[INTERVIEW] Washington's nuclear umbrella should be called into question: US scholar

U.S. President Joe Biden attends a meeting in Washington, Tuesday. Jennifer Lind, an associate professor of government at Dartmouth College, says South Koreans should not expect "a rational U.S. leader to take action that would risk a nuclear retaliation that destroys American cities and kills millions of people." AFP-Yonhap

US would not risk North Korea's nuclear attack to protect South Korea, professor says

By Jung Min-ho

Jennifer Lind, an associate professor of government at Dartmouth College

Even when North Korea is ramping up the development of its weapons at an unprecedented pace and escalating the threat of a nuclear war against South Korea, Washington has so far issued vague warnings such as to "take all necessary measures" without mentioning whether a nuclear attack by the regime would be met with a nuclear response.

To Jennifer Lind, an associate professor of government focused on East Asia at Dartmouth College, the reason for the ambiguity is plain and simple: the U.S. government will not make a concrete statement that it cannot back up with action.

"North Korea is developing the ability to hit the U.S. with nuclear weapons, which seriously calls into question the credibility of its nuclear umbrella. As a result, South Koreans need to update their thinking on whether or not they can continue their current policy, which was formed at a time when the U.S. homeland was not at risk," Lind told The Korea Times.

Although polls show most Americans highly value U.S. allies, including South Korea, the North's potential ability to strike anywhere in the U.S. with nuclear-tipped missiles poses a threat U.S. politicians cannot ignore when making important decisions in their best interest, she noted.

"The South should not expect a rational U.S. leader to take action that would risk a nuclear retaliation that destroys American cities and kills millions of people," Lind said. "This policy may have made sense during the Cold War, but the stakes on the Korean Peninsula today from a U.S. national perspective are very different."

South Korea is among the U.S. allies that have made a commitment not to produce nuclear weapons amid the U.S. guarantee to defend them under its nuclear umbrella. But in recent years, some in South Korea have been saying that the promise is no longer be trusted and that the South also needs to arm itself with nuclear weapons, given that its conventional weapons arsenal cannot match the destructive power of nuclear weapons held by the North.

This March 24 file photo, distributed by the North Korean government, shows what it says is the test firing of a Hwasong-17 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), at an undisclosed location in North Korea. AP-Yonhap

But as a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), an international treaty that bans non-nuclear countries from acquiring them, if South Korea is to develop nuclear weapons, it would have to withdraw from the pact first. But is that even possible? Lind believes it is.

"Article 10 of the NPT allows members to withdraw if adherence to the treaty threatens a member's security. So yes, if South Korea chose to develop nuclear weapons, it could legally do so by announcing its intention to withdraw from the treaty," she said.

But such a move will almost certainly trigger hostile reactions from many countries, especially China, South Korea's biggest trade partner and North Korea's key ally.

Such likely hostile reactions are why the manner in which South Korea withdraws from the NPT will be critical to minimize the damage to its international reputation and economy, she said.

"First, it could say that it does not want to acquire nuclear weapons but is forced to do so by the grave security threat that it faces, and as such is withdrawing from the NPT as permitted under Article 10. The ROK (South Korea) could also say it is only withdrawing until the North gives up its weapons and rejoins the NPT, at which point South Korea would do the same," Lind said. "If South Korea does decide to withdraw from the NPT, before it does so, Seoul should engage in significant diplomacy with the United States and other partners. Although the United States opposes South Korea's proliferation, if Washington understands that the nuclear trends on the Peninsula mean that it can no longer be adequately reassured by U.S. nuclear weapons … U.S. leaders may decide to give Seoul the military and diplomatic cover it needs to make nuclearization safe."

It would be critical to promote the message that the fault for the regrettable development lies with Pyongyang, as the initial violator of the NPT. She believes Seoul has a compelling case to make that it faces a far more grave security situation than, say, Britain or France.

"Why are those countries allowed to have legal nuclear arsenals when South Korea ― a longtime NPT member in good standing ― faces a severe threat?" Lind said. "We know China would be angry if South Korea withdrew from the NPT … Ultimately though China would just have to accept this and learn to live with it ― just as the U.S. has learned to face the reality of North Korean nuclear weapons. Let's not forget that a significant reason why pressure on North Korea failed was China's support for Pyongyang."

"If China is pressuring South Korea, Koreans should ask China to explain why South Korea should not be able to have nuclear weapons when China is allowed to have legal nuclear weapons. Chinese criticism is all the more problematic given that it (along with the other declared nuclear states) is violating its pledge to the NPT to draw down its nuclear arsenal. Today China is doing the opposite, with a rapid expansion and modernization of its nuclear forces. China would never accept these arguments, but a broader global audience would likely be more sympathetic to them," Lind said.