Freshman lawmakers are not typically respected as sources of expertise at the National Assembly. But Rep. Kim Jong-dae is an exception, especially on a topic that often dominates debate among prominent politicians or presidential hopefuls: national security. 

“My decades-old journey for security issues culminates here,” Kim said in an interview with The Korea Herald at his office in the 20th Assembly, where he serves as a member of a parliamentary committee dealing with national defense and military issues.

Before being elected as a lawmaker in April, the 52-year-old worked as a parliamentary aide between 1993 and 2000.

A graduate of economics at Yonsei University, Kim has mostly served in areas related to security issues for progressive politicians and leaders.

His past posts included an administrative officer for security at the transitional committee for then President-elect Kim Jae-jung in 1998 and a defense committee member for the transition committee for then President-elect Roh Moo-hyun in 2003.

He has also served in defense-related committees for the two governments and the military, and been chief editor for defense magazines and journals.

Now, as one of a few opposition lawmakers with a background in security, the first-termer of the minor Justice Party aims to challenge the country’s national security elites under conservative presidencies, who he accused of advocating “faux security.”

“Solid national security requires the government to take responsibility for its actions,” said Kim. “But I don’t think that the past conservative governments have done that. Instead, they always tried to find an excuse to blame someone for their failure. That is what I call ‘faux security.’”

Kim argued that over the past eight years -- during the administrations of Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye -- the security challenges facing South Korea have escalated, with Pyongyang continuing to conduct military provocations and Seoul failing to contain or prevent them.

He pointed to North Korea’s attack on South Korea’s Cheonan ship in Yeonpyeong Island in 2010, and the North’s latest nuclear and missile tests -- grave security risks followed by an equally boisterous collision among South Koreans on how to contain the situation.

In the process, Kim said that the past two governments eventually pinned the blame on liberal parties or progressive activists, while taking sterner positions against the North.

“(Blaming) North Korea is not an answer to every security failure that the government has made,” he said. “What we should do, instead, is to figure out what the threats are and how to manage them. Otherwise, it is like blaming an environmentalist for snakes on a mountain.”

A “security debacle” is once again unfolding, he said, over the controversy surrounding the government’s decision to deploy the US Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. 

According to the lawmaker, bilateral negotiations over the THAAD deployment was done without proper communication with the general public and political parties, both of whom, he said, were completely out of the loop throughout the process.

“Everyone had assumed that the government would lay out its position toward the THAAD in October,” he said, referring to a remark by Defense Minister Han Min-koo, who had told lawmakers on July 5 that the negotiations were still underway and that he was not briefed about the result.

“But suddenly, the government convened the National Security Council on July 7 and one day later, they announced that the deal was finalized,” Kim said. “At that moment, I felt like there was nothing I could do as a lawmaker. I felt so powerless.”

Some politicians and experts suggested that while THAAD might not be able to offer seamless protection from the North’s evolving missile and nuclear threat, the advanced missile defense system is so far the best option available and its deployment will eventually do less harm than good.

But Kim dismissed this view as unprofessional. He asserted that there is no weapon that does “less harm than good” because analyzing exact costs and benefits are prerequisites.

Using the US government’s effort to downsize its military budget -- otherwise known as sequestration -- as an example, Kim highlighted that every defense agency around the world is working hard to avoid budget duplication, particularly on military spending, amid efforts to tighten fiscal policy.

“Using a vague calculation to assess military requirement is the last thing (that should be done) when determining military requirement,” he said. “It is an amateurish approach that would be taken by ordinary citizens, not by security officials or experts.”

The lawmaker went on to counter the government’s claim that deployment of the THAAD batteries has nothing to do with full-fledged participation in the US-led Missile Defense, saying that the US itself acknowledged that the THAAD is a part of its global missile system.

To make his case, he cited a report published in May 2015 by the US Government Accountability Office. The report described the THAAD as intended to “increase integration with other Ballistic Missile Defense elements.”

Such capability of the weapon system, he argued, is what prompted vehement opposition among Chinese policymakers, who viewed it as a “strategic asset” that might shift the balance of power in favor of Washington.

“THADD has triggered a clash in which US and China compete for regional dominance,” he said.

At the center of the conflict, he added, lies the THAAD X-band radar capable of watching over mainland China. “It makes THAAD crucial to the US-led Missile Defense and continues to unnerve the Chinese.”

Faced with mounting criticism from China, President Park Geun-hye and the ruling Saenuri Party’s lawmakers have expressed worries that Beijing’s protest amounts to an infringement of the country’s sovereign right to take self-defense measures.

But Kim said that Beijing’s concerns are partly “legitimate” as historically most countries have often expressed themselves regarding their neighbors’ military steps.

“Back in the Cold War, the US and Soviet Union had intervened with each other to ensure that both states do not have strategic missile systems,” he said. “Otherwise, the balance of terror would have been compromised and led to potential conflicts.”

One of the other reasons why the government should take China’s concerns seriously, he added, is that Beijing has raised its retaliatory measures against Seoul to an “alarming level,” which means a dramatic setback in socio-economic ties of the two countries.

Having conducted extensive studies on threat analysis, Kim and his colleagues have divided threat levels into seven categories. Currently, China is taking a “level three measure,” he contended, which involves fostering anti-Korea sentiment, but it has not included government-led sanctions.

According to Kim, it was the US presidential nominees who escalated the debate over THAAD. North Korea’s fourth nuclear test in January this year, he argued, has energized both Democrat candidate Hilary Clinton and Republican candidate Donald Trump to set an assertive tone and advocate the THAAD deployment.

The lawmaker suggested that while it was hard to tell what would happen if Trump were to be elected -- because there seemed to be no credible advisor group on his foreign policies -- Clinton would shift the country’s stance on THAAD if Koreans continue to oppose the move.

“Though Hilary Clinton approves of THAAD right now, the stance is likely to change,” said Kim, who said that he had met with staff members of the Clinton campaign during his visit to the US. “I doubt she would push ahead with the plan against strong opposition by the Korean people.”

By Yeo Jun-suk(jasonyeo@heraldcorp.com)

[HERALD INTERVIEW]