Subscribe
E-Paper
 |
| Ruling Democratic Party of Korea presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung, third from left, speaks during a joint interview with The Korea Times, the South China Morning Post and Reuters at the party's headquarters on Yeouido, Seoul, Wednesday. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul |
Ruling party candidate seeks to introduce nuclear submarines
By Nam Hyun-woo, Kang Seung-woo, Jung Da-min
Polarization has been aggravated here in various social sectors as well as the economy and education, especially for the last two years amid the COVID-19 pandemic. But the resolution to this problem doesn't lie in a choice between growth and distribution, because distribution through efficient means will lead to a virtuous circle of consumption, demand, investment and growth, said ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung.
Lee is seeking a shift toward renewable energy, but his policy ideas are slightly different from the current Moon Jae-in government, and he advocates South Korea having nuclear submarines while opposing calls from the conservative bloc for the redeployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons.
Below is an excerpt from The Korea Times' interview with Lee conducted jointly with Reuters and the South China Morning Post at the party's headquarters in Yeouido, Seoul, Wednesday.
Q: The economic and educational divides are becoming more prevalent in the wake of the pandemic. Where can you find the reason for the widening gaps and how would you solve this problem? And what is your view on balancing between economic distribution and growth?
A: Social polarization is a problem because resources are concentrated in a certain class, causing inefficiency and undermining growth potential.
We are witnessing low growth, young people in growing conflicts among themselves due to limited opportunities and a low birthrate which brings greater sustainability concerns regarding this country. Polarization is no longer a matter of sentiment; it is a serious social problem that impedes societal development.
Due to this, I as well as many international economic organizations have advised that narrowing the social gap guarantees growth, and that fair opportunities and fair competition enable sustainable growth.
And this is what I call "growth through fairness." If we distribute social resources in a way of alleviating inequality and imbalances, this resuscitates growth potential. Recovering the power balance between conglomerates and small- and medium-sized enterprises, alleviating the conflicts between regular and irregular workers, resolving the growth imbalance between Seoul and other areas and addressing gender inequality ― these are what I call growth through fairness, which is the same as seeking growth through alleviating polarization.
In the past, it was correct to say stronger distribution restricts economic growth, because we had scarce resources and invested them into a single target for high growth. Companies supported back then are now called "chaebol," and Seoul and surrounding areas prospered. And this is an obstacle for us now ― chaebol are making trouble and discrimination is prevalent against remote regions far from the capital.
Now, things have changed. We have enough money to invest but there is nowhere to invest, because there is no demand, because of weakened consumption stemming from a relative decline in income.
International economic organizations are now encouraging countries to strengthen distribution in the name of inclusive growth. The world is now transitioning to an era in which enhanced distribution and welfare are stimulating economic growth. So the two values are not contradicting. It is important to seek a balance between distribution and growth.
Q: Please introduce your basic income, housing and finance policies.
A: (After achieving rights, freedoms and a basic social safety net,) now we should focus on basic economic rights, which deal with creating a society where we enjoy basic economic affluence, a certain level of income for us to enjoy life. I call this basic income.
To maintain the capitalist market economy, the basic income scheme serves a role of creating a minimum level of consumer demand. It can boost consumption to maintain demand, and this will assist the economic virtuous cycle as well as alleviating social and economic polarization.
Secondly, housing is a serious issue. There are only two choices: either you buy a home or rent one. As an alternative, the public can provide housing to even the middle classes. It doesn't matter whether they buy or rent other homes with their own money.
The third one is basic finance. Banks set low interest rates, but people can't borrow. On the other hand, there are people borrowing money from private moneylenders at high interest rates. This makes no sense. Why do banks not loan money to such people? Why do banks lend money only to the rich and socially acknowledged people at low interest rates and why do they force out the have-nots to loan sharks?
 |
| Ruling Democratic Party of Korea presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung poses before a joint interview with The Korea Times, the South China Morning Post and Reuters at the party's headquarters in Yeouido, Seoul, Wednesday. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul |
Q: What is your view on the Moon Jae-in administration's policy on nuclear energy?
A: We should focus on renewable energy sources while reducing the use of nuclear energy. There are calls for the country to use nuclear energy because it is cheap. Although it is cheap, it is dangerous and nuclear waste takes tens of thousands of years to process.
Nominally, nuclear energy is cheap. However, according to Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and many scholars, generating electricity from new renewable energy is estimated to turn cheaper than from nuclear power plants within 10 years. In fact, wind power and other renewable energies have become more economical than thermal power generation in Europe and are expected to go lower than nuclear energy. It takes roughly 10 years to build a new nuclear plant. We don't know what will happen then. Also given the costs for processing nuclear wastes, it is not a cheap power source.
To sum up, I'll have the country use existing nuclear power plants, continue to build the ones that it has been building and close them one by one when they retire. During that time, we'll set up infrastructure for a transition to renewable energy production.
