Challenges for the Denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula

The current nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula is worsening. North Korea actually boasts its nuclear capabilities and other countries including South Korea are showing few reactions.

What drives the current crisis worse?

Not to mention NPR(Nuclear Posture Review), the Bush administration’s report, which mentions a possibility of a nuclear pre-emptive attack against North Korea, the United States has been wielding nuclear threats against North Korea — more than twenty times since the end of the Korean War. After many complications, the six-party talks produced fruitful consequences – the two joint statements, called 9.19 in 2005 and 2.13 in 2007. These statements shed some light on the hopes that peace could finally come to the Korean peninsula – that a peace agreement will replace the armistice of the Korean War, which, technically, is an unended war.

There were some positive signs even last year: North Korea publicly and symbolically destroyed a cooling tower, one of nuclear facilities, an event broadcast on CNN around the world, and submitted to the United States a 60-page report on its nuclear program; the United States, had resolved North Korea’s BDA accounts issue which had been freezed by the United States due to the United States’ economic sanctions against North Korea, removed North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism finally. But, the progress between the two countries faltered when North Korea disagreed on terms proposed by the Bush administration for verification. The Obama administration had received a great amount of attention from East Asian countries since during the campaign trail, Barack Obama, as a presidential candidate, repeatedly stated direct negotiations with North Korea and his faith in the possibility of a nuclear-free world. However, the Obama administration turned out to be quiet or ignorant on the North Korea issues; in the meanwhile the situation has become worse and worse.

While the Obama administration’s review on the North Korea issue was delayed, North Korea’s dissatisfaction was materialized this year, when the United States and South Korea conducted the annual joint military drill in March after two countries made the serious health condition of Kim Jong-il public. In April, North Korea test-fired a long-range rocket, proclaiming its rights to peacefully use the space; the Security Council of the United Nations issued a resolution as a reaction, pressing all its members to carry out sanctions on North Korea. North Korea declared it was now permanantly out of the six-party talks and, in May, set off the second nuclear test that it had warned of. The United Nations adopted highly strong measures, including inspection of North Korea’s cargo vessels suspected of carrying weapons and financial sanctions; North Korea reacted to the resolution, stating that it would begin reprocessing fuel rods and enriching uranium. In the following summit meeting, President Lee Myung-bak and the United States’ president Obama announced that the United States would provide “a nuclear umbrella” for South Korea, and the two countries would pursue a peaceful reunification of the South and North based on the principles of “liberal democracy and market economy”. In a chain of actions and counter-actions between North Korea and other countries, the situation has become worse.

There are several interpretations on North Korea’s hard-line actions. Some argue that North Korea opts for the hard-line approach in order to successfully inherit the throne to son of its leader, Kim Jong-il and, at the same time, tighten the grip of the inner-governance. However, this sort of reasoning has often been used to justify the relevant countries’ failure of foreign policies. Another interpretation is that what North Korea really wants to get is a higher ground in negotiating with the United States; that it intends to abandon the nuclear capability after first normalizing the relationship with the United States, thereby maximizing its negotiating power, instead of equally exchanging its nuclear capability with the normalization of relationship.

Also, there are some other issues in the backdrop: the verification of North Korea’s nuclear capability is still a source of disagreement; the Obama administration’s policies toward North Korea appear less than concrete; North Korea is still at odds with the relevant countries over the promised provision of fuel.

Furthermore, another factor is the worsening relationship between South and North Korea since the outset of the Lee administration. The Lee administration, whose main line of policy toward North Korea was based on the notion that the South would financially help the North if the North abandoned its nuclear ambition and opened its markets, has been very unsuccessful in its attempt to deal with the North: it has been insisting North Korea abandon its nuclear arsenal, as a precondition for a dialogue; it has isolated the Ministry of Reunification, which is in charge of bettering the relationship with the North; it nullified two South-North joint declarations of 6.15 and 10.4, blaming the predecessor administrations for having given financial support to the North.

At the same time, the civilian travel program in North Korea’s Gumgang mountain has been halted due to a killing of a South Korean tourist by a North Korean guard last year, and the fate of the Gaesung industrial complex is less than certain. Currently, North Korea declared the nullification of the contracts, requested the South to significantly raise the wage and rent, and detained a Hyundai employee on charge of blaming the North Korean government. There were no official meetings, family reunions, or humanitarian food support between South and North Korea during the Lee administration. After North Korea detonated its nuclear device, South Korea declared its participation in the PSI(Proliferation Security Initiative) program, part of which outlines the blockade on North Korea; North Korea reacted by declaring the nullification of the armistice that was signed after the Korean War. Only a year after the outset of the Lee administration, the South-North relationship has worsened to an unprecedented extent, and now it is said that the situation could get even worse to the point that a military conflict is possible in the near future.

Another challenge is that the two Koreas are entering an era of mutual nuclear deterrence as in the Cold War period. Now, some people in South Korea argue for its sovereign rights to develop nuclear devices. While the United States officially confirmed that it will stretch its nuclear umbrella for South Korea in case of military conflicts, South Korean government announced that it will try to revise the U.S.-South Korea atomic energy accord in order to be guaranteed a right to peacefully use the atomic energy.

Worsening arms race in Northeast Asia and the security dilemma
(See the website http://pacificfreeze.ips-dc.org/2009/04/interviewmilitary-spending-in-the-asia-pacific-region/)

One of the important challenges for Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia is how to deal with worsening arms race in the region. For the last 10 years, global military spending has surged by 65% and kept increased about 10% each year. Collectively, participants of Six Party Talks account for 65% of world total. Wars have broken out in Iraq and Afghanistan but the most popular customers of the global military-industrial complex are Northeast Asian countries. Six Party Talks insist that peace system is their agenda but in reality, massive arms race in Northeast Asia is threatening to shift into overdrive. 

