[INTERVIEW] Seoul's integration into Quad will benefit all parties: Center for a New American Security

Deputy U.S. Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, center, talks during a press conference with Japanese Vice Minister Mori Takeo, left, and South Korea's First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Cho Hyundong, right, at the State Department in Washington, D.C., on February 13, 2023. AFP-Yonhap

This is the last in a series of interviews with security experts at leading think tanks in Washington and former U.S. officials on the implications of the escalating arms race in Northeast Asia and South Korea's growing nuclear ambitions. ― ED.

Speculation of NK's 7th nuclear test seems to be based on circumstantial evidence

By Kim Yoo-chul

A few months after U.S. President Joe Biden outlined the specifics of his signature U.S.-Indo Pacific strategy, South Korea also released its own version of an Indo Pacific-focused regional strategy late last year.

Such policy initiatives illustrate the fact that South Korea has greatly shifted its political intent on the country's regional strategy to favoring "strategic clarity" from "strategic ambiguity," which had been sought by former President Moon Jae-in. As China is South Korea's top trading partner, incumbent President Yoon Suk Yeol's vision for Seoul promoting strategic clarity has become a matter of discussion and debate.

The question is will the departure from "strategic ambiguity" to clarity yield benefits and how can South Korea strengthen today's growing rules-based international order?

Citing growing security challenges by North Korea and the need to upgrade the Seoul-Washington alliance beyond Korean Peninsula issues, the Yoon administration is still interested in being included in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad).

But as the prime focus of the Quad is China, despite South Korea's shift to clarity favoring to the U.S., the prevailing view is that Washington officials do not want Seoul to join the security framework. Such thoughts are based on the views of the group's existing members to avoid the pitfalls that come with overextending by including new members too soon. South Korea's diplomatic feud with Japan, one of the key group members, is another reason.

A recently-released report by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee highlighted the possibility of South Korea being involved in the Quad, because the security dialogue recently transitioned from simply holding working-group meetings to demonstrating its value in the Indo-Pacific region.

Joshua Fitt, CNAS fellow

Speaking to The Korea Times, Joshua Fitt, an associate fellow at the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), said the Quad is not likely to "formally expand" in the near term. However, he highlighted that a new phase of the Quad will also mean potential opportunities for informal partnerships and consultations on certain Quad initiatives with countries such as South Korea.

"South Korea already consults bilaterally with Quad countries on several of the grouping's priorities, and President Yoon himself mentioned his interest in the climate change and critical and emerging technology working groups on the campaign trail. When the time is right, South Korea's closer integration with some of the Quad's working groups will yield immense benefits to all parties," Fitt said in a recent interview.

CNAS, co-founded by the top White House Indo-Pacific official, Kurt M. Campbell, is one of the most influential public policy think tanks based in Washington.

The Quad has remained more as a forum for strategic talks that have looked at health challenges and maritime, technological and infrastructure issues through the lens of security.

South Korea is home to the world's two largest chip manufacturers ― Samsung and SK ― and LG Energy Solution (LGES), Samsung SDI and SK On are world-class electric vehicle (EV) battery manufacturers supplying products to Tesla, Ford, General Motors and others. These South Korean companies are affected by the passage of the U.S.' CHIPS Act and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), both of which are aimed at providing tax credits to foreign manufacturers operating on U.S. soil.

Fitt said that the U.S. should facilitate good relations between South Korea and Japan to the greatest extent possible, because Washington's alliances with Tokyo and Seoul are two of the most important relationships in the world.

"The United States cannot―and should not―dictate the terms of rapprochement between South Korea and Japan. Recent trends in the U.S.-South Korea-Japan trilateral relationship have been promising, including renewed high-level summits and strong joint statements. While it is important to recognize the significance of these milestones after four bleak years, one must also remain realistic about how fragile the relationship is in the absence of stronger institutional ties that can weather the next inevitable bout of turbulence," he said.

"The 'best desired resolution' from Washington's perspective would be a South Korea-Japan relationship that is unfettered by historical tensions and able to advance mutual interests in maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific Region. Naturally, a future in which South Korea-Japan ties flourish is an appealing concept to Washington. But so far, this scenario has not come to fruition in a lasting way," he continued.

