National Security Concerns Triumph over Security Cooperation—Lessons from European Defense Collaborations for the U.S.–ROK Nuclear Assurance Debate
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
NATO has become a reference point for the U.S.–ROK nuclear assurance debate, as many in South Korea want the United States to implement nuclear assurance mechanisms in Korea similar to those in NATO. However, European defense collaborations in general—not only issues related to NATO nuclear assurance— can provide relevant insights into how the dynamics between the United States and ROK regarding nuclear deterrence might evolve. One of the lessons from Europe is that countries side-step cooperative frameworks and find alternative solutions if the existing cooperative frameworks no longer meet their national security needs. This can happen when progress is slow or insufficient on issues critical for the national security of a participating country or when the geostrategic environment changes rapidly, and the cooperation is not adequate to address the core security concerns of a nation anymore. The article discusses two illustrative examples: the British–French Lancaster House Treaties of 2010 and Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership applications of 2022. Using insights from these European defense collaborations, this article builds on the scholarship of assurance that highlights that assurance happens in an environment where partners pursue alternative options if they are dissatisfied with existing arrangements. Thus, this paper suggests that South Korea will likely look for alternative options if Seoul concludes that it will not get those nuclear assurances from the United States that would make Seoul feel secure. For South Korea, these alternatives can manifest either in finding new security partners or—as a more likely scenario—developing indigenous nuclear capabilities while intending to stay in the U.S.–ROK alliance.
Abstract
NATO has become a reference point for the U.S.–ROK nuclear assurance debate, as many in South Korea want the United States to implement nuclear assurance mechanisms in Korea similar to those in NATO. However, European defense collaborations in general—not only issues related to NATO nuclear assurance— can provide relevant insights into how the dynamics between the United States and ROK regarding nuclear deterrence might evolve. One of the lessons from Europe is that countries side-step cooperative frameworks and find alternative solutions if the existing cooperative frameworks no longer meet their national security needs. This can happen when progress is slow or insufficient on issues critical for the national security of a participating country or when the geostrategic environment changes rapidly, and the cooperation is not adequate to address the core security concerns of a nation anymore. The article discusses two illustrative examples: the British–French Lancaster House Treaties of 2010 and Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership applications of 2022. Using insights from these European defense collaborations, this article builds on the scholarship of assurance that highlights that assurance happens in an environment where partners pursue alternative options if they are dissatisfied with existing arrangements. Thus, this paper suggests that South Korea will likely look for alternative options if Seoul concludes that it will not get those nuclear assurances from the United States that would make Seoul feel secure. For South Korea, these alternatives can manifest either in finding new security partners or—as a more likely scenario—developing indigenous nuclear capabilities while intending to stay in the U.S.–ROK alliance.
참고문헌 (60)
- Thinking Nuclear: South Korean Attitudes on Nuclear Weapons, "Toby Dalton", The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 2~ (2022)
- Takeshi Watanebe, "In South Korea, NATO Is a Reference for Tactical Nuclear Weapon Advocates", National Institute for Defense Studies, ~ (2018)
- Seukhoon Paul Choi, "Alliances, Nuclear Weapons and Escalation: Managing Deterrence in the 21st Century", pp.87~ (2021), ANU Press
- David S. Yost, "Assurance and U.S. Extended Deterrence in NATO", International Affairs, 85(4), pp.756~ (2009)
- "Nuclear Matters Handbook 2020", Office of the Deputy Assistant of Defense for Nuclear Matters, 248~ (2020)
- Do Young Lee, "Strategies of Extended Deterrence: How States Provide the Security Umbrella", Security Studies, 30(5), pp.763~ (2021)
- Brian Blankenship, "Promises under Pressure: Statements of Reassurance in U.S. Alliances", International Studies Quarterly, 64(4) (2020)
- Alexander Lanoszka, "Atomic Assurance: The Alliance Politics of Nuclear Proliferation" (2018), Cornell University Press
- Stephen M. Walt, "Why Alliances Endure or Collapse", Survival, 39(1), pp.156~179 (1997)
- Brett Ashley Leeds, "Terminating Alliances: Why Do States Abrogate Agreements?", The Journal of Politics, 69(4) (2007)
- "Joint Declaration on European Defense: Joint Declaration Issued at the British–French Summit", ~ (1998)
- Gerrard Quille, "The European Security and Defense Policy: From the Helsinki Headline Goal to the EU Battlegroups", European Parliament, ~ (2006)
- Bence Nemeth, "How to Achieve Defense Cooperation in Europe?: The Subregional Approach" (2022), Bristol University Press
