'Nuclear Retaliation' Codified in Washington Declaration... Ruling Party: "Better than NATO," Opposition: "Korean Peninsula Mutual Destruction"

The leaders of South Korea and the United States announced the Washington Declaration, which formalizes the U.S. nuclear retaliation and establishes a 'Nuclear Consultative Group' (NCG) to discuss extended deterrence. However, evaluations from both ruling and opposition parties sharply diverged. While ruling party figures praised it highly, saying "it's better than NATO," opposition figures expressed concerns about "mutual destruction on the Korean Peninsula" or dismissed it as not significantly improving beyond the previous administration's nuclear umbrella level.

Former North Korean diplomat and People Power Party Supreme Council member Tae Young-ho explained the significance of the Washington Declaration on SBS's 'Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show' on the 27th, saying, "From North Korea's perspective, this Washington Declaration will be very intimidating and cause them to worry," adding, "For the first time, the U.S. has publicly stated to the world, 'We have a (nuclear attack) plan, and this plan will gradually be shared with South Korea going forward.'"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

People Power Party lawmaker Lee Yong-ho also gave a high score of 90 for the outcome of the recent South Korea-U.S. summit on CBS's 'Kim Hyun-jung's News Show,' stating, "NATO involves discussions among 30 countries, which can be inefficient and time-consuming, but the NCG is a bilateral relationship, allowing for constant communication, making it very efficient."

People Power Party lawmaker Ha Tae-kyung also said on KBS's 'Choi Kyung-young's Strong Current Affairs,' "I cannot trust the (Democratic) Party, so how can we share nuclear information with them? There was very strong opposition," but he praised the decision, saying, "Despite such opposition, this was a decision made by President Biden." He added, "The core of the (Washington Declaration) is nuclear information sharing. Until now, the U.S. did not share any nuclear information, and we didn't even know if U.S. nuclear weapons were deployed during joint military exercises."

On the other hand, opposition figures raised critical voices. Democratic Party lawmaker Yoon Gun-young said on CBS's 'Kim Hyun-jung's News Show,' "(At the South Korea-U.S. summit) it seems that nuclear retaliation against North Korean nuclear attacks was also discussed, which is a very dangerous idea," and questioned, "Isn't everything over on the Korean Peninsula the moment a nuclear attack occurs?"

He argued that even if retaliation occurs against a North Korean nuclear attack on the narrow Korean Peninsula territory, it would lead to mutual destruction. He said, "On the small landmass of the Korean Peninsula, if a nuclear attack happens, there is no place where some survive and others die. Everyone dies, and measures should be taken in advance to prevent a nuclear attack rather than retaliating after it happens. What is the point of striking back after being hit?" He pointed out, "Nuclear retaliation means mutual destruction on the Korean Peninsula."

Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Jae-jung, a member of the National Assembly's Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee, said on SBS's 'Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show,' "I thought we would at least bring in nuclear submarines," adding, "Look at Australia?they imported the construction itself and are now operating them," dismissing the summit results as unsatisfactory to both progressives and conservatives.

He also criticized the NCG, which ruling party lawmakers praised, saying, "The term sounds very strong and creates an illusion that if a nuclear submarine visits once or thrice, it would greatly help security, but the consultative body established now is nothing more than a so-called working group."

Justice Party floor leader Lee Eun-joo also said on BBS's 'Jeon Young-shin's Morning Journal,' "Although the extended deterrence strategy consultative body was upgraded from vice-ministerial to ministerial level, the actual decision on nuclear use remains with the U.S., so I do not see this as a completely new agreement," and criticized, "This joint statement approaches the issue excessively from a military perspective, which may rather provoke Russia or China and narrow diplomatic space."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.