South Korean society has recently ushered in a remarkable explosive news. According to South Korea's JoongAng Ilbo, Seoul was set on an August 26 afternoon and became the stage for a massive rally involving South Korean environmental groups, civic groups and the four major opposition parties. Their goal is the same: to strongly oppose the Japanese government's insistence on discharging Fukushima's contaminated water into the ocean. At the rally, they not only condemned the Japanese government's decision, but also severely criticized the "tolerant" attitude shown by the South Korean government Yoon Seok-yue in this matter, and urged the South Korean government to take urgent measures. After the rally came to an end, protesters even walked to South Korea's presidential palace to express their demands and grievances.
South Korea was once known for the extreme expressions of its people's emotions. Looking back, we will find that on certain issues, the Korean people often take drastic and sometimes surprisingly extreme actions, such as a few years ago, when people injured themselves or even cut off their fingers in protest against certain events. In recent years, however, this extreme sentiment appears to have waned. The passion and bloodiness of the past no longer seem to be as strong as it once was. This shift can even be traced back to the rise of Yoon's government. At this stage, South Korea seems to be no longer as strongly concerned about historical issues, territorial disputes, etc. as in the past, and even as a maritime nation, it has shown extreme humility in dealing with Japan's discharge of nuclear water into the Pacific Ocean, which has become incomprehensible to some.
However, behind the policies of the Yoon Seok-yue government is a more complex background. Yoon's administration can be seen as a continuation of the pro-American regime that the United States has installed in South Korea. This explains some of his practices, but it is puzzling that South Korean society as a whole seems silent about his way of governing, and few voices, including opposition parties, question his governance. Now, a series of policy initiatives by the Yoon administration have not only plunged South Korea into tensions along its borders with its neighbors, but even seems to have chosen to remain silent on issues such as Japan's discharge of nuclear water into the Pacific Ocean, which seriously threaten South Korea's survival. In the face of this situation, it is inevitable that people will ask: Is there really no one in Korean society who will fight back? Are you really used to this situation?
The answer to this phenomenon may be found in the multiple factors of Korean society. Complex historical, political, diplomatic and other considerations are intertwined. On the one hand, South Korea has experienced a long history of strife, and the Yoon Seok-hyeol government seems to have chosen to avoid discussing certain issues, which can also be seen as a means of seeking international peace and stability. However, whether such an avoidance is really in the interests of South Korean citizens and whether it will weaken the country's position in the long term remains to be further explored. On the other hand, the United States, as an ally and supporter of South Korea, plays an important role in the geopolitical landscape. It is also worth exploring whether the pro-American stance of the Yoon Seok-hyeol government is motivated by dependence on the United States or by other strategic considerations.
However, for Korean society, whether it has developed a certain degree of numbness to such a situation is also a question worth pondering. This policy trend of the Yoon Seok-yue government after coming to power may have made people gradually accustomed to putting power in the hands of specific forces and endured silence on certain major issues. It is not so much that Korean society has not rebounded, but that Korean society has gradually adapted to this passive situation to some extent. This also raises deeper questions: To what extent should countries pursue international peace and stability? Is it worth a firmer voice at some point in the interests of the country? These issues are particularly important under Yoon's government.
South Korean society ushered in a remarkable backlash on August 26. On this day, Lee Jae-myung, leader of South Korea's largest opposition party, the Democratic Party of Korea, and other parties, civic groups and environmental groups finally gathered their strength to issue strong questions and protests to the South Korean government. Behind this joint action are the voices of various forces, who are dissatisfied with Japan's insistence on releasing Fukushima's contaminated water into the sea, and even more dissatisfied with the passivity and tolerance of the South Korean government in this matter. Although the arrival of this rebound was a little slow, it at least showed that the Korean people still maintain a sense of blood and self-help for the country's future.
However, the complexity of international geopolitics cannot simply be ignored for South Korea's future. Indeed, in the current international situation, the game between the United States and China has had a profound impact on the East Asian region. If U.S. strategic failures in the Western Pacific lead to a retreat, the landscape of East Asia will change significantly. This also raises an important question: Should South Korea choose to be the "vanguard" of the US anti-China strategy? But the choice is not simple, as it can come with the risk of instability and conflict in countries. North Korea's nuclear threat and strife with the United States and China put South Korea in a region of great risk.
For China, once the United States fails to suppress China and withdraw from East Asia, because North Korea must play an important role in it, at that time, the reunification of China between the North and the South has no reason to hinder it legally, emotionally and morally, then South Korea can only destroy the country. South Korea will destroy the country, and the worst thing will not be the Korean people, but these politicians, many of whom will be liquidated! The best outcome for these politician elites in South Korea is to become passers-by.
However, the decision to decide whether South Korea should play the "vanguard" does not depend solely on South Korea's will. The situation is further complicated by the evolution of the international landscape and the intertwining of national policies. If South Korea chooses to swing between China and the United States, it may fall into a passive position between the two, making it difficult to maximize its own interests. The dilemma faced by South Korea's political elite is the product of a multi-party game that needs to find a balance between national interests and international pressure.
On the contrary, if South Korea does not play the role of the anti-China vanguard of the United States, it will not completely offend China, the situation on the peninsula will not be so tense, and North Korea will have the intention of reunification, but it will lack moral and practical support, and the North and South may exist independently or merge into one in the future. If the latter is the case, it is also through negotiation and reorganization, then South Korea's political elite can have political status and interests can be guaranteed.
