WASHINGTON —
An unprecedented bilateral nuclear declaration that Washington and Seoul just announced may not be enough to assuage South Koreans' worries about a U.S. pledge to protect them from North Korea's nuclear attacks as it was designed to do, according to experts.
U.S. President Joe Biden and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol presented the Washington Declaration on Wednesday at a post-summit news conference.
With it, to "make every effort to consult with the ROK on any possible nuclear weapons employment on the Korean Peninsula" and reassured "the U.S. commitment to extended deterrence" using "the full range of U.S. capabilities, including nuclear." The ROK stands for South Korea's official name, the Republic of Korea.
Extended deterrence is as the American commitment "to deter and, if necessary, to respond" to attacks on its allies and partners "across the spectrum of potential nuclear and non-nuclear scenarios." This commitment is often described as providing a "nuclear umbrella" to those allies and partners.
Washington also agreed in the declaration to regularly deploy strategic assets such as nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) to South Korea.
Biden and Yoon also agreed to establish the Nuclear Consultation Group (NCG), a joint body that will meet regularly to discuss nuclear and strategic planning for contingencies in and around the divided Korean Peninsula.
The U.S. has a similar nuclear planning group within the multilateral body of NATO. But South Korea's participation in U.S. nuclear planning through the newly announced NCG would be the first agreement Washington has made with a single non-nuclear state to let it in on its nuclear decision-making process.
At the press conference, Yoon said the NCG would raise extended deterrence to a new level.
He said, "Under the nuclear umbrella, our extended deterrence was a lot lower." He continued, "Now it's an unprecedented expansion and strengthening of the extended deterrence strategy under the Washington Declaration, which will create the NCG. The implementation and the response at this level has never thus far been this strong."
The Washington Declaration and the NCG are "useful and productive steps," according to Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Strategy and Force Development and the cofounder of The Marathon Initiative, a Washington-based institution focused on providing foreign and defense policy recommendations.
However, he continued, these developments "do not appear sufficient to address the fundamental quandary facing the alliance — the growth of North Korea's nuclear and long-range missile program." He added, "Washington and Seoul should be prepared to work together to come up with more dramatic measures to meet this very real and indeed growing challenge."
The measures, while designed to deter North Korean attacks, do not address how the alliance aims to reduce North Korea's provocations that have been increasing anxiety among South Koreans.
North Korea conducted a record number of ballistic missile tests last year and continued its launches this year, including three intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). In February it conducted what it said was a able to attack South Korea with tactical nuclear weapons.
In January, Yoon floated the idea of Seoul having nuclear weapons only to , even though that more than 70% of South Koreans would support their nation developing its own nuclear weapons or the return of nuclear weapons to the county. The U.S. withdrew nuclear weapons in 1991.
Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said, "In the minds of Washington and Seoul, [the declaration] will mean they are strengthening deterrence and therefore security."
He continued, "But seen from Pyongyang, this will likely be another sign that the United States and South Korea are a growing threat, and that North Korea will have to continue to develop more nuclear weapons to defend itself."
He added, "This is a big dilemma — the dynamics of the two sides continuing to strengthen their capabilities to improve security also drives the decisions that will be seen to increase the risks. The deterrence wheel continues to turn and turn with no solution to the underlying problem."