(EDITORIAL from the Korea Times on Oct. 20)

Wind of Change

Election watchers say only two things - another formidable security crisis and the ``Bradley effect'' or the latent tendency toward racist voting among Americans - can keep the first-term Democratic senator from taking the top U.S. job. Were Obama a white person, in other words, much of the game would have been over a long time
ago.

As foreign spectators see it, this election was a no-win situation for the
Republicans from the start with their incumbent leader having bungled up so many
things ??? from two miserable wars abroad to the worst economy in decades at home
??? over the past eight years.

President George W. Bush and his neo-con aides will have left a valuable lesson of
how occupants at the White House can make not just America but much of the rest of
the world worse off.

The Korean Peninsula is no exception, if not far more so than others, as shown by
the aggravated North Korean nuclear situation and the reviving financial crisis
nightmare. This also explains why Seoul can't help but remain extraordinarily
attentive to what is happening in Washington and prepare for a new U.S. leadership.

Some might ask why not wait at least until the final vote counting. In terms of
preemptive diplomacy, however, there can be no such thing as too much haste. While
President Lee Myung-bak spent all of his time with Bush at Camp David during his
first visit to the United States in April, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was
meeting with both Obama and his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain.

Lee might think he and Bush have elevated the Korea-U.S. relationship to a strategic
partnership. But he only has to remember what occurred at the White House about
seven and a half years ago, when former President Kim Dae-jung tried to lecture
about his ``sunshine policy'' to the newly-elected Bush, a near stranger almost 20
years younger, whose response was little short of a slap in the face.

We hope Obama, if elected, will prove to be a gentler leader than his predecessor,
as his Korean counterpart, also about 20 years older than him, might stress the need
to confront North Korea until its complete denuclearization, while persuading the
Democratic leader to accept the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement as it is.

Obama's campaign pledges show he could be far more flexible in security issues but
much stricter in matters regarding foreign trade and the economy, in a virtual
turnaround from the Bush administration, to which the incumbent Korean government is
accustomed and far more similar, too.

One should not worry too much about the ideological discrepancy between the Korean
and U.S. administrations, which comes after a brief Bush-Lee honeymoon, as long as
it is to the betterment of mutual and respective interests. Nor should Korean
prejudices or superficial perceptions about the U.S. Democrats and Republicans be
allowed to dim the judgment of diplomats and other policymakers here.
Bill Clinton once considered bombing North Korea before switching to an engagement
policy, while the Reaganomics free trade policy does not necessarily lead to the
pursuit of fair trade.

If the allies mean the sharing of not just interests but ``value systems,'' however,
the Democrats' respect of the value and dignity of humans and their labor as well as
the welfare for a greater number of ordinary people is one Seoul should willingly
agree on.

In short, Seoul should turn more positive in inter-Korean relations so as not to
become simply a spectator, while preparing to revisit the bilateral free trade
accord for better or worse.

As to the relations between the Koreas, both Seoul and Pyongyang should recognize
each other and make bolder initiatives lest they repeat the mistakes of allowing
third parties, even the world's sole superpower, to decide their fates.
(END)