South Korean relatives of workers killed in a disaster at the Chosei coal mine, sort out ancestral tablets for the victims at a temple in Ube, Yamaguchi Prefecture, Japan, February 4, 2023. Reuters-Yonhap

Circumstantial evidence

The CNAS official said Yoon is correct to note that North Korea's provocations pose a serious threat. According to Fitt, there are two trends in the North Korean missile tests that are concerning: frequency and flight path.

"In 2022, there were more North Korean missile launches than ever before―including some that flew over Japan or landed in the waters of South Korea's exclusive economic zone. North Korean tests are not always successful, so with every launch, there is a chance that something will go wrong and inflict collateral damage. This is particularly concerning because of the awful state of North Korean channels of communication with the outside world," he responded.

Because unlike missile tests, nuclear tests are even more provocative and concerning, if North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is looking to up the ante, it may opt for a detonation.

"Experts have been bracing for a nuclear test for about a year now. To make matters worse, in 2022, Kim changed North Korea's nuclear use policy to allow for preemptive strikes. Still, all the speculation about a seventh nuclear test seems to be based on circumstantial evidence," Fitt said.

Opposing sides of a crisis or conflict should at least strive for better communication as open channels substantially reduce the risk of miscalculation or escalation and make situations with the potential for catastrophic global consequences less perilous. But the leaders of the United States and North Korea are not likely to hold a face-to-face meeting this year.

"In truth, the (previous U.S.-North Korea) summits were a waste of time for all parties. Until there is progress at the working level, more summits appear to be off the table. The prospect of working-level negotiations is complicated further by the unsustainable precedent set by the Trump-Kim summits that U.S-North Korea negotiations are to take place at the leader level. Any refusal from the North Korean side to negotiate can now easily fall back on this claim," he answered.

Regarding the possibility of initiating arms control talks as part of North Korea's denuclearization steps, the CNAS representative said it seems unlikely that such dialogue will resume soon as there is no public indication that North Korea is interested in accepting a U.S. offer to restart talks without preconditions.

A TV screen shows a file image of North Korean missiles in a military parade during a news program at Seoul Railway Station in Seoul, South Korea, Thursday, Feb. 2. 2023. North Korea said Thursday it is prepared to counter U.S. military moves with the "most overwhelming nuclear force" as it warned that the expansion of the U.S.' combined military exercises with rival South Korea is pushing tensions to an "extreme red line." AP-Yonhap

"Since 1991, when the United States decided to withdraw its nuclear assets from South Korea, Washington's policy has been that the entire Korean Peninsula ought to be completely denuclearized. In more than three decades, this policy has not changed despite North Korea's repeated steps in the opposite direction. If the goal of Pyongyang's pursuit of a nuclear weapon capable of imperiling the United States was to push Washington to view North Korea as a 'counterpart,' then the program has been a complete failure. Instead, the Kim dynasty's desire for weapons of mass destruction has solidified its role as a global pariah," he responded.

Discussions in Seoul about acquiring some type of nuclear capability are the result of South Korea not fully trusting the security guarantees offered by the United States. But the South Korea-U.S. alliance will be threatened if Seoul violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

"The ensuing turbulence would also divert scarce monetary and bandwidth resources away from more effective ways of countering and deterring Pyongyang. It is hard to imagine that Yoon's bullishness about a nuclear option for South Korea is in response to encouragement from Washington on the matter," he said. Fitt does not believe that nuclear sharing between Washington and Seoul is likely in the near future given the intentions of alliance stakeholders to seek less destabilizing ways to be comfortable with existing extended deterrence commitments.

"A nuclear-sharing arrangement under which South Korean military personnel would be trained to handle and use U.S. assets in the case of a nuclear contingency would not be a violation of the NPT (whereas South Korea developing its own nuclear weapon would). But just because an option falls within what is permitted under the NPT does not necessarily make it a good idea. China and North Korea paint nearly every level of alliance activity as 'destabilizing,' but bringing U.S. nuclear weapons back to the Korean Peninsula would indeed be a significant change to the regional status quo and should be avoided at all costs."