South Korea's time for choosing

By Park Jung-won

In the aftermath of World War II, the United States drew the so-called Acheson line, a line of defense against communist expansion in the western Pacific, which notably excluded South Korea. North Korea, which invaded South Korea in 1950 with the Soviet Union's backing, conducted the war for three years, with the eventual help of communist China.

Despite having fought fierce battles alongside South Korea against the North, toward the war's end, the U.S. showed signs of abandoning its partner. Then Dr. Syngman Rhee, the first president of the Republic of Korea, stunned the U.S. by unilaterally releasing North Korean anti-communist prisoners of war held on Geoje Island on June 18, 1953.

Weeks later the war was stopped by an armistice, and on Oct. 1, 1953. The South Korea-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty was finally signed, creating a bilateral military alliance between a global superpower and one of the world's poorest countries, which was unprecedented.

Nonetheless, decades later, the impressive development of South Korea's political democracy and market economy cannot be discussed without mentioning the critical importance of its alliance with the U.S.

Over 70 years, the South Korean-U.S. alliance has evolved from a strictly military and economic alliance to part of a global strategic partnership based on shared values. The summit on Saturday between newly inaugurated South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol and U.S. President Joe Biden was a blueprint for ushering in the alliance's future direction.

Both countries have strengthened their original alliance through the adoption of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA), and now are pushing toward a more comprehensive strategic one.

In particular, both countries' decision to strengthen cooperation in key technological industries such as semiconductors, batteries and nuclear power and South Korea's decision to participate in the U.S.-initiated Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) reflect this deepening relationship.

Meanwhile, both countries' leaders reaffirmed their common goal of the complete denuclearization of North Korea. In addition, Biden made a strong commitment to defense and "extended deterrence" against North Korea's nuclear threats, as found in their concluding joint statement.

However, South Korea still faces great challenges despite its strong alliance with the U.S. Many South Korean citizens are especially worried about their national security status as a result of the North's serious nuclear threats.

What "extended deterrence" means exactly remains elusive. "The two leaders reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to deploying U.S. military strategic assets in a timely and coordinated manner when necessary," the statement reads.

However, this vague wording is subject to divergent interpretation. Some security experts speculate that South Korea wanted clearer language, such as "substantial extended deterrence," while the U.S. may have preferred to avoid such stronger wording.

Thus it seems urgently necessary to employ "substantial extended deterrence," in its true sense, against the North's nuclear threat by actively re-engaging the Extended Deterrence Strategy Consultation Group (EDSCG) between the two countries, so as to move towards considering all possible options, including the sharing of tactical nuclear weapons, in the event of a serious security situation.

The 1953 mutual defense treaty does not contain an automatic intervention clause applicable to the U.S., and also did not mention the concept of "extended deterrence."

Amid the deepening geopolitical rivalry between the U.S. and China, South Korea feels increasing pressure to choose between the two great powers.

Obviously, the summit is a clear sign that the newly inaugurated Yoon government leans strongly toward closer cooperation with the U.S. However, there are some voices in South Korean society concerned about this choice, noting that it will likely bring about a tough backlash from China involving severe economic consequences. There are also concerns that it will lead to a deterioration of inter-Korean relations.

Many citizens and politicians appear stuck in the positions they took during the former Moon Jae-in administration that is looking to the U.S. for South Korea's security interests and to China for its economic ones.

However, South Korea needs to confront the new international paradigm of "economic security" in which the economy, technology and security must be viewed holistically, and key materials such as semiconductors and batteries are treated as potential military (or security) assets. Economic and security interests can no longer be separated, whether South Korea desires it or not.

At this transformational geopolitical juncture, South Korea must start thinking seriously about choosing between the U.S. and China. It is clear that in today's world, the conflict between countries that pursue universal values such as international law and democracy and those that do not will continue to intensify.

The South Korea-U.S. alliance should be reinforced by the fact that they are both liberal democracies and international norm-respecting countries. Obviously, South Korea's national interests must be pursued while it realistically and soberly grasps how the strategic competition between the U.S. and China proceeds.

Nevertheless, if South Korea is forced to choose, it should be on the side of the U.S. (though this does not mean it must adopt an overtly hostile stance toward China). All decisions involve trade-offs, but an optimal balance of benefits and drawbacks for South Korea must be pursued. The time for choosing is fast approaching.

Park Jung-won (park_jungwon@hotmail.com), Ph.D. in law from the London School of Economics (LSE), is a professor of international law at Dankook University.