THAAD Controversy Must Be Dealt with Swiftly
Yesterday, our government held a consultation meeting for THAAD with Daniel Russell, assistant secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the U.S. State Department. Two days ago, they had another meeting with Liu Jianchao, assistant minister of Foreign Affairs of China. China and the United States are taking turns pressuring us; no matter what we end up choosing, we cannot win over both of them.
The South Korea-China THAAD consultation that happened two days ago exemplifies the peculiar situation in which we find ourselves. Assistant Minister Liu stated that, “It would be greatly appreciated if China’s concerns and worries were heeded.” It may have been wrapped around courteous words, but it is a demand made through official channels that we do not install THAAD. Pressure from China is expected. Our government, despite China’s rather open show of concern, has maintained a rather ambiguous stance, responding with “We understand China’s concern,” and “We will carefully consider the situation.” Instead, it should have stood up tall and demanded that “We will give up THAAD if, and only if, China can guarantee the prevention of North Korea’s missile attacks.” Our government’s ambiguous stance has complicated the situation by making China not clear on the situation.
Frankly, there is no single good reason THAAD should be a controversy. The claim that THAAD will nullify China’s missile capacities is nonsense when considering THAAD’s abilities and operational ranges. China’s missiles are outside of THAAD’s range. Unless China intends to shake up South Korea-United States relations, the deployment of THAAD is none of China’s business. As Assistant Secretary Russell pointed out, it is “curious that a third country would presume to make strong presentations about a security system that has not been put in place and that is still a matter of theory.”
Our government now needs to stand confident. We can no longer be stuck in an awkward position between the U.S. and China with our awkward diplomatic rhetoric. Neither the Cheongwadae’* spokesperson’s remark that, "There hasn’t been a request from USA, and therefore no consultation and no decision," nor the Ministry of National Defense’s unclear stance on the issue that "We must maintain the strategic ambiguity on the issue of THAAD" will help solve the problem. Yesterday, the MND’s spokesperson stated that “if the U.S. government requests consultations, and after we have determined the effectiveness of the system and its effects on our national security, we will judge and decide on our own terms.” Whether it will be KAMD* (Korean Air and Missile Defense) or THAAD, the neutralization of North Korea’s nuclear threats remains our top priority. No matter what we end up choosing, the longer we take with our decision, the more losses we will incur.
*Translator's note: This is South Korea’s own missile defense system that is being developed.
The South Korea-China THAAD consultation that happened two days ago exemplifies the peculiar situation in which we find ourselves. Assistant Minister Liu stated that, “It would be greatly appreciated if China’s concerns and worries were heeded.” It may have been wrapped around courteous words, but it is a demand made through official channels that we do not install THAAD. Pressure from China is expected. Our government, despite China’s rather open show of concern, has maintained a rather ambiguous stance, responding with “We understand China’s concern,” and “We will carefully consider the situation.” Instead, it should have stood up tall and demanded that “We will give up THAAD if, and only if, China can guarantee the prevention of North Korea’s missile attacks.” Our government’s ambiguous stance has complicated the situation by making China not clear on the situation.
Frankly, there is no single good reason THAAD should be a controversy. The claim that THAAD will nullify China’s missile capacities is nonsense when considering THAAD’s abilities and operational ranges. China’s missiles are outside of THAAD’s range. Unless China intends to shake up South Korea-United States relations, the deployment of THAAD is none of China’s business. As Assistant Secretary Russell pointed out, it is “curious that a third country would presume to make strong presentations about a security system that has not been put in place and that is still a matter of theory.”
Our government now needs to stand confident. We can no longer be stuck in an awkward position between the U.S. and China with our awkward diplomatic rhetoric. Neither the Cheongwadae’* spokesperson’s remark that, "There hasn’t been a request from USA, and therefore no consultation and no decision," nor the Ministry of National Defense’s unclear stance on the issue that "We must maintain the strategic ambiguity on the issue of THAAD" will help solve the problem. Yesterday, the MND’s spokesperson stated that “if the U.S. government requests consultations, and after we have determined the effectiveness of the system and its effects on our national security, we will judge and decide on our own terms.” Whether it will be KAMD* (Korean Air and Missile Defense) or THAAD, the neutralization of North Korea’s nuclear threats remains our top priority. No matter what we end up choosing, the longer we take with our decision, the more losses we will incur.
*Translator's note: This is South Korea’s own missile defense system that is being developed.