Anniversary GSOMIA dispute puts Seoul's security credibility to test

By Yi Whan-woo

South Korea's decision to end its intelligence-sharing pact with Japan has exposed the disparity between the views held by South Korea and the United States in their assessment of the alliance with Tokyo.

Seoul and Washington are expected to face another challenge in their approach to restore security cooperation, as hinted at by U.S. and South Korean security experts.

One of the three experts separately interviewed by The Korea Times, 38 North Managing Editor Jenny Town had conflicting views for possible solutions from other two _ University of North Korean Studies Professor Yang Moo-jin and Handong Global University Professor Park Won-gon.

Town assessed Seoul's decision on the general security on managing information agreement, or GSOMIA, is the reversal of a security arrangement over non-security issues, namely history and trade.

In August, the Moon Jae-in administration decided to terminate GSOMIA, in response to Japan's export ban on high-tech materials needed for manufacturing microchips ― a key South Korean product.

Tokyo's economic measure was in response to the Korean Supreme Court rulings to seize the assets of Japanese firms linked to wartime forced labor.

U.S. officials have not concealed their disappointment since then.

“One of the main problems with cancelling GSOMIA is that this was a negotiated agreement that took a small step toward building a stronger collective security arrangement for U.S., South Korea and Japan,” Town wrote in an e-mail.

“The agreement was so fragile it could be easily sacrificed in a tit-for-tat escalation over historical disputes, not actual changes to South Korea's security situation. How deeply this will hurt South Korea's credibility in future security arrangements or negotiations remains to be seen.”

In a telephone interview, Yang reckoned Japan should be held responsible for disputes spreading from history to trade to security.

“You cannot separate each of the disputes on history, trade and security. They are linked to one another,” he said. “Any criticism against South Korea should be preceded by one against Japan.

The professor said the U.S. “cannot be free from blame,” either.

He argued, despite South Korea's lingering concerns over Japan's militarist past, the two signed the GSOMIA under the influence of the U.S.

Also in a telephone interview, Park reckoned the GSOMIA “is not only a matter of South Korea and Japan but also a matter of South Korea and the U.S.”

“The GSOMIA is in compliance with the U.S. strategy on Asia-Pacific and that the U.S. should have actively intervened over the Seoul-Tokyo row,” he said, noting the Donald Trump administration has been reluctant to mediate so far.

The GSOMIA is purportedly to better counter North Korea's military threats, while also being viewed as a broader U.S. security strategy to contain China.

The pact will expire on Nov. 22, if South Korea does not agree to extend it.

Town said “the benefits of the GSOMIA could not have been clearer” during North Korea's submarine-launched ballistic test on Oct. 2 ― one of Pyongyang's series of missile provocations this year after a hiatus.

“The ability to share intelligence directly without having to go through a third party does pose advantages especially when dealing with a security environment where a triggering event can lead to rapid escalation,” she said.

She then warned that the erosion of trust among the allies could have long-term implications for the U.S. in the region.

Yang disagreed, arguing South Korea does not require cooperation with Japan in detecting North Korean missile threats.

“We can successfully cope with such threats using the intelligence assets of South Korea and the U.S. only,” Yang said, adding “I am not so sure how Japan has contributed to South Korean security through GSOMIA.”

Meanwhile, all three experts agreed that security-related disputes are likely to be repeated if South Korea and Japan fail to resolve historical conflicts, such as wartime sex slavery of Korean women.

“The reoccurrence of this type of dispute is inevitable until there is a real truth and reconciliation process in Asia to acknowledge and address the atrocities of the colonial and war era,” Town said. “Trust and ultimately security cooperation will continue to be undermined by these kinds of flare ups as long as those historical wounds fester.”

Yang reckoned South Korea and Japan should discuss compensation for elderly Koreans who were forced to work for Japanese companies during colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula.

“The GSOMIA dispute will go nowhere unless compensation is fully made,” he said.

Park voiced a similar view.

“The issues of wartime forced labor, the trade ban and the GSOMIA exit are not separable. This will give a clue for the future three-way alliance,” he said.