by Bae Kyunghwan
Published 29 Apr.2023 00:14(KST)
On the 28th (local time), the Presidential Office stated that there is "no need to be fixated on specific terms" regarding the difference in interpretation between South Korea and the U.S. on the extended deterrence enhancement measures contained in the 'Washington Declaration.' This implies that it should be interpreted more practically, rather than as a 'NATO-style nuclear sharing.'
A senior official from the Presidential Office said at a press center set up in Boston, U.S., on the morning of the same day, "The U.S. seems to have a dictionary, political, and military definition of nuclear sharing," adding this comment.
Earlier, Ed Keegan, Senior Director for East Asia and Oceania at the White House National Security Council (NSC), told the Korean press corps at the U.S. State Department that day that he believes the Washington Declaration "should not be seen as nuclear sharing." Keegan emphasized, "The definition of nuclear sharing is related to control of weapons," and "I want to make it very clear that this is not the case."
However, Kim Tae-hyo, First Deputy Director of the National Security Office, explained, "The two countries have established a mechanism for sharing information on U.S. nuclear operations and joint planning," adding, "Our people will feel as if they are effectively sharing nuclear weapons with the U.S." Contextually, this can be interpreted as revealing a difference in tone between South Korea and the U.S.
The Presidential Office’s stance on this day appears to be an effort to quickly quell such controversy. The official said, "NATO has nuclear weapons, but we do not," and "there is no need to be overly fixated on terminology." He added, "NATO has nuclear weapons, but it is a system based on the agreement of about 30 countries, whereas the Washington Declaration is made bilaterally between South Korea and the U.S. There is also a practical and pragmatic aspect to consider."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.