hankyoreh

The controversy about deploying THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) on the Korean peninsula is spilling over into the political arena.

In the ruling Saenuri Party (NFP), members of the faction loyal to President Park Geun-hye have been working to stall efforts by party floor leader Yoo Seong-min and others to make the matter public. Most recently, the Blue House has taken direct action to quash the issue, showing that the ruling party, the government, and the Blue House are being embroiled in the debate.

“The position of this government is three no‘s - no request, no consultation, and no decision. Since the US has not requested it, there has been no consultation, and nothing has been decided,” said Blue House spokesperson Min Kyung-wook during the Mar. 11 daily briefing, reiterating the Blue House’s standard position on the issue. The implication is that the Blue House does not want the debate to spread.

But on Wednesday, Yoo Seong-min said, “As planned, there will be a closed discussion of THAAD at a Saenuri lawmakers’ meeting at the end of this month.”

For a while, a certain segment of the Saenuri Party - including Yoo Seong-min, who was in charge of the National Defense Committee at the National Assembly for a long time - has called for THAAD to be deployed in South Korea. One reason that such calls have suddenly increased in intensity of late appears to be the Mar. 5 attack on US Ambassador Mark Lippert.

With the US-South Korea alliance being emphasized and public opinion becoming more open to the conservative agenda, the conditions were riper than ever before for moving ahead with the debate about deploying THAAD in South Korea.

The THAAD debate has rapidly turned political. First, several Saenuri Party members - including Policy Committee Chair Won Yu-cheol, Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee Chair Na Kyung-won, and Rep. Chung Byeong-guk - voiced their support for bringing THAAD to the peninsula on Mar. 7 and Mar. 8. Then on Mar. 9, Yoo Seong-min took steps to publicize the debate, promising to “solicit opinions inside the party after the general lawmakers’ session at the end of the month.”

Yoo, who served as member and head of the National Defense Committee during his six years in parliamentary politics, also strongly advocated the deployment of THAAD during a sppech at a National Assembly general session in November of last year. Won Yu-cheol, another former chair of the National Defense Committee, also argues that deploying THAAD on the peninsula is necessary to counter the threat of North Korea’s missiles.

Recent reports by conservative newspapers have also played a role in pushing for the deployment of THAAD. On Mar. 7, the Chosun Ilbo ran a feature story advocating the deployment of THAAD, quoting experts who said that the government should dispense with its ambiguous attitude and make an active effort to persuade China to accept the deployment.

But since the US has not officially proposed bringing THAAD to the Korean peninsula, there are concerns that it may only cause chaos if the South Korean ruling party makes the issue public in order to build popular support. Currently, the US has only deployed THAAD on Guam and in the continental US. Reports indicate that South Korea is one of the leading sites that the US is considering in its plans to deploy more of the weapon systems in bases at home and overseas.

However, the question of whether to deploy THAAD on the Korean peninsula will be decided not by the South Korean government but by the American government. For South Koreans to debate the question before the US has even made an official decision is not only hasty but also pointless, experts say. If anything, if the debate overheats, there is a good chance that it could complicate relations with China, which is nervous about the deployment of THAAD on the Korean Peninsula.

The Blue House is expressing its discomfort with attempts to publicize the issue of THAAD. “It’s too soon to even be discussing this. This is an issue that we should approach with caution,” said an official at the Blue House, rejecting the idea of public discussion. This implies that the Blue House will maintain its “strategic ambiguity” for the time being.

Since President Park came to office, she has taken great pains to work on South Korea’s relations with China, and her position is that there is no need to narrow her diplomatic options by tackling the long-term goal of deploying THAAD so early. With pro-Park legislators expressing their opposition to initiating a public discussion of stationing the missile interceptors on the Korean peninsula, they appear to be reflecting the position of the Blue House.

Even though the Blue House has expressed its position, it is unclear whether the controversy will die down. The push to make the issue public is being organized by Saenuri members who are outside the pro-Park camp, including Yoo, who is in the party leadership. Won apparently means to bring the issue up during a policy coordination meeting between the Saenuri Party, the government, and the Blue House on Mar. 15, while Yoo remains steadfast in his plans to add THAAD to the agenda of the general meeting of lawmakers scheduled for the end of the month.

Debate inside the Saenuri Party about THAAD continued on Mar. 11, during a joint meeting of party supreme council members and senior lawmakers.

“The THAAD issue is not one that can be decided through public debate,” said Lee In-je, member of the supreme council, voicing opposition to the move to make it public.

“We need to consider the greater national interest when discussing questions of timing, procedure, and methodology,” said Lee Jeong-hyun, another member of the supreme council.

By Park Byong-su, senior staff writer, Hwang Jun-beom, staff reporter and Seok Jin-hwan, Blue House correspondent

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]