 |  |
| Rep. Chung Mong-joon | Robert Galluci |
Rep. Chung Mong-joon dismisses Galluci's assurances
By Chung Min-uck
Rep. Chung Mong-joon, a senior ruling Saenuri Party lawmaker, said Tuesday the U.S. nuclear umbrella falls short of reliable protection, calling for South Korea to acquire nuclear weapons.
Chung's call triggered criticism by two U.S. nuclear experts — Robert Galluci, President William Clinton's special envoy on the North's nuclear program and Gary Samore, President Barack Obama's arms control coordinator.
"Some say that the U.S. nuclear umbrella is a torn umbrella. If so, we need to repair it," said Rep. Chung in an opening speech during the Nuclear Forum 2013 hosted by the Asan Institute for Policy Studies.
He reminded the audience of his call for nuclear armament during a National Assembly speech two years ago. "Then, I proposed the re-introduction of tactical nuclear weapons because the threat of a counter-nuclear force is the only thing that will discourage North Korea from developing its nuclear arsenal."
He acknowledged that the ROK-U.S. alliance has been one of the most successful military partnerships but said "it has been an abject failure" when it comes to the North Korea nuclear issue.
U.S. nuclear weapons in South Korea were voluntarily withdrawn in 1991 shortly before the inter-Korean Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in 1992.
He explained that the advantage of bringing them back is that Seoul will not be in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since the nuclear weapons would be from Washington. "We would simply be restoring the pre-1992 condition," he added.
The ex-Saenuri Party chairman further went on to claim that Seoul needs to develop its own nuclear weapons saying, "Some say the only way to solve the North Korean nuclear problem is for the nation to follow the India-Pakistan example, or the case of Israel," which means to go nuclear and, concurrently, maintain strong political ties with the U.S.
Gallucci, who successfully came up with the Washington-Pyongyang framework on freezing North Korea's nuclear activities in 1994, and Gary Samore, executive director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, opposed it.
"I don't think there is any weakness in the ROK-U.S. alliance," said Gallucci when asked about the South Korean lawmaker's view. "I myself cannot find any reason to re-introduce U.S. nuclear weapons in the region. It would be inconsistent with the general direction of the administration of the U.S. to move away from relying on nuclear weapons to achieve security objectives. Moreover, I think there is virtually no advantage for the military in basing nuclear weapons on Korean soil."
"South Korea can be confident with the United States military alliance as it includes a nuclear umbrella, a U.S. commitment to use nuclear weapons to defend South Korea. Everyone including North Korea believes that commitment is really strong," said Samore.
He said Seoul can legitimately request Washington to station nuclear weapons inside South Korea but there was no military need to since the United States can deploy nuclear weapons to the Korean Peninsula anytime.
"The only value of re-introducing nuclear weapons would be political assurance. If there was a consensus in South Korea, it is something for the South Korean government to appeal to the U.S."
The two nations are currently in ongoing talks to revise their bilateral atomic energy agreement.
The nuclear accord is set to expire in 2014 and the two nations have been in talks to amend it since 2010.
The accord bans Seoul from enriching uranium or reprocessing spent fuel. The government has been requesting an amendment to this citing the "peaceful use of nuclear energy."
