[EAI Commentary No. 8] Complex Lessons from the Cheonan Incident and Future Response Directions

Two months have passed since the tragic Cheonan incident. Since the incident, there has been a flood of criticism, debate, and speculation regarding the precise cause, the appropriateness of the government's response, the trends of neighboring countries, and future response measures. The government has been working diligently to prepare follow-up measures by forming a joint civilian-military and domestic-international joint investigation committee to determine the cause, and by holding meetings such as the Commander's Conference and the Security Review Meeting. Once the government releases its official findings on the cause of the Cheonan's sinking, the domestic and international communities will likely enter a new phase of debate and policy formulation.

While there has been much debate about the meaning of the Cheonan incident for Korea, it remains a fact that confusion persists. Even after the government announces its findings on the cause of the sinking, controversy may continue domestically and internationally regarding the scientific validity and truthfulness of the investigation, given the lack of conclusive evidence at the scene of the sinking. The issue is how to achieve consensus on the overall characterization and definition of the Cheonan incident. Since it is unknown when 100% irrefutable physical evidence of the cause of sinking will be secured, and in a situation where physical evidence is insufficient compared to strong suspicions, the government's official stance and subsequent policy measures will largely be based on high-level political judgment. Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States defined the situation as entering a state of war and has been engaged in a six-front war encompassing military, diplomatic, economic, intelligence, security, and political dimensions to this day. Setting aside the debate on the appropriateness of America's strategic decision, Korea can draw the implication that an authoritative definition of the crisis and social consensus are necessary to navigate such situations. The effectiveness of the government's announcement on the cause of the Cheonan sinking will depend not only on scientific persuasiveness but also on the Korean people's trust in the government and active cooperation with neighboring countries and the international community.

Alongside the investigation into the cause, it is imperative to simultaneously recognize the need for an overall characterization of the Cheonan incident. The incident raises fundamental issues in the five areas currently confronting Korea: military, diplomatic, economic, political, and intelligence. Only by presenting specific measures for each sector within a comprehensive understanding, rather than focusing on isolated reflections and countermeasures, can we find a path to resolving the Cheonan incident, which is entering a new phase.

From a military perspective, the Cheonan incident starkly illustrates the violent situation confronting the Korean Peninsula. It serves as a reminder of the ever-present danger of violence while also revealing the current state of South Korea's defense policy. The incident exposed shortcomings in the initial reporting and response systems immediately following the sinking, a lack of close cooperation between the government and the military, and limitations in public communication and persuasion. Furthermore, in a situation where it was difficult to quickly ascertain the cause of the sinking at the site, the government and military were swayed by non-expert opinions and exposed deficiencies in their usual defense posture, thereby amplifying public anxiety about security. As theories of North Korean attack emerged, problems also surfaced, including an inaccurate assessment of North Korea's military threat, a lack of awareness and preparedness for anti-submarine defense in the West Sea, and ineptitude in responding due to limited intelligence on North Korean military movements.

It is most urgent for the government to fundamentally examine the problems in South Korea's defense strategy, which have been made evident by the Cheonan incident, and to formulate countermeasures. It is necessary to thoroughly assess the sources, nature, and possibilities of threats to South Korea's security and to establish a comprehensive preparedness system for future incidents, as well as for all conceivable scenarios. The current administration faced the Cheonan incident without a fundamental review of the defense reform plans of previous administrations and a clear strategic direction. A long-term, strategic re-examination is needed that can encompass the various arguments currently being raised, such as the revival of the 'North Korea as the principal enemy' concept, the postponement of the return of wartime operational control, and the increase in defense spending. The review of defense matters should not be limited to the Cheonan incident but should be a comprehensive review that considers security and diplomacy in tandem.

The core of the military response to the Cheonan incident is the prevention of recurrence. It must be made clear that any force threatening South Korea's security and undermining stability on the Korean Peninsula will face legitimate and unified retribution not only from South Korea but also from the international community. Military responses must be integrated with diplomatic, economic, and political responses. While strengthening South Korea's independent defense capabilities, the military readiness of the ROK-US alliance must be complemented more actively and diversely. In pursuing diplomatic responses to the international community, such as the United Nations, support for South Korea's military response must be secured.

