The Washington Declaration

The Vice Chairman of the National Reconciliation Committee of Seoul Archdiocese in the Catholic Peace Weekly gives the readers his understanding of the recent meeting in Washington.

On 26, President Yoon Seok-yeol visited the United States, held a summit meeting with President Joe Biden, and announced a joint agreement. The so-called “Washington Declaration” contained three main points. Looking at the composition of the agreement, the first thing that appears is that South Korea fully trusts the US extended deterrence and abides by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
 
Many argued that South Korea should also develop nuclear weapons as a solution to North Korea's nuclear threat, but the United States put the brakes on it. Nevertheless, in reality, measures to deter North Korea from using nuclear weapons were included in the second and third points of the Washington Summit. South Korea and the U.S. guarantee more in-depth nuclear-related policy decisions in Korea through the establishment of the Vice Ministerial Nuclear Consultative Group (NCG), and regularly deploy US nuclear submarines loaded with nuclear weapons, to the Korean Peninsula.
 
The latest declaration is evaluated as containing measures for extended deterrence within the framework of the ROK-US alliance while banning South Korea from introducing its own nuclear weapons at a time when North Korea's nuclear technology is improving day by day. Due to recently heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula, many people have insisted on possessing nuclear weapons, and as a result, such claims have subsided with this announcement, which is fortunate. However, it is worrisome whether the extended deterrence contained in the Washington Declaration will lead to peace on the Korean Peninsula.
 
In general, peace is often divided into two concepts. A state in which there is simply no war is said to be ‘negative peace’. The Washington Declaration is a plan that can ease nuclear tensions on the Korean Peninsula, but it cannot go beyond the level of passive peace. In contrast, ‘positive peace’ refers to a state in which the causes of conflict are resolved by resolving conflicts in a peaceful way and removing structural and cultural violence. The Washington Declaration is meaningful in that it banned South Korea from developing nuclear weapons and prevented a more dangerous encounter, but it is regrettable as a positive peace concept since it deals only with extended deterrence and no attempt was made in mediating fundamental problems between North and South Korea.
 
Against such an opinion, one might object, we should only wait for the situation in which the nuclear threat increases. It is argued how well the declaration was made as it discussed the use of nuclear weapons and decided to deploy more weapons with tremendous firepower called strategic assets. Of course, he does not mean tolerating and understanding the heightened nuclear tension.
 

North Korea's nuclear threat is unacceptable under any circumstances and must be stopped. However, the peace Christians seek is simply not completed with deterrence. Trying to deter the threat of the other country with greater force may be a partly realistic policy, but the church notes that extreme distrust lies at the base. Therefore, extended deterrence alone is not sufficient for the journey of peace. Rather than working for extended deterrence, they say that words and actions to build fundamental trust require greater thought and effort.
 

When a protruding spring is pressed with force, the length of the spring is reduced, but the force of the spring is condensed that much. On the surface, it seems to have softened, but there is a greater tension there. For true peace on the Korean Peninsula, he hopes we can now think about ways to restore mutual trust as much as the merits and efforts of extended deterrence. Deterrence is not a balance of power, but a balance of fear. Christians cannot be said to be at peace with this.