The Korea Times:
By Jun Ji-hye
The U.S. presidential election slated for November is expected to affect ongoing talks between Seoul and Washington on the deployment of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery on the Korean Peninsula, according to experts.
Korean and U.S. experts say Washington apparently believes the THAAD battery deployment is necessary to expand American influence in Northeast Asia, and this belief will remain regardless of which party is elected. However, they say a Republican administration is more likely to pressure South Korea to buy the batteries and to conduct further missile defense deployments.
Experts added that the republican administration could provoke protests against THAAD deployment here, and consequently, hamper the allies’ discussion on the deployment.
Seoul and Washington officially announced their decision to discuss the THAAD deployment on Feb. 7, when the North launched a long-range rocket, in violation of the existing United Nations (U.N.) sanctions.
The allies then began their working-level talks on March 4 to iron out details of the deployment, such as the shared costs, possible locations and potential safety, health and environmental risks.
According to the Ministry of National Defense, operating one THAAD unit would cost some 1.5 trillion won ($1.2 billion).
A ministry official said if the deployment proceeds, South Korea would take charge of the site and other infrastructure, while the United States would bear the costs of the deployment and operation.
Terence Roehrig, professor of National Security Affairs and the Director of the Asia-Pacific Studies Group at the U.S. National War College, said it is unlikely that the U.S. will give up the development and deployment of a ballistic missile defense system in Asia, regardless of the future administration.
“THAAD will remain a piece of that effort,” he said.
Lee Il-woo, a senior researcher at the Korea Defense Network, echoed the view, saying Republicans and Democrats share the ultimate goal of promoting the national interest, and one of Washington’s most significant missions is to hold a dominant position in the hegemonic competition with China.
“The deployment of the THAAD battery on the Korean Peninsula is an important condition to win such competition,” Lee said. “So, the country’s position that the THAAD is necessary on Korean soil would not change regardless of which party is elected.”
However, Lee noted that if the Republican Party were elected, the country would be highly likely to pressure Seoul to share more of the THAAD deployment expenses, or to purchase the batteries.
Lee cited that the party’s leading candidate, Donald Trump, has repeatedly said even though South Korea is a wealthy country, it continues to rely on the United States for its defense without giving the latter anything in return.
During his campaign speeches, Trump has been insisting that Seoul is free-riding on Washington for its defense, claiming that its contribution to the upkeep of American troops is “peanuts” compared with what Washington spends.
Lee noted that if the Democratic Party were elected, the country would maintain the Barack Obama administration’s position that the United States would bear the THAAD battery deployment and operation costs, while South Korea would provide the site.
Leon V. Sigal, director of the Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project at the Social Science Research Council in New York, has a similar analysis, saying a Republican administration is much more likely to press for further missile defense deployments, whether or not they are useful against North Korea.
“If South Korea wants to pay for a permanent deployment, that deployment will proceed, and if not, it won’t,” he said.
Observers say if Washington indeed pressures Seoul to pay for the deployments, such pressure would significantly affect the allies’ talks on the THAAD deployment, considering the already considerable opposition against the THAAD deployment owing to its high cost and the negative impact on South Korea-China relations.
Some critics are already suggesting potential scenarios about how Washington would ask Seoul to pay for the THAAD deployment.
One possible scenario is if the United States categorizes THAAD as an item urgently required to better prepare for North Korean nuclear attacks. In this case, Washington could ask Seoul to add the operation cost to the allies’ defense cost-sharing agreement.
Another scenario is if Washington makes it clear that the THAAD deployment is purely for the protection of its troops in Korea and their families from the mounting nuclear and missile threats from the communist state, in which case Seoul would bear a comparatively lesser portion of the burden.
Given the many potential scenarios, Roehrig noted that the allies’ decision on the THAAD deployment remains to be seen, not simply because of its cost, but also because of its defense capabilities as well as its effect on China.
“The U.S. ballistic missile defense system remains an important capability for a number of reasons, but the exact details of how this will occur, particularly regarding Korea, remain to be seen,” he said. “The missile defense system has limits to what it can defend against, and it is costly.”
Roehrig added that the THAAD will continue to be under discussion, and its deployment will depend on many factors, including the continuing evolution of North Korean nuclear and missile capabilities, particularly future testing; overall security relations on the peninsula; and enforcement of the new U.N. sanctions.
Among others, how much China, traditionally the North’s ally, is willing to enforce the U.N. sanctions, will also have a significant impact on the allies’ decision on the THAAD deployment, he said.
“If Chinese enforcement is half-hearted, THAAD may be deployed despite Beijing’s objections,” he said, referring to China’s opposition to the THAAD deployment out of concerns that the THAAD’s AN/TPY-2 radar system could snoop on its military activities and missile capabilities.
Joel S. Wit, editor of 38 North and former U.S. State Department official, also said the possible deployment should be pushed ahead to keep pressuring China to sincerely implement harsher U.N. sanctions.
“If I were a U.S. official, I would push ahead with a possible deployment to keep pressure on the Chinese and of course to protect Korea,” he said. “Only if there was a prospect for important progress on the nuclear front would I even consider changing my plan.”