- Yf Reykers, "EU Battlegroups: High Costs, No Benefits", Contemporary Security Policy, 38(3), pp.457~470 (2017)
- Bastien Irondelle, "France’s Return to NATO: The Death Knell for ESDP?", European Security, 19(1), pp.33~ (2010)
- Antoine Rayroux, "EU Foreign Policy through the Lens of Discourse Analysis—Making Sense of Diversity", pp.234~236 (2014), Ashgate
- Christopher J. Bickerton, "‘Oh Bugger, They’re in the Tent’: British Responses to French Reintegration into NATO", European Security, 19(1), pp.119~120 (2010)
- Ben Jones, "Franco–British Military Cooperation: A New Engine for European Defense?", pp.19~ (2011), European Union Institute for Security Studies
- Benoit Gomis, "Franco–British Defense and Security Treaties: Entente While It Lasts?", pp.8~ (2011), Chatham House
- Karen Devine, "Neutrality and the Development of the European Union’s Common Security and Defense Policy", Cooperation and Conflict, 46(3), pp.334~369 (2011)
- Tuomas Forsberg, "Inside the EU, Outside NATO: Paradoxes of Finland’s and Sweden’s Post–neutrality", European Security, 10(1), pp.68~93 (2001)
- Nordic Partners of NATO: How Similar Are Finland and Sweden within NATO Cooperation?, "Juha Pyykönen", Finnish Institute of International Affairs, ~ (2016)
- "Article 42(7) TEU—The EU’s Mutual Assistance Clause" (2022)[URL]
- Sweden Faces the Russian Threat in the Baltic Sea, "Grzegorz Kuczyński", Warsaw Institute, 6~8 (2019)
- Håkon Lunde Saxi, "The Rise, Fall and Resurgence of Nordic Defense Cooperation", International Affairs, 95(3), pp.659~680 (2019)
- Håkon Lunde Saxi, "British and German Initiatives for Defense Cooperation: The Joint Expeditionary Force and the Framework Nations Concept", Defense Studies, 17(2) (2017)
- "Bilateralism and Minilateralism Are Europe’s Secret Strengths—War on the Rocks" (2022)[URL]
- Tuomas Forsberg, "Finland and Sweden’s Road to NATO", Current History, 122(842), pp.89~90 (2023)
- William Alberque, "Finland, Sweden and NATO Membership", Survival, 64(3), pp.67~ (2022)
- Ramon Pacheco Pardo, "South Korea’s Grand Strategy: Making Its Own Destiny", pp.38~42 (2023), Columbia University Press
- Se Young Jang, "The Evolution of U.S. Extended Deterrence and South Korea’s Nuclear Ambitions", Journal of Strategic Studies, 39(4), pp.502~520 (2016)
- Brian Blankenship, "Trivial Tripwires?: Military Capabilities and Alliance Reassurance", Security Studies, 31(1) (2022)
- "Experts: Declaration May Not Ease S. Korea’s Concern over U.S. Nuclear Commitment" (2023)[URL]
- Chang Gwang-il, "ROK and U.S. Governments Agree to Institutionalize the Extended Deterrence Policy Committee", ROK Angle: Korea’s Defense Policy, no. 40, ~ (2010)
- Paul Choi, "The South Korean Nuclear Armament Debate", pp.13~16 (2023), Korea Economic Institute
- "Tasks Ahead for the Nuclear Consultative Group" (2023)[URL]
- "Time for a Reinforced Nuclear Deterrence" (2022)[URL]
- "The Deployment of Tactical Nuclear Weapons Is the Key to Deterrence against North Korea" (2022)[URL]
- "When Allies Go Nuclear: How to Prevent the Next Proliferation Threat" (2023)[URL]
- "Seoul’s Nuclear Temptations and the U.S.–South Korean Alliance" (2023)[URL]
- "America Needs to Reassure Japan and South Korea: How to Shore Up Washington’s Eroding Credibility in Asia" (2023)[URL]
- "What the New S. Korea–U.S. Nuclear Consultative Group Will Look Like" (2023)[URL]
- Hans M. Kristensen, "United States Nuclear Weapons, 2023", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 79(1), pp.43~ (2023)
- Alexander Mattelaer, "Alliances, Nuclear Weapons and Escalation: Managing Deterrence in the 21st Century", pp.127~ (2021), Australian National University Press
- "Joint Readout of the Inaugural U.S.–ROK Nuclear Consultative Group Meeting" (2023)[URL]
- Rajaram Panda, "Should South Korea Go Nuclear?", Asia Pacific Review, 22(1), pp.148~176 (2015)
- Suk Hee Han, "Resetting the South Korea–China Relationship: The THAAD Controversies and Their Aftermath", Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 31(4), pp.539~557 (2019)
- Ian Bowers, "Conventional Counterforce Dilemmas: South Korea’s Deterrence Strategy and Stability on the Korean Peninsula", International Security, 45(3), pp.7~39 (2021)
- Lami Kim, "South Korea’s Nuclear Hedging?", The Washington Quarterly, 41(1), pp.115~133 (2018)
- "In a First, South Korea Declares Nuclear Weapons a Policy Option" (2023)[URL]
- "What Are Solid-Fuel Missiles, and Why Is North Korea Developing Them?" (2023)[URL]
- "North Korea Claims Successful Launch of Spy Satellite after Prior Failures" (2023)[URL]
- Andrew Yeo, "Can South Korea Trust the United States?", The Washington Quarterly, 46(2), pp.118~ (2023)
- "UK Sends UN Experts Photographs of North Korean Shipments to Russia" (2024)[URL]
- Victor D. Cha, "Powerplay: The Origins of the American Alliance System in Asia", pp.1~4 (2018), Princeton University Press
- "The Downing Street Accord: A United Kingdom–Republic of Korea Global Strategic Partnership" (2023)[URL]
- "Should South Korea Build Its Own Nuclear Bomb?" (2021)[URL]
- "South Korea Could Build Nuclear Weapons—and Get Away with It" (2023)[URL]
- Bruce Bennett, "Options for Strengthening ROK Nuclear Assurance", pp.16~19 (2023), Rand Corporation
- "Deterrence of North Korean Limited Nuclear Attacks" (2023)[URL]