hankyoreh

People for Peace and Reunification hold a press conference in front of the Ministry of National Defense in Seoul’s Yongsan district

A nearly five-hour-long expert policy debate was held at the National Assembly Members’ Hall on Oct. 21 on the topic of “North Korea’s nuclear program, THAAD, and democratic peace and security.”

The objective of the debate was to assess the ongoing conflict between South Korea and the US on one side and China and Russia on the other over the decision to deploy the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) missile defense system with US Forces Korea - as well as the domestic divide over the issue - and for offering diagnoses and suggestions for a way toward “democratic peace and security.” The event was sponsored by lawmakers Sul Hoon (Minjoo Party), Chung Dong-young (People’s Party), and Kim Jong-dae (Justice Party) and organized by the group Professors for Democracy with support from the Hankyoreh.

First, the diagnoses. Professor Suh Jae-jung of Japan’s International Christian University described THAAD as the “core of the internal and external arms race on the Korean Peninsula.”

“The most direct factor in touching off this arms race is the THAAD deployment decision, but the root cause is the North Korean nuclear issue,” he said.

Noting that North Korea has “already adopted measures to disable THAAD” with its submarine-launched ballistic missile testing and displays of missile warhead decoy mobilization and simultaneous strike capabilities, Suh declared that THAAD had “already lost its military efficacy.”

A number of proposals were offered for settling the THAAD debate domestically and internationally.

“If South Korea unilaterally goes ahead with the THAAD deployment, China is definitely going to respond,” said Kim Heung-kyu, director of the Ajou University Institute for China Policy Studies, who suggested a “peninsula-wide THAAD” as a possible alternative. His proposal was that if Seoul and Washington’s claims that the USFK THAAD does not target any “third country” - i.e., China - are legally stipulated and made subject to National Assembly ratification for any changes, Beijing “might accept them.”

“THAAD and the North Korean nuclear issue are not equivalents,” Kim said.

“Cooperation between North Korea, the US, and China will only be possible if the focus is on the North Korean nuclear issue,” he added.

Inje University professor Kim Yeon-cheol suggested a conditional withdrawal of the THAAD plans.

“What we need is an ‘exit scenario,’ where we make diplomatic efforts - including a resumption of the Six-Party Talks - and immediately halt the THAAD deployment if progress is made on the North Korean nuclear issue,” Kim said.

“But we need to temporarily halt the THAAD implementation process while diplomatic efforts are being pursued,” he added.

Kim suggested the idea “could be a negotiation tactic that allows China to actively win over North Korea and make progress in the Six-Party Talks, as well as a realistic way for South Korea and the US to both save face.”

“We could find a way toward a change in the situation by getting North Korea to declare a moratorium on nuclear testing,” he predicted.

Other attendees included Ajou University law school professor Oh Dong-seok, National Action to Stop the South Korean THAAD Deployment executive committee co-chair Oh Hye-ran, and Peace Network director Jung Wook-sik, who remarked on the establishment of a trilateral consultative group involving residents of Seongju and Gimcheon and members of the Won-Buddhist faith in response to the decision to deploy THAAD at a Lotte golf course site in North Gyeongsang Province’s Seongju County. According to the three, the situation calls for a national campaign among citizens opposing THAAD and forceful efforts to demand National Assembly ratification for the deployment.

University of North Korean Studies professor Koo Kab-woo also called for a new direction “beyond opposition to the THAAD deployment and toward an anti-war and anti-nuclear peace campaign,” noting the “lesson from history that anti-war and anti-nuclear campaigning has prevented war, not nuclear deterrence.”

Numerous other participants called for a ‘judicious response’ from the political opposition and civil society to what they described at the Park Geun-hye administration‘s attempts to cover up its own economic and social policy failures with a smokescreen of security fears by dragging the THAAD debate into the Dec. 2017 presidential election.

By Lee Je-hun, staff reporter

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