The Issues Left Untouched by Korean and American Defense Ministers
Published in Hankyoreh
(South Korea) on 10 April 2015
by (link to original)
(South Korea) on 10 April 2015
by (link to original)
Translated from
by Anthony Cho.
Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
A joint meeting between the U.S. secretary of defense and the South Korean minister of national defense was held on April 10 in Seoul. However, recently disclosed controversies were left unaddressed. Now is the time to get over the United States’ worried outlook and for the South Korean government to firmly establish its own position.
First of all, the American-led agenda of security cooperation between South Korea, the U.S., and Japan has been inadequately addressed. The U.S. and Japan have recently revised their guidelines for defensive cooperation and have promoted ‘military integration,’ a pact which they expect South Korea to join. The U.S. has specifically asked that South Korea join the Missile Defense (MD) system with Japan and has demanded stronger military cooperation between South Korea and Japan. U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, who has been pegged as a staunch supporter of the MD system, has repeatedly emphasized the importance of intelligence sharing agreements between South Korea, the U.S., and Japan because he sees this as critically important to the three nations. Instead of drawing a hard line, the South Korean minister of national defense has cited North Korean nuclear missile issues as a reason to agree with this view. However, there must be some leeway, as the point of emphasis for the U.S. and South Korea is different. A critical and controversial part of the MD system, the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense system (THAAD) and its deployment on the Korean peninsula was also passed over in discussions.
The difference in intelligence with regard to North Korea’s nuclear missile capabilities was also not resolved. Adm. William Gortney, commander of the U.S. Northern Command, stated a few days ago, “Our assessment is that they have the ability to put a nuclear weapon on a KN-08 and shoot it at the homeland and that’s the way we think, that’s our assessment of the process.” This capability of hitting the homeland is different from other sources of information from the military, which has withheld from answering calls for specific details. The South Korean government publicly stated on April 9 that “there is no evidence that North Korea has been able to equip a nuclear warhead onto their missiles.” If the South Korean government’s assessment is correct, there is a strong possibility that the U.S. has exaggerated threats by North Korea in order to construct a missile defense system. It was irresponsible for the two defense ministries to leave these differences unaddressed and unexplained.
The U.S. and Japan are strengthening their military cooperation in order to position themselves against China. Though both claim to wish for a peaceful northeast Asia, they conflict with our goals of solving North Korea’s nuclear issue and eventual reunification. Containment of China is no longer a core part of the U.S.-ROK alliance. It is undesirable for South Korea to have an arms buildup in the region and continual confrontations with North Korea because of the U.S.-ROK Alliance. The government cannot continue to create these self-inflicted controversies because of its ambiguous international stance.
First of all, the American-led agenda of security cooperation between South Korea, the U.S., and Japan has been inadequately addressed. The U.S. and Japan have recently revised their guidelines for defensive cooperation and have promoted ‘military integration,’ a pact which they expect South Korea to join. The U.S. has specifically asked that South Korea join the Missile Defense (MD) system with Japan and has demanded stronger military cooperation between South Korea and Japan. U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, who has been pegged as a staunch supporter of the MD system, has repeatedly emphasized the importance of intelligence sharing agreements between South Korea, the U.S., and Japan because he sees this as critically important to the three nations. Instead of drawing a hard line, the South Korean minister of national defense has cited North Korean nuclear missile issues as a reason to agree with this view. However, there must be some leeway, as the point of emphasis for the U.S. and South Korea is different. A critical and controversial part of the MD system, the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense system (THAAD) and its deployment on the Korean peninsula was also passed over in discussions.
The difference in intelligence with regard to North Korea’s nuclear missile capabilities was also not resolved. Adm. William Gortney, commander of the U.S. Northern Command, stated a few days ago, “Our assessment is that they have the ability to put a nuclear weapon on a KN-08 and shoot it at the homeland and that’s the way we think, that’s our assessment of the process.” This capability of hitting the homeland is different from other sources of information from the military, which has withheld from answering calls for specific details. The South Korean government publicly stated on April 9 that “there is no evidence that North Korea has been able to equip a nuclear warhead onto their missiles.” If the South Korean government’s assessment is correct, there is a strong possibility that the U.S. has exaggerated threats by North Korea in order to construct a missile defense system. It was irresponsible for the two defense ministries to leave these differences unaddressed and unexplained.
The U.S. and Japan are strengthening their military cooperation in order to position themselves against China. Though both claim to wish for a peaceful northeast Asia, they conflict with our goals of solving North Korea’s nuclear issue and eventual reunification. Containment of China is no longer a core part of the U.S.-ROK alliance. It is undesirable for South Korea to have an arms buildup in the region and continual confrontations with North Korea because of the U.S.-ROK Alliance. The government cannot continue to create these self-inflicted controversies because of its ambiguous international stance.