hankyoreh

From left to right

During the first group debate on Apr. 13 featuring the five leading candidates in the presidential campaign, the first question was about signs that the US might carry out a preemptive strike on North Korea. This suggests how critical the security situation has become, considering that the first question in the presidential debate in 2012 (organized by the National Election Commission) was about the presidential leadership needed by South Korean society. In 2012, questions about North Korean policy and foreign policy with the US and China came toward the end of the debate.

The first question asked of all the candidates in the presidential debate (held in the SBS event hall in Seoul’s Sangam neighborhood and organized by the Journalists Association of Korea) was to choose the three priorities for responding to an American military strike on North Korea. While all the candidates agreed that there should not be a military clash, some candidates emphasized that a strike was completely unacceptable while others said that there would have to be preliminary deliberations. These responses were aimed at reassuring insecure voters while presenting the candidates as being strong on security.

Liberal Minjoo Party candidate Moon Jae-in said that he would “call the American president to make clear that a unilateral preemptive strike by the US without South Korea’s consent was unacceptable and to put off the strike.” He continued by promising to “issue emergency orders to the entire army and put the country on emergency footing. I would use various channels to ask the North to immediately refrain from any provocations that could serve as an excuse for a preemptive strike, and during that process I would also cooperate with China.”

“I would talk on the phone with the leaders of the US and China,” said moderate People’s Party candidate Ahn Cheol-soo. “I would tell US President Trump that there must not be a war, and I would ask Chinese President Xi Jinping to put pressure on North Korea.” Ahn also said he would “issue a statement asking North Korea to halt its provocations and would strengthen the military’s preparedness level.” In addition, he emphasized that he is an alumnus of the Wharton School, as is Trump.

While conservative Liberty Korea Party candidate Hong Joon-pyo said that “the most important thing would be to deliberate with the US to prevent a preemptive strike,” he said that the contingency plan if a preemptive strike did occur would be to “prepare for battle and to implement operations to recover territory.”

Conservative Bareun Party candidate Yoo Seong-min also emphasized “advance coordination”: “If the precautionary defensive measure of a preliminary strike is taken, it must be preceded by close coordination between the US and South Korea, sufficient consent and military preparations.”

But left-wing Justice Party candidate Shim Sang-jung said that “there must not be military action on the Korean Peninsula under any circumstances. I would speak on the phone with the leaders of the US and China and send a special emissary if necessary.”

There has recently been controversy about candidates changing their positions on the deployment of the THAAD missile defense system, and discussion of the topic during the debate underscored the complicated dynamics between the candidates. Moon and Ahn, who have been reaching out to the right on security in connection with the THAAD deployment, did not ask each other questions about the topic. But Hong and Yoo, who have been losing conservative voters to Ahn, attacked him for “suddenly shifting from opposition to support on the THAAD deployment to win over conservative voters.”

“The security situation changed all the way back in September of last year, but for you to change your position now, with barely a month left in the presidential election, looks like a political stratagem aimed at winning the votes of conservatives [who support the deployment] after winning the party primary with the help of voters in Gwangju and Jeolla Province [who oppose the deployment],” said Yoo, who is a strong supporter of THAAD. Ahn countered that his position had “not changed recently” and that he had been “consistently expressing that view since the beginning of the year because circumstances had changed.”

Moon also came under fire for saying that the THAAD deployment might be inevitable even while arguing that “the decision should be made by the next administration.” Hong said Moon must be a “pro-North Korea leftist” to be thinking of “visiting North Korea when national security is in such danger,” and Yoo said that “Moon kept opposing THAAD until North Korea’s fifth nuclear test last year but now it sounds like he’ll support it if there’s a sixth nuclear test.” Moon rebutted these arguments by asking Hong if he really wouldn’t visit the North if that could resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. “I’m saying that we should keep both possibilities open – support or oppose, deploy or cancel – and let the next administration decide,” he said.

By Kim Nam-il, staff reporter

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