Douglas H. Paal
{
"authors": [
"Douglas H. Paal"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"East Asia",
"South Korea"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
Obama is Saving the Best for Last
By stopping in Seoul and addressing its security and trade concerns with sincerity and action, Obama can demonstrate American commitment to its ally South Korea and to the entire region.
Source: South China Morning Post

On October 30, the Korean government announced a new commitment of 300 troops and 200 civilians to constitute a Provincial Reconstruction Team for an as-yet unnamed province in Afghanistan.
In return for its troubles, Seoul seeks White House support for the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (Korus), which has been languishing in Congress for more than two years. Obama is unlikely to do more than commit to a further review of the pact, which he criticized as falling short in his presidential campaign.
Nonetheless, the background of this visit reveals a positive change in the management of the alliance, in contrast with the policy spats between Washington and Seoul towards North Korea under President Lee Myung-bak’s two predecessors. Obama’s team has reestablished genuine consultation with America’s Korean allies.
Even under Lee’s predecessor, the late president Roh Moo-hyun, and despite noisy public disputes, substantial progress was achieved in modernizing the alliance, as South Korea contributed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reached a free trade agreement, and undertook long-delayed adjustments in the footprint of the US military presence. The White House staff naturally sought to limit Obama’s travel time, but he wisely recognized that it would be an unpardonable snub not to stop in South Korea and show his commitment to the alliance. So he is due to fly in from China late on Wednesday evening, and leave after lunch the next day.
Nine days is a substantial commitment of White House time, and a wise gesture to reassure Asian nations that, while China is growing in power and influence, the US will not abandon them to face it alone. At the same time, Obama’s trip signals that Washington seeks no confrontation with Beijing and in fact hopes to work with China on problems too great for any one power to manage.
Obama is also boosting the message that America is back after its long preoccupation with terrorism. Within that context, U.S. relations with South Korea are their best in 12 years. But the US cannot take Seoul for granted, as political support for the high-visibility free trade agreement is starting to wane in South Korea while the Obama administration sorts out its domestic priorities and examines flaws it sees.
Obama will also need to be careful not to let new and worthy, but less domestically sensitive, free trade opportunities – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership – jump the queue on Korus, which would only fire up Korean opponents of a deal that already favors US exporters overwhelmingly.
By paying respects in Seoul, and addressing the South Korean people’s concerns with sincerity and action, Obama can depart from Asia on a high note, demonstrating American co-operation with a longtime ally in the region and underscoring the purpose of his trip.
About the Author
Distinguished Fellow, Asia Program
Paal previously served as vice chairman of JPMorgan Chase International and as unofficial U.S. representative to Taiwan as director of the American Institute in Taiwan.
- America’s Future in a Dynamic AsiaPaper
- U.S.-China Relations at the Forty-Year MarkQ&A
- +1
Douglas H. Paal, Tong Zhao, Chen Qi, …
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Protests Like No Kings Can Only Go So Far to Stem AuthoritarianismCommentary
Lessons from other backsliding democracies show that mass mobilization needs to feed into an electoral strategy.
Saskia Brechenmacher, Shreya Joshi
- Southeast Asia’s Agency Amid the New Oil CrisisCommentary
There is no better time for the countries of Southeast Asia to reconsider their energy security than during this latest crisis.
Gita Wirjawan
- Fuel Crisis Forces Politically Perilous Trade-Offs in IndonesiaCommentary
As conflict in the Middle East drives up fuel costs across Asia, Indonesia faces difficult policy trade-offs over subsidies, inflation, and fiscal credibility. President Prabowo’s personalized governance style may make these hard choices even harder to navigate.
Sana Jaffrey
- Europe Doesn’t Like War—for Good ReasonsCommentary
The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are existential threats to Europe as a peace project. Leaders and citizens alike must reaffirm their solidarity to face up to today’s multifaceted challenges.
Marc Pierini
- In Its Iran War Debate, Washington Has Lost the Plot in AsiaCommentary
The United States ignores the region’s lived experience—and the tough political and social trade-offs the war has produced—at its peril.
Evan A. Feigenbaum