Reconsider THAAD
.jpg?w=728)
By Choi Sung-jin
I first visited the United States in 1990 at the relatively late age of 35, especially for an English newspaper reporter.
Throughout the 15-day trip to do an in-depth report on the U.S. nuclear power industry, what surprised me and other first-timers in our press corps most was that almost everything about America, from the scenery to its people, was so familiar that there was nothing really surprising, at least not superficially.
It was not until we actually saw America that we realized how deeply we had been Americanized, through formal education and informal culture, including movies, dramas and music.
At school, the postwar generation born after 1953 here was taught that America was the liberator of Korea from Japanese colonial rule and later the defender of South Korea from the invasion of North Korean communists, abetted by Russia and assisted by China. America was also the largest donor to South Korea and for a long time the biggest market for the nation’s exports.
All these are undisputed facts.
For those who want to see history from a little wider and broader perspective, however, it is also true that Japan’s colonization of Korea might not have been possible without the U.S. endorsement 111 years ago. And that the swift rescue of South Korea from the communists’ aggression 66 years ago was aimed at keeping Northeast Asia, ultimately Japan, from being swept by the reds, and saving capitalist states in this part of the world.
Most diplomatic disputes between Korea and Japan, including their respective claims over the Dokdo islets, stem from Korea’s failure to clear away the remnants of Japanese colonial rule. That in turn was due to Washington’s coercion to hurry the diplomatic normalization of its two allies half a century ago as well as the needs of the then dictatorial rulers, Syngman Rhee and Park Chung-hee. It suggests that Washington was also behind the half-baked settlement of the “comfort women” issue between Seoul and Tokyo last December.
Yes, every country has the right to put its national interests ahead of all else, and the world’s most powerful country should be no exception from this. Yet the problem in this country is with some of its political leaders, including the incumbent chief executive, that seem to be going in the opposite direction to maximizing national interests ― military security and economic prosperity. And nothing shows this better than the ongoing national controversy over deploying the U.S. missile-interceptor system called the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD).
In a more normal country, the debate should have proceeded from whether and how much the missile shield is effective in protecting the nation and its people, what are its costs and benefits, financially and strategically, and, if the answers to both questions are positive, how to deploy it with minimal harm to residents amid the least resistance from them. The government has skipped the first two debates and is doing a “drop-the-handkerchief” game in selecting and reselecting the location for the battery. President Park Geun-hye has precluded any more debates on the deployment itself and her aides are painting its opponents as sympathizers to North Korea and China.
These officials ask their opponents whether they have “any better alternatives.” That could be the most brazen question coming from the political group that has done nothing over the past eight-and-a-half years but sit back and watch North Korea grow to become a de facto nuclear power. It is the conservatives and their U.S. counterparts with the support of the military-industrial complex that have thwarted the best ― and probably the only ― alternative: talking their way out of crisis. There still remain opportunities to mend the fire of dialogue, multilateral or bilateral. Pyongyang has hinted more than a few times that it will refrain from further expanding its nuclear arsenal in exchange for starting the discussion to replace the current armistice with a peace treaty.
It has become apparent that THAAD is for protecting U.S. troops stationed in the southern region of the country, provided it is effective, as American military officials allege ― but many objective U.S. experts doubt such capacity, though. Even so, that may prove to be necessary for the allied forces to recoup in possible initial attacks from the North. In an all-out war, however, the North can mobilize far more effective, lower-flying missiles tipped with other weapons of mass destruction without feeling the need for high-altitude nuclear missiles.
While the benefits are hypothetical and limited at best, its costs are enormous ― fixating South Korea and the entire Korean Peninsula as the last and only advanced guard of the renewed Cold War. In response to the North’s successful test of submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), the floor leader of the ruling conservative party is calling for the government to build nuclear-fueled submarines or probably buy some from abroad, even from the U.S., in escalating the military buildup between the Koreas.
It was a relief in this regard that the new leader of the main opposition party has come up with a “clearer no” to the Park administration’s unilateral push for its employment. Toughening sanctions cannot solve the nuclear stalemate, particularly so now that THAAD-wary China would provide sufficient loopholes to the cornered North. Only simultaneous pursuit of dialogue can provide a way out.
South Korea will enter into a presidential election season before long. THAAD and the inter-Korean relationship should be the biggest issue, even bigger than the economic issue, because security should always come ahead of prosperity. I hope to see a candidate who can at least push for a negotiated settlement of the North’s nuclear issue, persuading far larger diplomatic partners, and use the peace dividends for making better lives for all Koreans, south or north.
That must look like a daydream but the other option will be the worst nightmare, whether it is a life under constant tension and anxiety or reunification upon ashes. Three million people died in the last fratricidal war and Koreans must allow no one ― either foreigners or petty, shortsighted leaders only with small political gains in mind, south or north ― to demand any more sacrifices from them or decide their destiny.
Allies could be different from what they appear. But no allies can help us Koreans unless we help ourselves first.
Choi Sung-jin is The Korea Times’ senior writer. Contact him at choisj@ktimes.com.