It is also true that South Korea's military response has limitations. Considering the rapidly changing geopolitical landscape in Northeast Asia and South Korea's national strategy to emerge as a mid-tier global power, it is difficult to continuously pursue military responses that escalate tensions on the Korean Peninsula. Neighboring countries such as the United States and China would also find it difficult to tolerate a situation where rising tensions on the Korean Peninsula infringe upon their own interests. Furthermore, considering South Korea's other major diplomatic objectives, such as the G20 Summit scheduled for November, military responses must be thorough and sustained, yet also conducted in a manner that does not escalate tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

From a diplomatic standpoint, the Cheonan incident has already entered a new phase. Through persistent and sustained diplomatic efforts, South Korea must make it clear that any act undermining stability on the Korean Peninsula will bring severely negative repercussions, such as political and economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation, upon those who lead or support such acts, and must strive to prevent all forms of provocation from occurring.

The neighboring countries of the Korean Peninsula are keenly watching how the cause of the Cheonan incident will be determined and in what direction future developments will proceed, meticulously calculating their own national interests. The United States, judging that international politics in East Asia is undergoing fundamental changes, has emphasized relations with its allies above all else. This is because, in a situation where the rise of China and various forms of multilateralism are reshaping the landscape of East Asia, maintaining relations with existing allies is considered extremely important, alongside actively participating in strategic cooperation with China and multilateral cooperation. As the cooperative relationship with the Hatoyama government enters a period of adjustment, the ROK-US alliance is gaining increasing significance for the United States. The United States has expressed its full support for South Korea's response to the Cheonan incident. The issue is that the Obama administration, which advocates for a world without nuclear weapons, cannot indefinitely neglect the North Korean nuclear issue. While currently aligning with the South Korean government's policy of "resolving the Cheonan incident first, then pursuing Six-Party Talks," the ROK-US cooperative relationship could face difficulties if South Korea does not present a comprehensive view on what resolving the Cheonan incident entails, what the deadline for resolution is, and what the future policy direction toward North Korea will be.

If the Cheonan incident is determined to be North Korea's act, China will face a very difficult situation, no less so than South Korea. China, which must maintain its alliance with North Korea while continuing to uphold its status as a responsible major power, has recently held consecutive summit meetings with South Korea and North Korea, making efforts to cope with the future situation. While acknowledging the scientific process of South Korea's investigation, China, which met with Chairman Kim Jong-il to discuss the succession plan and agreed to provide economic assistance, is grappling with the goal of stability on the Korean Peninsula, which is absolutely essential for peaceful development. By meeting North Korea's political and economic demands while strongly demanding strategic communication regarding North Korea's future domestic and foreign policies, China is striving to prevent situations where it faces difficulties in its economic development and diplomatic standing due to North Korea. Whether China will share the results of South Korea's investigation and cooperate on countermeasures will be determined in light of the shared strategic objective of stability on the Korean Peninsula and peaceful development. Given that China's cooperation is crucial for peace on the Korean Peninsula, South Korea must present its countermeasures to the Cheonan incident through a calm and deliberate process, viewed within the context of a long-term strategy for the Korean Peninsula, in order to secure China's support.

South Korea's diplomatic response must be not only firm but also exemplary for the international community. As South Korea emerges as a host of numerous international conferences, including the G20 Summit, it must demonstrate leadership and adhere to international norms and standards in its response to the Cheonan incident. While mobilizing all available diplomatic means, it must fully utilize multilateral diplomatic arenas, including the United Nations, to achieve effective results.

When security crises like the Cheonan incident occur on the Korean Peninsula, the South Korean economy is the most vulnerable. South Korea's economy, which is externally open, is inevitably directly influenced by foreign perceptions of security on the peninsula. There is no room for debate that securing international backing by appropriately managing security crises and strengthening the ROK-US alliance is crucial for economic development. If securing robust national security guarantees sustained economic development, then effective fiscal support, relatively free from fluctuations in economic conditions, must be secured to maintain and strengthen this security posture. The Cheonan incident clearly exposed problems with the poor working environment, equipment, and weapon systems of the Navy and the South Korean military. Due to two economic crises, the upward trend in defense spending slowed, and investment to realize the defense reform plans envisioned by the previous administration rapidly decreased. Ultimately, a revised plan to reduce defense spending was created, but the Cheonan incident has served as a reminder that defense plans must be determined not only by economic conditions but also by the level of security threats and the needs of defense strategy. In the future, it will be necessary to set and pursue the complex goals of a welfare-security state.

