[보도] Future of Korea U.S. alliance depends on consensus of strategic values

South Korea and the United States need to resolve a variety of strategic and technical disagreements as the two countries reshape their half century military alliance, experts here say.
For the past five years, Seoul and Washington have been working on a comprehensive transformation of military ties regarded as irrelevant to the new security environment of the 21st century.

The process has more often than not been marred by frictions largely due to misunderstandings of each other's security policy direction, and differences over threat perceptions, experts say.

"First of all, the two countries need to work on reducing differences over threat perceptions toward North Korea and China," said Kim Il young, political science professor at Sungkyunkwan University.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, Washington defined terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction as the foremost threats to its national security, with North Korea armed with nuclear weapons and advanced missiles top on the list of enemy states.

South Korea doesn't share the Bush administration's threat perception. The liberal Roh administration is leniently engaging with the North and many South Koreans tend to view the Pyongyang regime more with pity than with fear. In addition, while Washington is wary of the rise of China as a regional power, Koreans are reluctant to brand China as a potential enemy.

The rifts over defining the main enemy led to the allies' recent differences over the security initiatives, such as the U.S. led ballistic missile defense system and the international non proliferation regime, Kim said.

Value oriented alliance Pundits call for South Korea to reach a consensus for strategic values and objectives with the United States. They warned that without consent on strategic values, the alliance wouldn't be sustainable in the long term.

"The Seoul Washington alliance is going through a grand adjustment including the transformation of U.S. Forces Korea and the transition of wartime operational control. However, there is a lack of a common denominator regarding the blueprint for the future of the Korea U.S. alliance. The situation is especially lacking in constructing a consensus for future strategic values for the alliance," said Cha Du hyeon, a research fellow at the state run think tank, the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Washington emphasized the values of liberal democracy, market capitalism and human rights to defend and promote for the sake of its national security.

However, South Korea has been less enthusiastic toward the initiative, Seoul is mindful that the United States targets North Korea's pursuit of WMDs and its involvement in terrorism, which would hinder Seoul's goal to promote peace with the North and open up the isolated country to the outside world.

Experts say the South Korea U.S. military alliance is at a crossroads, and its future mainly depends on the direction of South Korea's strategic decisions.

"Especially on the issues of the Proliferation Security Initiative and missile defense, the South Korean government has been too defensive. The allies need to restore reliability for each other and for that, top policymakers of both countries should have frank and sincere talks while deepening the transformation," said Lee Sang hyun, director of Security Studies at the Sejong Institute, a civilian think tank.

PSI is a U.S. led international security initiative which would allow nations to interdict the transfer of weapons of mass destruction and their technology.

South Korea chose not to take part in the PSI as one of the core countries, out of concern that its full participation may provoke North Korea. Instead, it decided to adopt observer status, and cooperate with the PSI on a case by case basis.

Future shape of the alliance "The Seoul Washington alliance should develop into a 'comprehensive one' that assumes regional roles as a stabilizer in Northeast Asia, and lies beyond mere 'military' alliance," Lee Sang hyun said.

The alliance must encompass roles for diffusing values such as democracy, market capitalism and human rights as a mature democratic nation, Lee said.

The recent signing of a free trade agreement between Seoul and Washington is a significant start point for the alliance's evolution into a comprehensive one, he added.

The transition may be a reflection of the changing strategic realities of the 21st century, experts said. South Korea is increasingly playing a global role commensurate with its economic might and democratic values. Seoul has provided the third largest number of troops to coalition forces in Iraq. Koreans are standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States in Afghanistan, trying to prevent the Taliban and al Qaida from reasserting control.

"South Korea and the United States need to adopt new security guidelines for such expanded roles," said Kim Il young, politics professor at Sungkyunkwan University.

But he dismissed suggestions that the allies need to revise the Mutual Defense Treaty signed in 1953. "Furthermore, both countries need to form multilateral security organization in partnership with other regional countries. The multilateral institution will be supporting the bilateral alliance," Kim said.

Some experts even argue that South Korea needs to actively participate in the U.S. led security initiatives, which it has previously refused to do.

"Seoul needs to reconsider its stance on U.S. led security initiatives such as missile defense, PSI and strategic flexibility," said Lee Choon kun, a security expert and vice president of the Seoul based think tank, the Center for Free Enterprise.

Some others say it would be hard for South Korea to continuously resist U.S. pressures for Seoul's cooperation in the initiatives.

"South Korea could join the U.S. led PSI anytime in the future when North Korean nuclear provocations intensify," said Cho Seong ryoul, director of the Institute for National Security Strategy, affiliated to the National Intelligence Service.

The Seoul government last year decided not to participate in the PSI, but the decision was made during a significant conflict between supporting and objecting groups, intelligence officials said. During the debates between the government and the then ruling Uri Party, the participation was widely supported by intelligence officials, but Uri officials strenuously pushed for the objection, they said.

Meanwhile, South Korea is expected to continue to waiver from its participation in the U.S. led missile defense system for a while, Cho said. But it will build up its own MD capability and be equipped with hardware for the MD system, such as Patriot missiles and Standard missiles. Those missiles are capable of shooting down incoming medium range ballistic missiles.

Seoul's reluctance to join the MD system mainly originates from concerns that it could be subordinated to the U.S. Japan alliance system under the lead of the two countries, to expedite the construction of MD system, Cho said.

Washington and Tokyo have been beefing up their joint capabilities in missile defense in the face of North Korea's missile threat.

The United States is deploying Patriot PAC 3 units at existing U.S. facilities in Japan such as Kadena Air Base in Okinawa prefecture. It has also stationed Aegis equipped warships, including the USS Shiloh, in Japan to build a joint U.S. Japan ballistic missile defense program.

The United States also deployed a new U.S. X Band radar system at Japan's Air SDF Shariki Base. The U.S. military shares X Band radar data with the Japanese government.

Now, the two countries are jointly developing an air based laser interception system.

"Seoul is planning to maintain an independent MD system, but is preparing for the participation when needed," Cho said.

By Jin Dae woong (davidpooh@heraldm.com)