Discord often arises from the disjunct between unspoken assumptions and tacit expectations in a relationship, a trouble that accurately frames the U.S.-South Korean alliance. The central issue? The lack of faith in U.S. promises in terms of extended nuclear deterrence. So ingrained is this disparity in approach towards how far should U.S go in their nuclear security promises, it appears to reflect a deep-rooted chasm of trust between the non-nuclear ally South Korea, and the nuclear-armed U.S., its ostensible security partner.
Some minor strides have been made to narrow this chasm. However, the fundamental divergence persists, primarily due to contrasting policy inclinations. The puzzle, though, is how to advance the mutual understanding of each other’s standpoint and establish additional institutional systems to bolster trust. Navigating the rocky waters of nuclear disagreements which pose as destabilizing elements also poses a major challenge.
Over recent times, we observe that the U.S and South Korea cannot seem to see eye-to-eye regarding the exact nature of U.S.’s extended deterrence responsibilities. The primary apprehension, from a U.S. perspective, is that precise obligations could curtail its political liberties and escalate the chances of getting ensnared in a nuclear conflict.
Conversely, South Korea champions the need for definite and unambiguous nuclear commitments from the U.S. to deter any miscalculation by the North. It’s hardly surprising, given the recent aggressive acceleration of nuclear force development by North Korea targeted towards the South, further stoking anxiety with their southern counterpart.
Seoul, troubled by the vagueness of U.S. policy, fears that Pyongyang might interpret this haziness about nuclear retaliation as a sign of wavering American conviction. The U.S., however, consistently refrains from outlining the precise circumstances under which it would enact nuclear retaliation tactics.
The U.S., being skeptical, worries that the non-transparency of extended deterrence plans might instill doubt in North Korea regarding American fidelity to its nuclear commitments. Notably, it could foster operational splits within the alliance, an outcome undesired by all.
Nonetheless, the U.S. remains averse to drafting detailed commitments. They harbor the fear that such accuracy might pre-emptively arm North Korea strategically, enabling them to predict and plan effectively for U.S. responsive strategies.
With the advent of the Yoon administration, the ambiguity about U.S.’s extended deterrence commitment surfaced as a contentious issue in U.S.-South Korean relations, adding to the undertow of pressure. The multitude of politicians, specialists, and South Korean public opinion holders maintain dissatisfaction with the U.S., expressing a desire for stronger measures to diffuse the persistent U.S ambiguity.
Consequently, the gap between ambiguity and explicitness is likely to retain its status as a strain point in the U.S.-South Korean alliance. This situation inevitably imparts a push factor for the South Koreans to call for more open and clear commitments from Washington.
To prudently navigate this delicate balance between explicitness and ambiguity, it’s critical to articulate openly the reasons for this predicament. A rather useful step could be to devise specific institutional provisions that could coax the ambiguity-explicitness gap to shrink.
South Korea grapples with a stubborn and nuclear-armed foe in North Korea. The U.S., albeit confident in their re-assurances towards their ally, needs to adapt these efforts, conforming them to recent changes in Pyongyang’s nuclear stance.
The post U.S.-South Korea Alliance Under Strain due to Biden’s Lack of Clear Nuclear Policy appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
