What was most disappointing in the TV debates of the five candidates for the May 9 presidential election was the absence of convincing countermeasures to the North Korean nuclear and missile threats. Forceful and tenacious in their attacks on their rivals’ perceived weak points, the four male and one female contenders invariably sounded meek in their respective pledges to ensure national security against the North’s belligerence.

They perfunctorily commented on the deployment of the US THAAD missile defense system, introduction of US tactical nuclear weapons, pre-emptive strikes on North Korean nuclear facilities and other important issues, showing differences reflecting their ideological spectrums. Liberal candidates emphasized diplomatic approaches while conservatives called for preparedness with military options.

As we look at ourselves, we cannot totally blame the five politicians for their lackluster discussion of national security. We have to admit that South Korea actually has little freedom of action as far as military measures on the Korean Peninsula are concerned. In what has been euphemistically called an asymmetrical balance of power, we are 10 to 20 years behind North Korea in the area of weapons of mass destruction.

Kim Jong-un in the North is becoming increasingly audacious with “weekly, monthly and yearly” nuclear and missile tests for his megalomaniac dream of South Korean and US conquests. His physical resemblance to his grandfather Kim Il-sung may help increase North Koreans’ awe of their young leader, but we in the South suspect that Kim could have inherited the warlike DNA from his grandfather who started the Korean War, if little else.

Time magazine picked Kim Jong-un for its 100 Most Influential People 2017 list, alongside Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Christopher Hill, former US ambassador to Seoul, introduced him as one of the most dangerous men in the world with “unrelenting and accelerating nuclear ambitions,” which included two nuclear tests in 2016 and frequent missile launches.

The world media compete these days to spotlight the Korean Peninsula as being on the brink of war, or even nuclear holocaust at worst. While Kim Jong-un is playing with the buttons on his large arsenal of missiles, political leaders here, widely split on all issues, only concur that war must be prevented by all means. They, however, are generally vague about how war can be prevented but insist that Korea should be positively involved in making any decisions against the North.

Sadly, we cannot either start or prevent war by ourselves. Military options today are all in the hands of the US. Looking back, we were on a par with the North in terms of conventional warfare capabilities with the US forces in Korea providing a decisive edge up until the end of the 1980s. The “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” declared by the two Koreas in 1991 was the beginning of the disparity. Seoul and Washington produced flawed strategies under zigzagging policy objectives in coping with the North’s stealth nuclear and missile programs.

We basked in freedom and prosperity unprecedented in history, and the euphoria made us bind ourselves with various international obligations including the nuclear nonproliferation and missile technology control regimes, particularly the bilateral missile range limitation agreement with the US. With China acting ineptly and irresponsibly as a regional superpower, the six-party talks it sponsored turned out to be the hoax of the century, bringing the North success in every chapter of its WMD program.

Different administrations of Korea and the US may have their own excuses, but few are convinced. Fear of war is being spread wide these days. Many people who had deep distrust in Donald Trump pin their hopes now on his unconventional approach, pressing the North with the likelihood of a massive preventive strike while coaxing China with concessions in trade affairs to lead it to the economic strangling of Pyongyang.

Older Koreans witnessed the destruction and deaths in the war and the less old lived through the destitution from the war and worked hard to overcome it. The younger generation has read about the war but cannot perceive what it means to be deprived of freedom and affluence by inescapable powers. The youngest may see war as games that they play with their smart phones, yet, everyone wants to avoid war.

The more we are afraid of war, the more aggressive Pyongyang will be. Analysts plainly see Kim Jong-un’s two goals: To gain nuclear power status in the international community, securing an upper hand in dealing with the US and the South, and to maintain totalitarian control internally through a constant war footing. These objectives call for continued provocations and no freeze can be expected in their WMD programs.

Diplomacy may be given a try once again, but practical dialogue seems impossible in whatever format at the moment. If Beijing turns more positive in applying pressure to Pyongyang, it will take a long time before Kim Jong-un finally gives up resistance. In the event of a US preventive strike, no such action can be perfectly effective to ensure that no missile can fly over here, to Japan or Guam from North Korean launch pads. The bulk of the damage will be on us if Trump orders an attack on North Korea as he did recently in Syria and Afghanistan.

If we are to become free of North Korean threats once and for all, we have to be prepared for a degree of suffering. US preventive or pre-emptive strikes can be made on different scales and the latest signs are that China may react in a low key if US attacks are limited to the Yongbyon nuclear site. Whatever targets US may choose, North Korean retaliation will instantly be directed against the South. Researchers have calculated up to 2 million deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars in damage.

We have no doubt about our final victory, but it will take another full generation to rebuild the nation from war. Our presidential candidates should make their positions clear between protecting our freedom even at great costs and extending the status quo in endless fear of war and possible submission to the enemy.


By Kim Myong-sik

Kim Myong-sik, a former editorial writer for The Korea Herald, served as head of the Korean Overseas Information Service during the Kim Dae-jung administration. -- Ed.