In an interview with the Shin Dong-A, Richard Lawless, the former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs, stated that during the 2005 SCM talks the South Korean government requested that wording which reconfirmed the US nuclear umbrella for South Korea be deleted from the agreement. But the US turned down the South Korean request.
He also stated that anti-US sentiment in Korea, which started during the later stages of the Kim Dae-jung administration, has led to an increase in anti-Korean sentiment in the US, and that this in turn will lead to changes in the characteristics of the alliance.
In addition, he was “shocked” that the Kim Dae-jung administration did not do anything to protect the alliance in the aftermath of the 2002 armored vehicle incident. When he saw scenes of demonstrators buring the Stars and Stripes he went through feelings of “Why are we here?”
Mr. Lawless also had a few words regarding Pres. Roh’s “balancer” strategy calling it a “confused and naive plan”. He added that the US does not understand Roh’s strategy and predicted that it will be hard for the alliance to go on if the ROK wants to act like a “balancer” between China and Japan.
As for the missile threat from the North, Mr. Lawless stated that he cannot understand why South Korea is taking the threat lightly. He added that the US will not provide Missile Defense to the countries that do not want it.
You can read the rest of the interview here(in Korean).
5 Comments
Welcome to our world, Mr. Lawless.
It’s quite possible Seoul sees a North Korean nuclear program as a de facto unifified Korean program. And, if Pyongyang protects Seoul, why does Seoul need the US. After unification, Pyongyang’s program becomes Korea’s, against Japan, Russia, and the PRC.
That’s another reason I’m skeptical about Pyongyang given up its nukes–because Seoul doesn’t want it to.
But, let’s not talk about cleaning up the hypocrisies in the NPT regime, restraining the Bush administration from viewing nukes as just tactical weapons with more significant political liabilities, or considering the consequences of turning US foreign policy into a gentlemen’s club. That’s soft.
OK, what I don’t get is why the United States said no. If Seoul doesn’t (or, didn’t) want protection under the US nuclear umbrella, why should Washington continue providing it?
Lawless’s revelation isn’t really news, BTW — there were reports in 2006 that Seoul had asked the US to remove reference to the nuclear umbrella during the 2005 talks, only to ask for more concrete nuclear assurances a year later in the wake of the North Korean nuclear test, leading Ye Olde Chosun to write this rather scathing editorial:
http://english.chosun.com/w21d.....00023.html
One might entertain the notion that prior to the nuclear test in October 2006, delinking Korea from the US nuclear umbrella might have sat well politically with top decision makers at the time as part of their “independent defense” initiatives, but after the test (and changes in personnel, namely Chung Dong-young standing down as Unification Minister), Seoul may have decided the time for treating South Korea’s foreign affairs as the 386 Generation’s private policy test tube had ended.
Of course, that’s all speculation and there’s probably a simpler explanation to it all.
“OK, what I don’t get is why the United States said no.”
My guess is that the US government probably took a long-term view that the left-wing Korean government will probably last for relatively short period.
Nobody here in Korea understands Roh’s confused and naive “balancer” strategy either — the US is far from alone.
> Robert:
> OK, what I don’t get is why the United States said no.
MY guess is that the US government requires its “nuclear umbrella” to remain over the American military forces, so long as they remain here.