By Oh Young-jin
Here is a multiple choice question.
If a thug pulls a gun and puts it against your temple, how would you react?
A) Check the maker of the gun drawn to see whether it is imported
B) Pull your gun or borrow one, if you don't have one, and aim it at the thug
C) Follow the third-party instructions and freeze
D) Wish the other party wouldn't pull the trigger
E) Wait for the next guy to come and relieve him
The answer may be obvious but just for detractors, let me explain each of the choices in detail and how they are relevant to Korea's decision to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery, the U.S. missile interceptor aimed at protecting South Korea against North Korean threats, but triggering an outcry from China that is boycotting Korean products in retaliation.
Regarding choice A, it is comparable to Korea's domestic opposition to THAAD. It follows the logic that it is an evil attempt by the U.S. to strengthen its influence on Korea and drive a wedge into the potential blooming Seoul-Beijing ties. There are variables as pointed out by the Stephen Costello column that affect the North's decision to pull the trigger. But we can't afford to guess what the thug's ulterior purpose is. THAAD is the least of self-defense we need to counter some of the incoming North Korean missiles.
For choice C, it is comparable to China's actions. Beijing is basically telling Seoul to stay unarmed without addressing our concerns about the North's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction ― that are becoming more powerful and sophisticated. Seoul and Washington have been telling Beijing that no harm is intended against it and we will stand down on THAAD, once the threat level is down. China has upped the game by arguing that it sees it as a threat. China has bigger radar that covers the entirety of the Korean Peninsula but we have not made this an issue.
For D, this is an extension of choice A. But more broadly, that is the key reason that Korea feels a strong need to get the hardware. Just think how vulnerable people in the southern half of the peninsula have felt whenever the North threatens to turn its capital into a sea of fire. How frustrated have we been to see the young dictator in charge there appear elated about the latest breakthroughs in his mad rush for the development of nukes and inter-continental ballistic missiles?
For E, this captures the rationale of THAAD opponents. Moon Jae-in, the leading presidential contender, has changed his position at least twice from opposition, then acceptance of the status quo to a demand for the issue to be dealt with by the next government. Taken at face value, it appears Moon has already vetoed the THAAD deployment in his heart. When he becomes president, he can't afford to let his heart take charge in decisions on state affairs. Last time a president did so, she was impeached.
Since A,C,D and E are less satisfactory, B should be the "most correct."
But the nitty-gritty of the THAAD controversy is not about an inter-Korean confrontation but the hegemonic rivalry between the U.S. and China, being caught in the Thucydides Trap. China is hammering Korea continuously to get under the U.S. skin and is succeeding. If Washington lets Beijing get its way, it would encourage it to get even bolder in the South China Sea and the rest of Asia. It could mean the end of the American century. And we are having a perfect storm that can nudge the old superpower off of its throne ― Trump, the emperor with no clothes, the bankruptcy of the erstwhile reign of elites and what not.
The point is that in this emerging battle royal, if it is not THAAD, there could be plenty of other alternatives that pit the two big powers against each other.
Seoul wants to play a leading role in this game but we should be realistic what the leading role should be about, considering the scale of this grand game. This doesn't mean our show of resignation, rather an eagerness to have a Korean leader that is up to the job.
Oh Young-jin is The Korea Times' chief editor writer. Contact foolsdie5@ktimes.com or foolsdie@gmail.com.
This is the second and parry part of the column battle over the THAAD controversy. ― ED.
.jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
If a thug pulls a gun and puts it against your temple, how would you react?
A) Check the maker of the gun drawn to see whether it is imported
B) Pull your gun or borrow one, if you don't have one, and aim it at the thug
C) Follow the third-party instructions and freeze
D) Wish the other party wouldn't pull the trigger
E) Wait for the next guy to come and relieve him
The answer may be obvious but just for detractors, let me explain each of the choices in detail and how they are relevant to Korea's decision to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery, the U.S. missile interceptor aimed at protecting South Korea against North Korean threats, but triggering an outcry from China that is boycotting Korean products in retaliation.
Regarding choice A, it is comparable to Korea's domestic opposition to THAAD. It follows the logic that it is an evil attempt by the U.S. to strengthen its influence on Korea and drive a wedge into the potential blooming Seoul-Beijing ties. There are variables as pointed out by the Stephen Costello column that affect the North's decision to pull the trigger. But we can't afford to guess what the thug's ulterior purpose is. THAAD is the least of self-defense we need to counter some of the incoming North Korean missiles.
For choice C, it is comparable to China's actions. Beijing is basically telling Seoul to stay unarmed without addressing our concerns about the North's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction ― that are becoming more powerful and sophisticated. Seoul and Washington have been telling Beijing that no harm is intended against it and we will stand down on THAAD, once the threat level is down. China has upped the game by arguing that it sees it as a threat. China has bigger radar that covers the entirety of the Korean Peninsula but we have not made this an issue.
For D, this is an extension of choice A. But more broadly, that is the key reason that Korea feels a strong need to get the hardware. Just think how vulnerable people in the southern half of the peninsula have felt whenever the North threatens to turn its capital into a sea of fire. How frustrated have we been to see the young dictator in charge there appear elated about the latest breakthroughs in his mad rush for the development of nukes and inter-continental ballistic missiles?
For E, this captures the rationale of THAAD opponents. Moon Jae-in, the leading presidential contender, has changed his position at least twice from opposition, then acceptance of the status quo to a demand for the issue to be dealt with by the next government. Taken at face value, it appears Moon has already vetoed the THAAD deployment in his heart. When he becomes president, he can't afford to let his heart take charge in decisions on state affairs. Last time a president did so, she was impeached.
Since A,C,D and E are less satisfactory, B should be the "most correct."
But the nitty-gritty of the THAAD controversy is not about an inter-Korean confrontation but the hegemonic rivalry between the U.S. and China, being caught in the Thucydides Trap. China is hammering Korea continuously to get under the U.S. skin and is succeeding. If Washington lets Beijing get its way, it would encourage it to get even bolder in the South China Sea and the rest of Asia. It could mean the end of the American century. And we are having a perfect storm that can nudge the old superpower off of its throne ― Trump, the emperor with no clothes, the bankruptcy of the erstwhile reign of elites and what not.
The point is that in this emerging battle royal, if it is not THAAD, there could be plenty of other alternatives that pit the two big powers against each other.
Seoul wants to play a leading role in this game but we should be realistic what the leading role should be about, considering the scale of this grand game. This doesn't mean our show of resignation, rather an eagerness to have a Korean leader that is up to the job.
Oh Young-jin is The Korea Times' chief editor writer. Contact foolsdie5@ktimes.com or foolsdie@gmail.com.
This is the second and parry part of the column battle over the THAAD controversy. ― ED.
![[INTERVIEW] Bae Suzy shows another side in 'Anna'](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/784d86bfce77453ba381374ff3189b49.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] Filmmaker points lens at North Korea's political prison camps](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/2fe5c7df5dba4805b27e81389e53807a.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