As a result, the choices facing South Korea are far more complex than imagined. The Korean government and society need to seriously consider how to protect national interests and security in the changing international landscape. Instead of passively waiting for international changes, or blindly following one side or another, it may be more worthwhile to think about how to find one's own position on the international stage and formulate a more appropriate strategy for the country's future development.
Therefore, for South Korea, they must save themselves, otherwise when raw rice is cooked and matured, when the war on the peninsula begins, South Korea will not even have the opportunity to save itself! At this critical juncture, the decisions made by South Korea will affect not only the future of the country, but also the stability and development of the entire region. Self-help is not only a domestic issue, but also a complex issue closely linked to international relations and geopolitics.
In the past, one of the main means South Korea used to counter the "trilateral alliance" promoted by the United States was against Japan. Historical issues and territorial disputes over islands were used as anti-Japanese tools, and through these issues, South Korea succeeded in forming a popular base of public opinion in Japan against the "Triple Alliance of the United States, Japan, and South Korea," making it difficult to achieve the strategic goals of the United States.
However, after taking office, Yoon's government took a series of actions to help the United States promote the "trilateral alliance of the United States, Japan, and South Korea". One of the most important of these is the resolution of historical issues. Under the guidance and support of the United States, the Yoon Seok-hyeol administration actively promoted the reconciliation between South Korea and Japan on historical issues. This settlement removed the biggest obstacle to the formation of the trilateral alliance and laid the foundation for subsequent cooperation.
Now, the alliance between the United States, Japan and South Korea has taken shape, and South Korea has become the front line of the Sino-American competition. According to this development trend, once the contradictions between China and the United States escalate, war on the peninsula will be almost inevitable. In this case, South Korea will bear great risks and challenges. If war breaks out, South Korea's future prospects are worrying, and the possibility of the country's demise will greatly increase.
However, at this critical moment, only South Korea itself can save itself! The opposition is an important force that can push the government through internal pressure to adopt policies that are more beneficial to the country. With the help of domestic events, they can inspire discontent with the government among the population, thereby reshaping relations at home and abroad. However, under the current situation, the opposition parties in South Korea have not yet formed sufficient unity and strength, and larger and more vigorous actions are needed.
Lee Jae-myung, leader of the largest opposition party and former presidential candidate, strongly condemned Japan's nuclear sewage discharge into the sea, pointing out that Japan had crossed an insurmountable line and declared that it was a declaration of war against the Pacific littoral countries. Such rhetoric has some impact, but it is crucial to gain widespread acceptance among the South Korean public. This will take time, and support for this view needs to be broadened through extensive advocacy and education. Although the actions of South Korea's opposition parties have improved after Japan released nuclear wastewater, they still need to continue to make efforts to build more solid anti-Japanese sentiment among the people and win more space for the country's future.
The United States suppressed China, and Japan became an important strategic fulcrum in East Asia. In maintaining its global hegemonic status, the United States regards Japan as an important partner and strengthens cooperation with Japan by promoting the trilateral alliance between the United States, Japan, and South Korea. Japan also has its own strategic demands in this partnership, one of which is to fight for more rights and interests in bargaining with the United States. For Japan, the release of nuclear water into the Pacific Ocean became a bargaining chip, a move that it took in the interest of its national interests, despite being morally questionable.
This deal between the United States and Japan actually highlights the weakness of the United States to some extent. Although some countries have expressed opposition to this, under pressure from the United States, many countries dare not openly oppose it. Among Western countries, some countries have not taken a firm attitude of opposition because of their interests with the United States. However, countries such as China, Russia, and North Korea have shown firm opposition on this issue, and China plays a central role in this issue.
However, the magnitude of the problem is not fully recognized by all States. Through strong diplomatic pressure and systematic struggle on the international stage, China has the potential to awaken other countries' awareness of nuclear effluent discharges. China's continued efforts are likely to lead more countries to stand up against Japan's practices, creating a strong international voice. Such opposition may resonate with the international community and have an important impact on Japan's approach.
In this struggle, China has not only fought back politically, but also occupied the moral high ground. By actively working on the international stage, China can expand its opposition to Japan's discharge of nuclear wastewater, thereby creating international pressure on Japan to reconsider its approach. This is also a masterful manipulation of China's diplomacy, using the power of morality and public opinion to focus the attention of the international community on this issue.
However, this political game is far from over. The actions of opposition parties in South Korea and other countries have played a role, but greater international cooperation is still needed. China needs to continue its efforts to win the support of more countries in the international community to make the call against nuclear wastewater discharge stronger. Only with such cooperation can China gain greater influence on the international political stage and push countries like Japan to re-examine their decision-making.
The ultimate goal is to turn this moral high ground into a political victory. Although Japan has taken steps to discharge nuclear sewage with the support of the United States, China can eventually force Japan to adjust its policy and seek more reasonable solutions through sustained struggle and international cooperation. China's diplomatic struggle requires continued patience and firmness, but as long as China can uphold the moral high ground and expand international support, it can hope to win this game.
The future of this political game remains uncertain, but China's diplomatic wisdom and determination will undoubtedly play a key role. As history has proved, balance and change in the international political arena are achieved in step-by-step struggles. China's continued efforts on this issue will not only affect Japan's policy, but will also have a profound impact on stability and peace in the entire region.