Guest Columnist. Korea Military Academy Class of '84 Lee Jae-myung declared at CSIS, a leading Washington D.C. think tank, that "the era of depending on America for security and China for economy (Anmi-Gyeongjung) is over." In a personal letter to Xi Jinping, he expressed his desire to promote the development and maturation of the "strategic cooperative partnership" between the two countries. He also praised Donald Trump as a "great negotiator." 

Is this a "duet score for survival" that starkly reveals the reality facing South Korean diplomacy, or was it merely image politics performed with eloquent words and pleasant expressions during the broadcast of the summit? We will need to observe the follow-up actions between politicians who used anti-American sentiment and those who fear it to understand the truth more clearly.  

1. All statements made by the politician Lee Jae-myung must be preserved. 

President Lee's declaration that "the era of depending on America for security and China for economy (Anmi-Gyeongjung) is over" - is this a recognition of the harsh reality that romanticized balanced diplomacy no longer has a place in the midst of a new Cold War where the US and China define each other as 'threats,' and that South Korea can no longer avoid choosing sides? Or will he employ a contrary approach, saying, "Do you really think I'll do it just because I said I would"? It is now up to the citizens to watch.  

Is the statement at CSIS a formal declaration by the South Korean state system towards the 'rationality' of the international order, an acknowledgment of the structural reality of a shift in US policy, and a logical conclusion to reset new coordinates on the axis of the ROK-US alliance? Or is it the opposite? 

Is the praise for Trump an expression of national interest that uses appeasing the other party's pride as a diplomatic tool for the sake of national interests? Or is it a flaw of duplicitous pragmatism? This is something to be observed further. Was Trump swayed by Lee's flattery? Or did he use it to create a situation where he had no choice but to flatter and to make Lee conform to and concede to many demands? We must withhold judgment until we see the second act. 

2. Is the history of President Roh Moo-hyun repeating itself?  

President Lee Jae-myung's 180-degree transformation is strikingly familiar. This is because it is a déjà vu of the path walked by former President Roh Moo-hyun. His image, symbolized by his statement, "What's wrong with being anti-American?", was clearly different from the existing order. He demanded 'autonomy' while berating generals, and his supporters longed for a horizontal readjustment of ROK-US relations. He clearly entered Cheong Wa Dae in 2003 with the label of an 'anti-American president'.

However, President Roh Moo-hyun's pro-American choices shocked even his supporters. He decided to send the Zaytun Division to Iraq, the US's biggest issue at the time, despite fierce opposition from the progressive camp. He concluded the ROK-US FTA negotiations, enduring the defection of his support base, and practically achieved the relocation of the US military base in Yongsan, a long-held aspiration of previous administrations. Based on his overt policies, he was a more 'pro-American' president than anyone else.

President Roh Moo-hyun's transformation was a result of confronting the 'harsh realities of the presidency' head-on. President Roh Moo-hyun realized that, paradoxically, a firm trust in the ROK-US alliance was a prerequisite for South Korea's survival and prosperity, and for his ultimate goal of 'self-reliant defense.' By agreeing to the most difficult request of the alliance, the deployment to Iraq, he gained leverage, incorporated Korea into future economic ties through the ROK-US FTA, and resolved the long-standing issue of the Yongsan base relocation. He took a pragmatic path to realize national interests.

3. Two Faces, One Survival Strategy for National Interest  

The strategic declaration at CSIS and the tactical flattery towards Trump are precisely in line with the past path shown by President Roh Moo-hyun. The highest leader of a nation must sometimes use logical language towards the 'rationality' of the international order, and at other times, must use psychological language towards the 'desires' of a specific individual, even if it means falling into the dual trap of a shrewd strategist like Trump. These two vastly different languages are perfectly compatible with the single translation of 'national interest.' 

Lee Jae-myung's statements and President Roh Moo-hyun's history pose the same question to us. Will we choose principled, autonomous isolation? Or will we choose criticized survival? The preserved images of both presidents clearly advise and testify that the path given to the leaders of South Korea has always been the latter. 

4. The Choice Has Already Become History and Remains Recorded.

Lee Jae-myung's statements and President Roh Moo-hyun's recorded history pose a question to us. Will we understand and endure a survival strategy that appears contradictory? Will we remain in the past, criticizing the leader's choices as mere betrayal or opportunism? Or will we accept the struggle as the nation's reality and use it as a driving force for the future? To prevent distortion, the Presidential Office must deeply consider and officially respond to this question. 

Perhaps it is South Korea's destiny today to precariously balance between ideals and reality, principles and pragmatism, and rigidity and flexibility. We must choose an answer that aligns with the overarching premise of national interest. If we hesitate, waver by signaling a right turn and then reverse with a left turn, we will be showered with criticism from all sides. To significantly reduce the arrows of criticism, we hope you will maintain the courageous stance shown in the United States.  

As a citizen, I urge you to face the harsh reality that we cannot walk both paths simultaneously, to abandon the sentimental misjudgments and peace festivals cultivated by activist ideology, and to review and further transform the previously left-leaning personnel appointments and nation-destroying policies solely for the sake of national interest.