Support for the U.S.-ROK alliance has never seemed stronger in South Korea. Our two countries appear to be in lockstep when it comes to dealing with North Korea and our two presidents seem to genuinely like and respect one another, thus permitting an unprecedented level of trust and cooperation. That's the good news.
The bad news is that a growing number of South Koreans, including many prominent politicians, are calling for the reintroduction of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea, and an even larger number believe that the South should have its own independent nuclear weapons capability to match that of the North's.
During a recent five-city lecture tour, informal polls conducted among each of the Korean audiences (with one exception) produced the same results every time: over half the respondents thought it was time to reintroduce U.S. nuclear weapons to the peninsula, and an even greater majority believed that the South needed its own nuclear weapons.
To most Americans, a desire to return nuclear weapons to Korea signals that the extended deterrence provided by the U.S. security umbrella is not credible enough; a desire for an independent nuclear capability means U.S. extended deterrence is not credible at all. South Korean experts argue, and I would agree, that such an assessment is wrong.
The problem today is not a lack of faith in the alliance per se. The problem is a growing sense of frustration in South Korea over Seoul's inability to prevent the North from conducting provocative acts of aggression, such as last year's torpedo attack against the Cheonan and the artillery shelling of Yeonpyeong Island. South Koreans fear this trend will continue.
Frustration with the North is matched by a related and, in some cases, deeper frustration with China. China used to be seen as an honest broker that was determined to keep a lid on the North, but last year it seemed to be tilting clearly toward Pyongyang, thus empowering its bad behavior. South Koreans calling for the reintroduction of American tactical nuclear weapons frequently cite "sending a message to China" as the primary reason for such a move.
Others cite "sending a message to Washington." But, the message here is not that the U.S. nuclear umbrella lacks credibility at the macro or strategic level (to deter an all-out attack), but that it does not (and should not) apply at the tactical level toward acts of harassment, and thus, is not frightening enough to both the North and to China. In short, Koreans are seeking to demonstrate some tangible consequences to continued bad behavior by the North ― short of military retribution, which could escalate out of control ― that would get the attention of both Beijing and Pyongyang.
One variation on the above themes is the call to use the threatened reintroduction of U.S. nuclear weapons as a lever to pry the North into taking some genuine, verifiable steps toward denuclearization.
Under this variation, the U.S. and ROK would specify a certain date by which tactical nuclear weapons would be introduced if the North has not returned to the negotiating table and demonstrated a credible commitment to nuclear disarmament. This would provide the North with the necessary incentive to cooperate and provide China with additional incentive to push Pyongyang in that direction … or so the logic goes.
The main problem with these three options ― redeployment, the threat of redeployment, or South Korean nukes ― is that they are likely to prove counterproductive. While they might increase China's incentive to put pressure on North Korea, there is no evidence that Beijing is prepared under any circumstance to push Pyongyang to the brink; likewise, there is no evidence that Pyongyang is prepared to cooperate short of such an extreme action.
More importantly, such moves are likely to be used as justification for the North's nuclear weapons program since, at least based on official pronouncements, the North continues to believe that U.S. nuclear weapons are already (still?) on the peninsula and that there is little difference between having them based there and having them available elsewhere for use in the ROK’s defense. In short, the North understands the nuances behind extended deterrence, even if some in the ROK do not.
Bringing U.S. nuclear weapons back to the peninsula would serve another North Korean purpose: to create and exploit splits among the South Korean public on security issues in general and North Korea policy in particular. Nothing would energize the anti-American opposition faster or more firmly than the reintroduction of U.S. nuclear weapons onto ROK soil. We couldn't even reintroduce (perfectly safe) U.S. beef to the peninsula without widespread protests, imagine the reaction nuclear weapons would bring.
A decision by South Korea to develop its own nuclear weapons would provide the North with the same excuses but, more importantly, would severely damage Seoul's international image and respectability, especially in advance of its hosting the second Nuclear Security Summit next year. In fact, it is hard to imagine that international summit proceeding under those circumstances. It would also put the alliance at risk and severely undercut President Obama's pledge to move toward nuclear zero ― you don't get to zero by supporting the addition of another nuclear weapons state.
There are better ways to send Pyongyang and Beijing a message. One has already been taken. The firm public pledge by President Lee Myung-bak that future acts of aggression would be met by military force ― backed by President Obama, who reportedly warned Chinese President Hu Jintao directly that such a response would be forthcoming and would enjoy unequivocal U.S. backing ― seems to have already gotten the two countries' attention. It's unfortunate that it had to take such a harsh and potentially escalatory measure to do so, but the point has been made.
Seoul and Washington also need to continue to insist on greater diplomatic pressure through the U.N. Security Council, not only on the North's violations of the Armistice Treaty, but also in response to its announced uranium enrichment program and the UNSC Panel of Expert's Report on how the North is violating the current U.N. sanctions regime. China cannot credibly claim to be in favor of diplomatic solutions when it routinely blocks the UNSC from doing its work.
Let me end with two footnotes. The one audience in which the overwhelming majority was against either redeployment or an independent ROK nuclear weapons capability was comprised of ROK military officers and cadets. They more fully understand the implications and consequences of such actions. This argues for a broader attempt to similarly educate the public on nuclear issues.
Secondly, even among audiences where support for such actions was widespread, no one raised a hand when asked if it would be OK to deploy nuclear weapons in their city or general vicinity. NIMBY ― the "not in my backyard" mentality ― is alive and well and should help temper ROK enthusiasm for nuclear options when all implications and consequences are considered.
Ralph A. Cossa is president of the Pacific Forum CSIS (firstname.lastname@example.org), a Honolulu-based nonprofit research institute affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., and senior editor of Comparative Connections, a quarterly electronic journal (www.csis.org/pacfor). Ralph@pacforum.org.
Please work out any matters you have with warnings or bans with the Moderator responsible...only after this has not worked may you e-mail an Administrator for questions about bans or warnings...