Clinton’s regret, Merkel’s excuse

Kwon Ki-chang

The author is a former Korean Ambassador to Ukraine.

History tells the moments of truth that decided the fate of a state. Decisions hailed at the time are sometimes reassessed as the wrong move later. As renowned historian Edward Carr (1892-1982) famously said, history is “an unending dialogue between the present and the past.” Just as history is reinterpreted from present perspectives, today’s events also will be judged by circumstances of the future. Former U.S. president Bill Clinton and former German chancellor Angela Merkel also could not avoid a reevaluation on the consequences of their past policy choices.

In a TV interview with Irish broadcaster RTE aired on April 4, Clinton reportedly expressed regret over his mediating role in a 1994 deal which ended up with Ukraine surrendering its nuclear weapons, as he now found that if not for the move, Russia could not have invaded its smaller neighbor. “I feel a personal stake because I got them [Ukraine] to agree to give up their nuclear weapons,” Clinton said. He added that he felt “terrible” because he had persuaded the Ukrainian people who had believed a nuclear arsenal was the sole deterrent against Russia’s potential claims over their territory.

When Ukraine separated from the Soviet Union, the country was the world’s third largest nuclear weapons state. Clinton brokered a landmark deal dubbed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances after the fall of the Soviet Union in order to have Ukraine surrender roughly 1,900 nuclear warheads the country had possessed in exchange for security assurance from the U.S. and the U.K. and a commitment from Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty. Although Ukraine abandoned its nuclear arsenal, Russia did not keep the promise not to advance to the west. Moscow outright overthrew the pact when Russian President Vladmir Putin annexed Crimea in 2014, and went on to invade the rest of Ukraine in February 2022.

During her 16-year tenure, Merkel gave a go-ahead to the Nord Stream 1 — the first natural gas pipeline through the Baltic Sea — to encourage Russia to supply its gas to Germany and pressed ahead with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline despite strong protest from the West. The gas projects ended up making Germany and other European countries rely on energy from Russia, making it difficult for the West to contain Russia. In 2008, Germany thwarted Ukraine from joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). She defended her decision, saying that it was unavoidable to meet the demands of the times.

Merkel also said that she had to frustrate Ukraine’s entry into the NATO in 2008 so as not to provoke Russia. While her liability for trusting Moscow and Putin too much has been raised since the Russian aggression on Ukraine, Merkel remained unapologetic over her decisions.

Both Clinton and Merkel couldn’t avoid negative historical reevaluation on their legacies. There are the opposite cases where the controversial decisions of the leaders were later praised for their farsighted wisdom. Athenian politician and naval strategist Themistocles is one example. After a dramatic victory in the Battle of Marathon, Athenians thought it would mark an end to Persia’s invasion.

But Themistocles was not sure of another triumph if Persia invaded in greater naval capabilities. He insisted on nearly tripling the Athenian fleet to 200 times. His idea faced strong opposition from the people, as strengthening naval power required greater cost, or higher taxes, a huge gamble while the odds of another invasion seemed small. Still, he pushed the plan. When the Persian Empire invaded 10 years later, the Greek navy was ready to defeat Persian fleet of 1,2000 in the Battle of Salamis.

South Korea also benefited from farsighted decisions from its leaders. President Park Chung Hee was met with strong opposition when he commanded the construction of Gyeongbu Expressway connecting the capital to the southernmost coastal regions and Pohang Iron and Steel, the country’s first steel mill. But the expressway cutting through the heart of the country became a path for Korea’s economic miracle. President Kim Dae-jung’s lifting of the ban on Japanese pop culture also faced a fierce backlash at that time. But the move served as an impetus to advance the Korean pop culture around the globe.

An evaluation on a political leader does not end in the contemporary period. Visionary leaders must have their eyes beyond their reign. If they merely follow the demands of the times, they are no more than stewards of the government. A true leader is someone who usher in changes with an eye on the road ahead regardless of the criticism and resistance at the time. If he or she proves it, they don’t have to regret or excuse what they did before.

Translation by the Korea JoongAng Daily staff.