Military deal with Japan will upset China

By Jun Ji-hye

The signing of a deal with Japan regarding sharing military intelligence on North Korea is expected to incur further protests from China, which is already angry over the planned deployment of a U.S. anti-missile system here.

South Korea and Japan resumed working-level talks ― stalled since 2012 ― on the signing of a General Security of Military Intelligence Agreement (GSOMIA) in Tokyo, Tuesday.

If signed, the deal would allow Seoul and Tokyo to directly share and exchange intelligence on the North’s military activities related to its nuclear and missile programs. Currently, the two indirectly exchange such intelligence through Washington under a trilateral sharing pact signed at the end of 2014.

Some opposition lawmakers and military experts here say the deal will rile China, because from Beijing’s point of view, it could be seen as a move to hold it further in check in Northeast Asia.

They also claim the deal might mean the South virtually participating in the U.S.-led missile defense (MD) system, which has been in place in Japan since 2003.

When South Korea and the United States announced that a U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery will be deployed on the Korean Peninsula by the end of next year, suspicions regarding Seoul’s participation in the MD program were also raised.

Beijing believes that any alleged attempt by Washington to get its Asian ally to join its missile defense system is to contain its influence in the Asia-Pacific region.

“The public will not agree on the need for signing a military deal with Japan at a time when Tokyo’s view on the past has not improved. The deal could also severely worsen relations with China,” said Rep. Park Kyung-mee, spokeswoman for the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea.

Kim Dong-yup, a professor at the Institute for Far Eastern Studies (IFES), a research arm of Kyungnam University, also said China will not stand idly by if the Seoul-Tokyo deal were reached.

The professor said he disagreed with claims made by the Ministry of National Defense that South Korea has signed information-sharing deals with more than 30 countries, and an agreement with Japan will be just one more.

“The deal with Japan is different from others,” he said. “The main point is that it is part of attempts to integrate capabilities between Seoul, Washington and Tokyo, which is part of Washington’s efforts to expand its MD program.”

Prof. Kim cited comments made by former U.S. Forces Korea Commander Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, to a hearing of the U.S. Congress in July 2013, which indicated that among “phases of the Phased Adaptive approach in the Pacific,” Phase II was underway and involved “increasing partner capabilities and integrating capabilities.” Gen. Scaparotti added that the U.S. “has made significant strides towards the integration of our ballistic missile defense systems.”

Defense Minister Han Min-koo denied the allegations surrounding the deal, saying, “We resumed negotiations with Japan because of military necessity. This does not mean that we are moving to join the U.S. MD system.”

The ministry said its goal is to sign the deal by the end of this year.

However, critics say controversy is to be expected, citing not only possible protests from China, but also public resistance, stemming from the bitter memory of Japan’s 1910-1945 colonial rule and its military’s use of Korean women as sex slaves.

The opposition parties claim that the signing would amount to South Korea encouraging Japan’s militarism.

They also questioned the timing of the resumption of the talks, arguing that the ministry is deliberately pushing the sensitive issue while public attention is focused on the scandal surrounding President Park Geun-hye and her long-time confidant, Choi Soon-sil.

“It is questionable why the ministry is holding the talks at a time when the country is in chaos,” said Rep. Park. “The government should halt the negotiations.”

In 2012, Seoul and Tokyo were close to signing the deal under the Lee Myung-bak administration. However, the signing fell through at the last minute due to fierce public criticism here of the secretive handling of a sensitive military matter with the former colonial ruler.