THAAD likely to be hot issue in 2017 presidential election
President Park Geun-hye said a U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense unit will be deployed on South Korean soil by next year, but doubts are growing about whether this will be possible, as the presidential election is scheduled for December next year and presidential hopefuls from opposition parties, including Moon Jae-in, center, and Ahn Cheol-soo, right, have disagreed with the plan. / Graphic by Cho Sang-won
By Jun Ji-hye
The planned deployment of a U.S. advanced anti-missile system on South Korean soil is no longer a simple military issue but has emerged as a complicated political and diplomatic one.
The Park Geun-hye government said on July 13 that South Korea and the United States will deploy the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery in Seongju, North Gyeongsang Province, by the end of next year, but skepticism is abounding that ongoing deputes inside and outside of the nation could be dragged out, very likely until the next presidential election, scheduled for December 2017.
Once the election looms next year, presidential runners who are against the THAAD will very likely highlight the negative aspects of the system, and their opposition could help decide the fate of the deployment.
Park completes her term in office in February 2018, meaning she could lose her political leverage to push for deployment as her lame-duck status becomes more apparent toward the end of her presidency.
Presidential hopefuls from opposition parties have already been expressing their opposition to THAAD, citing the possible aggravation of South Korea-China relations and health and environmental risks, as well as the Seongju residents’ resistance.
Last month, Rep. Ahn Cheol-soo of the minor opposition People’s Party suggested putting the deployment decision to a referendum, saying the THAAD issue is not a simple security matter but a larger one that will have a great impact on the nation’s economy and diplomacy.
“There is little to be gained by the THAAD deployment and much to be lost,” he said. “My position is that the nation needs to keenly review what it will gain and lose from the deployment.”
Ahn, who ran in the 2012 presidential election as an independent candidate, has been mentioned as one of the leading liberal runners for the next presidential poll.
Ahn’s comment was referring to China’s strong opposition against the deployment associated with the concerns that the AN/TPY-2 radar of the system could be used to spy on China’s military activities and missile capabilities, and consequently, invade its security interests.
He said that the deployment will worsen Seoul-Beijing relations and prompt South Korea’s top trading partner to retaliate.
Speculation is also rampant that China, a veto-wielding United Nations Security Council member and North Korea’s traditional ally, will remain uncooperative in seeking measures against Pyongyang’s provocations to protest the deployment.
Indeed, China’s protest against the THAAD has recently intensified, as evidenced by an Aug. 3 editorial by the People’s Daily, the official mouthpiece of China’s Communist Party, that stated that President Park should resolve the issue prudently to avoid driving her country to ruin.
Moon Jae-in, a presidential hopeful from the main opposition Minjoo Party of Korea (MPK), has joined THAAD opponents on Aug. 9 when he slammed the Park government for criticizing six first-term lawmakers from the MPK, who left for China on Aug. 8 for talks with Chinese officials and scholars over the deployment of the THAAD system.
“The most urgent mission of the nation’s diplomacy is preventing Seoul-Beijing relations from being damaged further,” Moon said. “The government made a stupid mistake when it slammed the opposition lawmakers.”
Ahead of the lawmakers’ tour, Cheong Wa Dae warned that the visit will only bolster Beijing’s stance over the THAAD and exacerbate the growing division among South Koreans.
After they pushed ahead with the visit despite the warning, President Park openly criticized them, saying they sympathized with the opinions of China and North Korea.
Other presidential runners who are against the THAAD include Rep. Kim Boo-kyum from the MPK, who raised the possibility of reversing the deployment decision during his visit to Seongju on Aug. 6.
“The deployment should not be accepted as fait accompli,” he told the local residents. “It will take at least two years to deploy the battery completely. There is still time.”
He added that the deployment was decided upon the necessity of the United States, and South Korea adopted a too submissive attitude.
“China and Russia have no choice but to react sensitively,” he said.
Rep. Kim visited Seongju to listen to sentiments of local residents, who have been rising up in protest, claiming that the electromagnetic waves emitted from the battery’s AN/TPY-2 radar can damage health and agricultural products.
Their protest has not showed any signs of slowing down, as they vowed to resist the deployment by every possible means, including legal action, which could also set back the government’s deployment plan.
Experts also expect China to gradually intensify its criticism against the THAAD until Seoul’s next presidential election in a bid to worsen the division among South Koreans. They say China might hope that the division will delay the deployment and the next government will withdraw the decision.
“China is apparently using the THAAD to cause internal division and make its side in South Korea,” Park Hwee-rhak, dean of the Graduate School of Politics and Leadership at Kookmin University, told reporters.
Song Dae-sung, a former head of the Sejong Institute, said, “China probably wants a political party against the THAAD to win the presidential election in 2017.”
In fact, political parties have been divided over the plan for deployment since it was announced by the government -- the ruling Saenuri Party supports it and the People’s Party opposes it, while the MPK has failed to adopt a clear stance. Since China criticized President Park directly through its state-run media, such division has deepened.
Although several presidential hopefuls from the MPK have opposed the THAAD, the party itself has assumed an ambiguous attitude toward the THAAD mainly because of the position of its leader Rep. Kim Chong-in.
Kim said on Aug. 6 that if there is no alternative to cope with the mounting nuclear and missile threats from the North, the party should not disagree with the THAAD.
“If somebody asks me about whether the MPK can present the withdrawal of the deployment decision as an election pledge in the presidential poll, I will say ‘No,’” he told reporters.
But observers say the MPK will soon join the People Party and another minor opposition Justice Party to protest the THAAD once its leadership is changed in a national convention scheduled for Aug. 27, as Reps. Choo Mi-ae, Lee Jong-kul and Kim Sang-gon, who are running for the chairmanship, have all indicated that they were against the THAAD.
Once the MPK officially adopts a “No THAAD” stance, the three opposition parties at the National Assembly will be able to jointly protest the deployment and highlight the issue during the election campaign.
In fact, a national security issue has been a hot potato during elections in South Korea due to the unique situation of the divided Korean Peninsula, which has always been beset by military tension.
In the lead-up to the 2012 presidential poll, one of the major issues was allegations that the late President Roh Moo-hyun had tried to nullify the inter-Korean sea border in the West Sea, called the Northern Limit Line (NLL), during his meeting with the late North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in 2007.
President Park’s recent remark that the government will consider an alternative location for the THAAD within Seongju County also raised possibility of the issue continuing for long as it will take considerable time to find a new site and build a base for an artillery unit, which means deploying the system by next year would be almost impossible.