Q: Do you believe South Korea needs nuclear submarines? What's your opinion about cooperation with the U.S. on this issue?
A: I do believe South Korea needs nuclear submarines, given the country's military sovereignty. We need to look into whether nuclear submarines are a violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and in the circumstance of Australia seeking to build one, the question will be whether a nuclear submarine is a weapon or not.
The reason why South Korea is unable to pursue a nuclear submarine program is its atomic energy agreement with the U.S., and I don't see any other obstacle. So, it is now about whether we should abide by the agreement or persuade the U.S. I believe we can persuade the U.S. through negotiations.
A nuclear submarine itself is not a weapons, and the U.S. is transferring technologies to Australia. Given these, we believe we can persuade the U.S. for South Korea to introduce nuclear submarines and we have to do so. Since the Korean Peninsula is surrounded by water, nuclear submarines are essential, as they can carry out lengthy underwater operations at a low cost.
Q: Some members of the country's conservative bloc say the U.S.' tactical nuclear weapons should be redeployed here and some others even say South Korea should develop its own. What is your view?
A: I see it's unfortunate that Yoon Suk-yeol, the presidential candidate of the main opposition conservative party, has made such a claim.
If tactical nuclear weapons are redeployed, it would bring about a nuclear arms race among East Asian countries. Then North Korea would see fewer reasons to give up its nuclear weapons. Japan could use it as justification for developing its own nuclear weapons. More importantly, the U.S. side has opposed it. I want to ask Yoon how he will push ahead with it when the U.S. says no.
Q: What is "national interest-centered programmatic diplomacy" and how do you plan to deal with the strategic competition between the U.S. and China?
A: Amid the intensifying Sino-U.S. rivalry, South Korea has seen less room to maneuver, but I don't think we deserve to face pressure to pick a side because we are maintaining strategic ambiguity. South Korea is the world's 10th-largest economy, while possessing the world's sixth-most-powerful military, so why should we be pressured to make a choice in accordance with other countries' interests?
I think the situation is coming where we can make decisions independently, putting our national interests first. Rather than South Korea having to pick a side, it will take diplomatic prowess to encourage the U.S. and China to reach out to us for cooperation.
Any thinking that we have to choose between the two is a very disgraceful approach. Given that our national power, military power, especially soft power, are now completely different from the past, we had better call it that Korea makes independent decisions rather than sticking to strategic ambiguity. The nation needs to make decisions case by case, based on national interest.
Q: Frayed relations between South Korea and Japan have continued for a long time. In addition, Tokyo has urged Seoul to come up with acceptable solutions regarding wartime sex slavery and forced labor issues. What do you think is an ideal approach to restore bilateral ties?
A: Japan is Korea's very close neighbor and our bilateral relations cannot be ignored. My position on our relations is to find an opportunity for co-existence and co-prosperity, but it is not easy because both sides tend to approach bilateral issues politically.
Although South Korea and Japan have to build future-oriented bilateral ties, historical issues are holding them back as Japan has refused to acknowledge its wartime atrocities perpetrated against neighboring countries in East Asia. In that respect, I advise Japan to follow in the footsteps of Germany, which has become a globally leading country after making a sincere apology for its wartime atrocities, highlighted by former Chancellor Willy Brandt's apology for Nazi crimes at the Warsaw Ghetto memorial.
I stick to a two-track approach toward Japan that separates historical and territorial disputes from social and economic cooperation. The most ideal solution is that Japan should face up to history and acknowledge it.
Q: Nuclear negotiations with North Korea have been stalemated. What is your plan to revive the talks? What is your opinion on sanctions relief and an end-of-war declaration?
A: When it comes to proceeding negotiations over the North Korean nuclear issue, there are many different ways including so-called top-down diplomacy preferred by former U.S. President Donald Trump and bottom-up diplomacy pursued by current U.S. President Joe Biden.
I believe we could adopt various ways based on our needs, and a summit and working-level negotiations are both needed to make things work in a virtuous circle.
This process of denuclearization talks should be based on the mutual interests of the countries involved. Much more efforts are needed to understand each other's stances through continuous communications and to build mutual trust. In such a process, the role of the South Korean government is crucial.
Pyongyang and Washington have been in parallel, with the former demanding visible measures such as retracting hostile policies against it as a prerequisite, while the latter is demanding talks to address such issues as a whole.
So it is South Korea's role to narrow the gap. Amid the distrust against each other, I find a step-by-step, simultaneous approach to denuclearization more reasonable. As both the U.S. and the North say they cannot trust each other's commitments, I believe a very reasonable way would be to apply a so-called "snapback clause," meaning sanctions can be imposed again in case agreements are violated.
The matter of an end-of-war declaration is something the two Koreas have agreed upon at inter-Korean summits. Even though it is just a declaration, formally ending the Korean War is an important task. However, I am concerned that members of the country's conservative bloc are using the matters of diplomacy and security for their political interests by causing unnecessary controversy.