As everybody knows, 41.5% of world military expenditure is made by the U.S. In order to keep its unrivaled position in Northeast Asia, the U.S. incites arms race by selling more armaments to Korea and Japan. China’ spending on weapon acquisition is growing and Russia allocates more and more budget on defense. North Korea spends relatively low amount due to long and serious economic crisis. Even then, it has started to develop dangerous nuclear weapons giving justifiable pretext to other nations for arms race.

Japan operates under Peace Constitution. China places emphasis on soft power. North Korea lacks resources. Despite of all these, all the Northeast Asian countries including Russia are pumping staggering amount of money into new weapon systems and increasing offensive capabilities. Korea uses absurd conventional threats of North Korea to justify itself for immense defense cost.

Even though Japan has kept its limit of military expenditures to an informal ceiling of 1% of overall budget, it had been bigger than any other four nations of Northeast Asia until China unofficially surpassed Japan in defense spending for the first time in 2006. Japan already possesses the most powerful Navy and Air Force after the U.S. In spite of Peace Constitution, Japanese Self-Defense Forces are active in Iraq and Afghanistan supporting multinational forces. The Japanese Defense Agency was upgraded to ministry level and covets goodies like aircraft carrier, nuclear-powered submarines, long-range missiles and F-22 stealth planes. Japan focuses on missile defense system giving an excuse of defending itself from North Korea. In point of fact, the target is China. It also spends billions of dollars to set up an early–warning-and-response prototype. On the ground, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) surface–to-air interceptor has been installed. Sea-based interceptor test was conducted. Even militarization of space in Northeast Asia is headed by Japan.

Korea is not an exception. The policy to beef up military power has continued from Kim Dae-jung to Roh Moo-hyun and the current Lee Myung-bak government. Military budget has increased 7 to 9% every year and 15% of 2010 national finance goes for defense. Korea is one of the five exclusive countries which possess technology for Aegis-equipped destroyer.

Under this circumstance, Russia and China are pouring a great amount of money in missile development and improving defensive system. As a matter of fact, China spends 100 billion dollars for arms and aims to acquire military power as much as economic influence it has now. 

The U.S. has made the biggest expenditure ever on developing the most advanced weapons but could not use against Al-Qaeda and Taliban. To justify this expenditure, it exaggerated threats of China. Consequently, it accelerated China to beef up its military.  

Flush with oil and natural gas revenues, Russia has regained its place as the world’s second largest arms dealer. To reinstate superpower status, it does not hesitate to spend more for its armaments. Between 2000 and 2006, Russia’s expenditure on weapon purchase has increased nearly four-fold. It plans to replace half of its arsenal with new weaponry by 2015. Recently on July 13, Russia successfully launched ballistic missile, range of 8000km. However, international society did not pay attention to this as much as it did to North Korea’s long range rocket. Surrounded by strong nations, North Korea spends a quarter of total budget for arms race and enthusiastic to own nuclear.

Resolution of Nuclear Issues and Pursuit of Peace in the East Asia

It is not that there is no solution; there are simply no strong will and mutual trust. It is true that North Korea’s hard-line policy does not help the situation become better. Also, other countries are currently incapable of creating a circumstances and conditions for dialogues and negotiations. Yet, each nation’s foreign policy must be deliberate and consistent.

The goal is clear. It is to stop North Korea’s nuclear ambition and to abide by the principle of no nuclear weapons in the Korean peninsula. Therefore, we should ask North Korea to stop additional nuclear detonations and to eliminate its existing nuclear weapons. At the same time, we should create circumstances in which North Korea has compelling reasons to give up its arsenal.

Currently, the attitudes of South Korea and Japan are not helpful in resolving the situation. South Korean government expects the North cannot last forever with its hard-line policy and even hopes that the North would throw a white towel. However, the fact is that North Korea achieved an even higher performances of economic development last year, when there was no financial support from the South, and the current food situation is even more stable than before. For these reasons, it sounds even more persuasive that South Korea’s main policy toward the North should be changed. The beginning should be marked with well-deserved respect and implementation for the joint agreements of 6.15 and 10.4.

It appears that Japan exaggerates North Korea’s threat, due to its domestic political situation; this escalates its people’s anxiety. Making people despise North Korea and exploiting the current situation for the purpose of domestic politics, is not helpful in resoloving the issues. Japan not only maintains a huge amount of plutonium and is capable of accumulating much more in the future, but it is also capable of launching much more advanced missiles than is North Korea. There is a possibility that Japan’s political power could be shifted by an election for the very first time. We hope to see a change in Japan’s foreign policy.

Currently, we, at PSPD, are studying the United Nation’s efforts for non-proliferation and denuclearization, and analyzing each nation’s stance toward the current situation. We strive to publicize the fact that South Korean government is passive and self-contradictory in its attempt to stop the nuclear production and proliferation, rather than sincerely participating in the international community’s efforts for reduction of nuclear weapons. It is also important to monitor the military build-up among the East Asian countries and to exchange relevant information. The military race in the East Asia is done at the expense of ordinary citizens’ lowered quality of life. People should know military race only escalates mutual threats, not guaranteeing anyone’s security. Especially, the military budget should be freezed so that the national budget for welfare would not be compromised.