Propelled by North Korea’s rising threats and heightened military tension, foreign and security policy is rapidly ascending the agenda for next month’s presidential election.

While the economy and welfare remain atop the agenda, all five major contenders are striving to flaunt their credentials to be a strong commander-in-chief, lambasting North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs and warning against unilateral US military action.


The winner of the May 9 vote will face grave challenges: the Kim Jong-un regime’s nuclear brinkmanship, a volatile leader in Washington, China’s economic retaliation over Seoul’s plan to host a US missile shield, and festering spats with Japan.

Ideological strife has so far played a much smaller role than in past elections, which were often marked by candidates accusing each other of being “pro-North” or attempting to foster a “security state.”

Most of the top five have yet to unveil their official campaign platforms on foreign and security policy. But they have laid out their positions on some of the most pressing issues, such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system, reintroducing US tactical nuclear weapons, reopening an inter-Korean industrial park and the settlement of the wartime sex slavery issue with Japan.


THAAD

Debate over THAAD has gained fresh momentum, especially since last week’s summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping that failed to agree on concrete steps to restrain North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs.

Shortly after the meeting, Beijing’s chief nuclear negotiator Wu Dawei came to Seoul to meet his counterpart and the top five presidential candidates or their advisers. While he laid out China’s opposition to THAAD, the politicians criticized its economic retaliation.


Of the five, Yoo Seong-min of the conservative Bareun Party and Hong Joon-pyo of the far-right Liberty Korea Party support the ongoing deployment of the THAAD battery here. Ahn Cheol-soo of the center-left People’s Party, who initially rejected the plan, had shifted his attitude in favor of it, in contrast to his party’s policy.

Opposition front-runner Moon Jae-in of the progressive Democratic Party of Korea has retained a reserved stance but has been more supportive more recently. He said the issue was the “No. 1 priority” for the next government to tackle in an interview with The Korea Herald on Monday, and he may “press ahead with the deployment if the North continues to commit nuclear provocations and beef up its capability” in a separate interview the same day with the Chosun Ilbo daily.

The far-left Justice Party’s flag-bearer Sim Sang-jeung is opposed to the plan, saying last week that if elected she would order a “comprehensive re-examination” of the system’s efficacy and send it to the National Assembly for ratification.

On Wednesday, the conservatives, which have often benefited from flare-ups in military tension in past races, launched an offensive against Moon and Ahn, who share the lead in the polls.

Hong accused the two candidates of having done an about-face on THAAD, questioning their presidential qualifications. “How would the people live at ease believing in those who only aim at votes, and change their words on a matter of national importance (so easily)?” he wrote on his Facebook page.

Liberty Korea Party interim chair Chung Woo-taik called the views of Moon and Ahn “dangerous and unstable,” and “going back and forth and ambiguous,” respectively.

The Bareun Party also blasted the two contenders for altering their positions on THAAD due to sour public sentiment. Its candidate Yoo, who argues that South Korea should adopt at least two or three more batteries at its own expense to cover all of its territory, said during a visit to Daegu on Tuesday that both of them are “unqualified” to take up the nation’s top job.

“Even the stances of Ahn and his People’s Party clash on the THAAD issue. A security pledge should not oscillate according to the election climate,” Ji Sang-wuk, Yoo campaign’s spokesperson, said in a statement.


Tactical nuclear weapons

Hong went even further, calling for US tactical weapons to be brought back to South Korea to achieve a “nuclear balance” and “military strength-based peace.”

“We now live in an era where we have to break the balance of power and pursue armed peace built on the dominance of power,” he said at a forum on Wednesday.

Yoo, who formerly chaired the parliamentary defense committee, has also been pushing for the plan, pointing to its potential in deterring Pyongyang. Mindful of possible repercussions from Beijing and others, however, once Seoul and Washington decide to reintroduce them, they should keep mum under a “neither confirm nor deny” strategy, he said.

“If we have tactical nuclear weapons, we can equip them with our missiles and use them for offensive purposes. It could definitely deter North Korea,” Yoo said during an interview with The Korea Herald early last month.

“Our deterrence forces should be strengthened but we need to take an extremely prudent approach,” he said at a party meeting on March 6, adding the issue may prompt a “very sensitive backlash” from China.

In contrast, the three progressive contestants dismiss the view as “unacceptable,” arguing the denuclearization principles ought to be maintained.

Moon said the reintroduction would only undermine South Korea’s own demand for the North to give up the weapons during an interview with The Korea Herald. Ahn echoed the view at a seminar last week, saying it would constitute Seoul’s “self-abandonment” of the denuclearization principles and result in the acknowledgment of the North as a nuclear weapons state.

Sim has called the notion a “delusion,” saying it would deepen the instability of Northeast Asia’s security environment and any kind of nuclear weapons must not exist on the peninsula.

By Shin Hyon-hee (heeshin@heraldcorp.com) and Yeo Jun-suk (jasonyeo@heraldcorp.com)