▲ Harry Kassianis, the editor-in-chief of the "National Security" magazine, who is hailed as an American realist security expert, comments on North Korean leader Kim Jong-un during a radio interview. / Fox News
Regarding the absence of the term "denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" in the Trump administration's National Security Strategy (NSS) released on the 5th, Harry Kassianis, hailed as an American realist security expert, said: "The United States has actually recognized North Korea as a nuclear-armed state. Now, 'CVID' (Complete, Verifiable, and Irreversible Denuclearization) for the North Korean nuclear issue is dead (Dead). What the United States should do is to give South Korea a 'green light' (Green light) for its own nuclear armament."
Kassianis told this newspaper in an interview on the 7th: "North Korea already has nuclear weapons. What reason does a peaceful ally like South Korea have not to possess nuclear weapons? The only way to deal with the North Korean nuclear issue now is arms control (disarmament). If the United States is a 'true ally,' it should lift all restrictions and let Seoul develop its own defense path." Regarding concerns from Japan and other countries about chain nuclear armament, he said: "Japan also faces a substantial nuclear threat from the Kim Jong-un regime. We don't need to fear nuclear-armed allies. The deterrence against North Korea will be strengthened. Why punish our allies?"
Regarding the reasons why denuclearization of North Korea has become difficult, Kassianis said: "Kim Jong-un has sold weapons to Russia due to the special circumstances of the Ukraine war, earning billions of dollars annually. Now, North Korea is a 'necessary existence' for Moscow, so there is no reason for Kim to make any concessions or engage in dialogue with Trump." He believes that even after the war ends, Russia will still need North Korean shells and missiles for the next 2-3 years to replenish its depleted arsenal.
He predicted that if South Korea becomes nuclear-armed, structural changes in the ROK-US alliance would be inevitable. Kassianis said: "If South Korea has its own nuclear deterrent, the Trump administration might propose reducing the number of U.S. troops stationed in South Korea. Although they won't be completely withdrawn, a plan to cut by 50% is entirely possible."
However, Kevin Kim, the acting U.S. ambassador to South Korea, met with South Korea's First Deputy Foreign Minister Park Yun-joo on the 8th and said: "The leaders of the two countries reiterated their commitment to 'comprehensive denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula' in the joint briefing. This is our current policy on the Korean Peninsula." The content of the NSS has sparked various interpretations, showing that the diplomatic authorities are trying to contain the situation.
▲ Harry Kassianis, the editor-in-chief of the "National Security" magazine. / X
The following is the Q&A session with Mr. Kassianis.
Q: The Trump administration's second term National Security Strategy (NSS) removed the term "denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula." Does this mean that the United States has actually recognized North Korea as a nuclear-armed state?
A: I believe that Washington had actually accepted the fact that North Korea is a nuclear-armed state as early as early 2021. Because at that time, the Biden administration completely ignored the North Korea issue. Regardless of how we criticize the handling methods of former President Donald Trump, at least the Trump administration's first term government (through dialogue) stopped North Korea from testing intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM) and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), and conducted dialogues. But now, "CVID" (Completely, Verifiably, and Irreversibly Denuclearization) is dead.
Q: If denuclearization is impossible, how should the ROK-US alliance respond?
A: The only way to deal with North Korea now is some form of "arms control" (disarmament). But that's not enough. At the same time, all restrictions on South Korea's defense needs must be removed, and even if South Korea wants it, the United States should give South Korea a "green light" for the development of its own nuclear weapons in the future. If North Korea can have nuclear weapons, why can't a peaceful ally like South Korea? Let Seoul take its own defensive path. That's what a "true ally" should do.
Q: Some people think that Trump may hold another dialogue with Kim Jong-un. Is there a possibility of a new "big deal"?
A: North Korea has no need to hold a summit, disarm, or engage in dialogue with Washington or Seoul right now. Why? Because of the Ukraine war, Kim Jong-un probably earned billions of dollars annually through weapons sales to Moscow. Kim has no reason to make any concessions to Trump in any form.
Q: Are you saying that the Ukraine war is a factor?
A: Exactly. I think that even after the Ukraine war ends, Putin will want North Korea to continue producing millions of shells per year for at least 2-3 years to replenish Russia's depleted arsenal. It may also include drones, small arms, and various missiles. In return, Kim Jong-un will also receive help from Putin in intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, and submarine projects, and this won't stop in the short term. This may sound absurd, but North Korea is now a 'necessary existence' for Moscow. This means (in the future) there will be no dialogue, no concessions, just more nuclear weapons and more advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Q: From the perspective of Trump-style "America First," if South Korea becomes nuclear-armed, will the number of U.S. troops stationed in South Korea be reduced?
A: If South Korea moves toward nuclear weapons, then yes. You'll see the Trump administration proposing to reduce the size of U.S. forces stationed on the Korean Peninsula. 28,500 U.S. troops are just 'the trigger,' and in a full-scale war with North Korea, we'll be talking about 500,000 to 1 million U.S. troops. The Trump team may come up with the logic of reducing troop numbers. But I don't think they'll be completely withdrawn. But talking about fewer troops? Of course. For example, a reduction of 50% or something. Please! The United States must allow the South Korean military to control its armed forces during wartime. Looking at it from the perspective of 2025, the United States seems to resemble a colonial power, which is terrifying. If Seoul possesses nuclear weapons, the transfer of wartime operational control must be completed immediately."
Q: There is a view that South Korea's nuclear armament could lead to Japan's nuclear armament, provoke China, and whether a nuclear-armed South Korea fits the strategic interests of the United States in the G2 containment era?
A: Considering that North Korea actually has 20 to 40 nuclear weapons, which could turn South Korea into a "nuclear parking lot" and make it a country that could almost eliminate almost its entire population within days, I believe South Korea has every right to possess nuclear weapons. How can the United States claim to be a good ally while preventing South Korea from possessing nuclear weapons? Allies like Britain and France have nuclear weapons. Why shouldn't South Korea? This also means that Japan may also possess nuclear weapons. In other words, Japan also faces a real nuclear threat from the Kim Jong-un regime and is wary of China's nuclear weapons. China's nuclear weapons are a bigger threat. Japan is also a firm ally of the United States, obviously, they will not use these weapons out of anger or launch a preemptive strike. We have no reason to fear nuclear-armed allies. North Korea's nuclear weapons are increasing, and it seems ready to produce more advanced missiles at any time. Its deterrence is growing stronger. Why punish our allies and friends? This is not friendship."
Q: Does this mean that the United States should provide nuclear technology support to South Korea in the same way as the Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) security partnership model, or does it mean turning a blind eye to South Korea's autonomous development of nuclear weapons?
A: I have no objection to Washington reaching an AUKUS-style agreement with South Korea on nuclear weapons. Or simply put, South Korea has the right to self-defense, and if that means nuclear weapons, then it can do so. That's fine. No matter how South Korea develops its conventional military capabilities, it cannot allow North Korea to have such a huge military advantage over Seoul. Seoul can freely manufacture KF-21 fighters and K2 Black Panther tanks, but they will never become a 100-megaton nuclear bomb. Sorry, but that's the reality. Just like when the Soviet Union was a major threat in the 1950s, Britain and France developed nuclear weapons. South Korea also has the right to consider this option without being punished or damaging its prestige in the international community. South Korea is a democratic country, a country that loves freedom, and it must have the right to self-defense. What would other countries do if they faced a threat like North Korea?
Source: Chosun Ilbo
Original: toutiao.com/article/7582050414795719202/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author alone.