hankyoreh

center

The promise to protect South Korea under the U.S. “nuclear umbrella” articulated during the South Korea-U.S. summit in Washington has stirred concern among security experts. Some experts fear that it is not merely a declaratory agreement requiring follow-up, but also signals a disaster in security and admits North Korea’s de facto status as a nuclear state.

The Cheong Wa Dae (the presidential office in South Korea or Blue House) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said on Wednesday, “The U.S.’s strong public commitment of defense for South Korea was confirmed once again during the summit through the promise of extended nuclear deterrence and inclusion in the U.S. nuclear umbrella.”

Some observers note that although the two leaders may have publically confirmed the U.S.’s promise of extended nuclear deterrence and included it in official summit papers, it is nothing more than a declaration and still requires detailed guidance and planning. As though it were conscious of such criticism, South Korean military defense authorities plan to discuss whether to adopt the issue of actualizing extended deterrence with their U.S. counterparts as part of the agenda being set for an upcoming working level Korea-US Security Policy Initiative meeting of high ranking defense ministry officials.

If results are fruitful at that meeting, the issue of extended deterrence is expected to be brought forward to a defense ministers meeting and a meeting between the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the two countries. Observers, however, say this is likely to just be wishful thinking on the part of South Korean military defense authorities.

The term of “extended deterrence” made its appearance for the first time in the joint statement of the South Korea-U.S. Security Consultative Meeting (SCM) produced just after North Korea’s first nuclear test in October 2006. The term was adopted instead of “nuclear umbrella” as a result of South Korea’s request for a stronger commitment of nuclear defense from the U.S.

Kim Jong-Dae, the editor-in-chief of the defense journal , said, “South Korea has asked the U.S. for follow-up measures to promises of ‘extended deterrence’ before, but Donald Rumsfeld, then Secretary of Defense of the U.S. refused by saying, ‘That is not an issue that can be talked about at a defense ministers’ meeting. I cannot discuss nuclear strategies. Only President Bush can do that.’” He emphasized, “There is no possibility that the U.S. and South Korea can map out operation plans for actualizing ‘extended deterrence.’”

Taking the U.S.‘s security strategy into consideration, including how the United Strategic Command(STARTCOM) is in charge of nuclear weapons, some experts say South Korea does not have an avenue with the U.S. to discuss terms of nuclear deterrence.

Experts criticize that the promise of “extended deterrence” could become a pretext in North Koreas’ demand for “nuclear disarmament negotiation” between the U.S. and North Korea, and it is contradictory to the Joint Communique of Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Paik Haksoon, a senior fellow of the Sejong Institute, says, “Extended deterrence and inclusion under the U.S. nuclear umbrella is based on the premise that North Korea possesses nuclear weapons and can use them.” Paik added, “North Korea will protest that the U.S. and South Korea are engaged in nuclear umbrella and extended deterrence talks that contradicts the aim of the six-party talks towards the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsular.”

Head of Hankyoreh Peace Institute, Kim Yeon-Chul says, “The promise of extending protection under a U.S. nuclear umbrella contradicts efforts made towards the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Putting the issue on the agenda of the summit was politically motivated to coax the conservatives in South Korea and should not have been dealt with at the level of heads-of-state talks.”

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