With North Korea being identified as responsible for the Cheonan incident, securing economic leverage over North Korea is a useful means of ensuring South Korea's security. While means such as economic sanctions are useful within certain limits, securing economic leverage for the stability of the Korean Peninsula and inter-Korean relations in the future is also important. Currently, North Korea is increasing its economic dependence on China amidst strained inter-Korean relations. China is adjusting the level of economic cooperation and providing aid to North Korea to maintain its influence within the scope of compliance with UN sanctions resolutions against North Korea. In the future, South Korea will have to further contemplate the dual game of actively intervening to secure economic leverage in inter-Korean trade, Geumgangsan tourism, and the Kaesong Industrial Complex, while simultaneously retreating from economic cooperation as a means of sanction against North Korea. As securing leverage over North Korea is important for South Korea to take the lead in Korean Peninsula issues, it must be able to increase North Korea's economic dependence on South Korea and, when necessary, enhance the effectiveness of sanctions.

The Cheonan incident has exposed both the limitations of the government's ability to respond to security crises and the limitations of political leaders. The government revealed its limitations in crisis management capabilities, which involve promptly and accurately assessing the situation and defining its nature to formulate a response. The moment problems arise in prior consultation and joint response among government ministries, the public loses trust in the government's announcements and cannot support subsequent measures. Given the rapidly changing geopolitical situation in Northeast Asia and the circumstances in North Korea, security crises on the Korean Peninsula are issues that can recur at any time. The Cheonan incident should serve as an opportunity to demonstrate the rectification of the crisis response system.

When a national security crisis occurs, political leaders must demonstrate their commitment to public responsibility for national security interests, transcending political gain. They must exercise restraint from all actions that could harm immediate security interests for partisan gain, and even possess the responsibility to endure political losses. Ultimately, such conduct will serve as a strategy for achieving long-term political interests. In confronting the Cheonan incident, political leaders are still engaging in political disputes over the cause of the incident and the government's response methods, and are failing to provide leadership in guiding public opinion. While it is naturally necessary to establish a system where both ruling and opposition parties jointly consider security crises, it is time to reflect on the mindset of leaders in responding to crises.

Social actors such as the media and civil society groups must also demonstrate a responsible attitude by worrying about security crises together and engaging in constructive discussions. The media has disseminated unverified information and opinions for sensational and differentiated reporting, and various organizations have also participated in the dissemination of information through online channels. While the production of public discourse through free and diverse expression of opinions and discussions is an essential element of democracy, it is also necessary for all citizens involved in production and dissemination to reflect on their role as responsible democratic citizens.

Finally, the Cheonan incident highlights the seriousness of intelligence failures. It appears the government had not acquired any intelligence prior to the sinking of the Cheonan that could have predicted it. The revelation that no intelligence was available regarding potential crisis situations for a large 1,200-ton warship conducting regular patrol activities in the West Sea exposed the limitations of South Korea's defense intelligence capabilities. This, in turn, confirms how difficult it is to acquire intelligence on uncertain and asymmetric security threats. While the current state of intelligence capabilities will be further confirmed during the investigation into the cause, measures to enhance defense intelligence functions must also be presented.

Intelligence failure is not solely a government problem. The limitations of national intelligence capabilities regarding the cause of the sinking have also been starkly revealed. Many private experts and scholars, while repeatedly discussing the cause of the sinking, have failed to narrow their differing opinions and reach a consensus. Social actors have also demonstrated a problem of disseminating information without rationally synthesizing it and elevating it to the level of knowledge. The Cheonan incident has once again shown how important it is to establish a national knowledge network capable of resolving crises amidst the flood of information in the age of information.

Given the multifaceted lessons from the Cheonan incident, South Korea's response must be a long-term, multifaceted, five-dimensional approach. When all specific countermeasures are pursued effectively and continuously, the Cheonan incident will remain a painful but valuable lesson for enhancing South Korea's security capabilities. The Cheonan incident is inevitably linked to the rapidly changing inter-Korean relations mediated by the violent order on the Korean Peninsula, the North Korean nuclear issue, and the future of North Korea. Countermeasures to the Cheonan incident must be pursued while simultaneously considering their connection to future strategies toward North Korea and diplomatic strategies.■

Chair

Ha Young-sun (Seoul National University)

Member

Lee Sook-jong (EAI President, Sungkyunkwan University)

Chun Jae-sung (Seoul National University)

Cho Jeong-hyun (Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security)

Cha Doo-hyun (Korea Institute for Defense Analyses)

[EAI Commentary] aims to provide in-depth analysis and practical alternatives through a balanced perspective on major domestic and international issues. Please cite the source when quoting [EAI Commentary].