken up by impeached President Yoon Suk-yeol and his supporters.<\/span><\/p>\n Volodymyr Zelensky alighting from his official plane | Image: Office of the President of Ukraine<\/a> (Jan. 27, 2025)<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n LESSONS FOR SOUTH KOREA<\/b><\/p>\n While South Korea\u2019s strategic position differs from Ukraine\u2019s, experts warn that Trump\u2019s approach to Zelensky serves as a clear warning for all U.S. allies.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cTrump has consistently pushed allies to increase defense spending and shoulder more security responsibilities,\u201d Choi of Sangji University said. \u201cDuring his first term, these were verbal demands, but his second term appears marked by concrete actions.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The expert emphasized that self-reliance in defense is paramount for Seoul. \u201cSouth Korea must internalize these lessons. Military strengthening and ensuring its own security should be top priorities,\u201d he told <\/span>Korea Pro<\/span><\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n The Trump administration has already shown willingness to renegotiate defense cost-sharing agreements, and key figures like Elbridge Colby \u2014 Trump\u2019s nominee for under secretary of defense for policy \u2014 <\/span>advocate<\/span><\/a> for Seoul to take on more defense responsibilities.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n South Korea\u2019s wartime operational control transition remains a key test of its military self-sufficiency.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAlliances offer no absolute guarantees,\u201d Choi said. \u201cWithout prioritizing a self-reliant defense, South Korea could find itself vulnerable, similar to Ukraine\u2019s current position.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Edited by John Lee<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n