This is CBS, I on the world. I'm John Batchel, welcoming my friend and colleague, Gordon Chang,

at Gordon G. Chang, and we're immediately to Seoul, South Korea, welcoming Steve Yates of the Heritage Foundation,

who's in town to observe these moments before the presidential election, a snap election on

June 3rd. The event that dominates the headlines in Reuters in these hours is a debate.

South Korea's presidential candidates face off in theory debate. Steve, a very good day to you.

Theory debate. Is that unusual in Korean politics to be

less than polite and accusatory in a presidential debate? The scale of it looks like a game

show the way they arranged the set. However, that doesn't tell us what they said. Good evening to you,

Steve. Well, good evening, John us what they said. Good evening to you, Steve.

Well, good evening, John. At least in my experience, South Koreans are very, very good at drama,

and their politics often are fueled with high drama. All anyone has to do is look at the disposition of nearly everyone who has occupied the office of president, and you can find all kinds of fun activities that usually don't end well for those that go through it.

But the sort of theater of the debate, the intensity of the debate didn't surprise me.

And also sort of the disposition on policy didn't surprise me.

But it disappoints me in the following sense.

The main opposition candidate offered a remark that suggested that South Korea should not be fully committed to its alliance with the United

States, that it must have relations with the United States and Japan, but it also needs to

balance its equities with Russia and China. That kind of equidistant stance is common among

the opposition going back a couple of

decades, but especially in current circumstances, I think it's a very unflattering position

to try to take in the middle of global tariff negotiations and a CCP upsetting the status

quo across the Indo-Pacific.

Gordon, you have a question for Steve.

...