The Entrenched Crisis of the Korean Peninsula

The escalating crisis in Korean Peninsula

The tension in Korean Peninsula has been high since North Korea took a series of serious military actions. On April 5, North Korea launched the multistage rocket. The UN Security Council condemned the North Korea violated the resolution 1718, and it adopted the chairman statement which promulgated a group of sanctions against North Korea, which exacerbated the situation by provoking a further reaction from North Korea. North Korea previously announced if the UNSC do not withdraw the statement and apologize, it will go ahead and conduct a nuclear test and the ICBM launching test, in the name of ‘self-defense’ against the animosity expressed in the form of the chairman statement. 

We, PSPD, have tried to clarify our position on the issue, that the North Korea’s thrust can hardly be justified because it will lead to the wide-ranging security anxiety and the acceleration of arms race in the Northeast Asia which is about to rise. However, we think it is open to controversy whether North Korean rocket-launching has actually violated the resolution 1718, considering the spirit of the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. And the way the UNSC’s responded in this matter does not help to bring in the peace momentum because it has too much recourse to the method of sanction and pressure, which only made worse the already aggravated situation.

North Korea conducted the nuclear test on May 25. It is only two years after the North Korea’s first nuclear test. We have noticed that explosive power of the second one was far larger than the first one by 8 to 10 times. We came to face the fact that North Korea is capable of developing an effective nuclear weapon, though its  power would be not as strong as even the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

North Korea’s nuclear test immediately brought about a series of reaction on the part of South Korean government and international society as a whole. South Korean government announced a full participation in the so-called Proliferation Security Initiative, which North Korea has already branded as a war declaration against itself. On June 12, the UNSC adopted the resolution 1874. This resolution contains a wider range sanctions than the resolution 1718. The very next day, North Korean foreign ministry pronounced three measures to take in response to South Korea and UN. First, it commences the program of the enrichment of uranium, second, the plutonium produced henceforward will be entirely appropriated for military uses. Third, it is going to regard any possible blockade by UN Security Council as a downright hostility against it.

The intention of North Korea

There were two nuclear crisis in the Korean peninsula since the end of the Cold War. The first one that erupted in 1993 was resolved by the Geneva Agreement between NK – US. And the second one was concluded by the Six-Party’s Talk and its communique on September 19. And the situation that started with the recent rocket-launching and nuclear test could be called the third North Korean nuclear crisis. But the third one has a distinguishable characteristic. In contrast to the first and second crisis where North Korea did know how to alternate between reconciliation and intransigence, this third crisis is characterized by inflexibility on the part of North Korea.
  
For the explanation of this inflexibility and intransigence, there are two theories emphasizing internal and external sources, respectively. The ‘internal’ theory remotely originated from the Theory of Implosion once fashinable in 1990s, and focuses on the necessity of fortifying the existing Kim Jong-il regime that is expecting the succession to the next leader sooner or later. This theory is subscribed to and even espoused by the incumbent Lee Myeong-bak administration in South Korea, since its intelligence loves to put forward this theory in whatever occasions. The ‘external’ theory highlights the impatience that North Korea has had concerning the pace of North Korea-US talk since the start of Obama administration. want to have the initiative at the negotiation with the US. The Obama administration has shown the gesture of making less of North Korean issue. So North Korea had to rely on using force to push hard the Obama administration to choose either immediately coming to table talk, or just watching North Korea emerging as a de facto nuclear power in this sensitive region. 

North Korea has long set its national purpose to establish itself as ‘Powerful and Prosperous Nation’ by 2012. It is absolutely indispensable to normalize the relationship with US for this grand project to be implemented, because the plan requires a massive inflow of foreign capital for revitalizing its devastated industries and other economic sectors as well as for a further long-term development toward full-blown industrial economy.

The US-ROK summit talks and Obama administration’s policies to the North Korea

The Korean President and U.S. President released a joint statement entitled “Joint Vision for the Alliance of the Republic of Korea and the United States of America,” right after the summit-talks that took place on June 16. The statement expects that “the continuing commitment of extended deterrence, including the U.S. nuclear umbrella…leads to peaceful reunification on the principles of free democracy and a market economy”. However, it is absolutely crucial to recognize this “extended deterrence” is much more prone to a further conflicts and confrontations rather than to resolution of the crisis. The reference to the ‘nuclear umbrella’ is not only violating the principle of the de-nuclearization of Korean Peninsula but also giving the best excuse for North Korea to indulge in developing more nuclear arms. Having said this, it is hardly acceptable that the president Obama endorsed the statement. Because this is diametrically opposed to the Obama’s expressed cause for the “world without the nuclear weapons” 

The Obama administration has not yet lined up its North Korean specialists within the State Department. For example, Kurt Campbell, the former CEO of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), was nominated as an assistant secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific affairs quite a while ago, but it is only June 26 that the nomination was confirmed in the Senate. Consequently, the Obama administration does not seem to have very well-developed policy line for the Korean Peninsula as a whole. It is possible to view the North Korea’s recent hard-line as the strategy of exploiting the transitional phase as much as possible.  

A report by CNAS suggests to US government the “strategic management” approach. It said a strategy of external attempt for regime change or a military attack to North Korea is out of the reality. Instead, the report concluded, the US should combine the long-term objective of North Korea’s de-nuclearization through negotiations with the short-term objectives of dealing with the threat of the proliferation by reinforcing the sanctions against the North Korea.

The Obama administration is shifting from the present strategy of “neglecting quietly” to the “strategic management” approach. Problem is that the shift is too time-consuming. It takes much more than just one single step to shift from pushing for sanctions to promoting dialogue. We expect North Korea chooses to first acquire nuclear capacity, and only then will demand the normal diplomatic relationship with US using the nuclear power as a leverage. Maybe the next step North Korea directs to could be the de-nuclearization of the whole Korean Peninsula. What will be the response from Kurt Campbell? The opening of the US-NK talk seems to depend heavily on his response, but, as of now, it is hard to tell how things will unfold.

The problem of the Lee Administration’s North Korean policies

As is well known, inter-Korean relationship is deteriorating. Kaesong Industrial Complex, the symbol of reconciliation and cooperation, is on the verge of closing down. Moreover, the concern over military collision is increasing. In this period of the third North Korean nuclear crisis, it is South Korea that should hold the key. However, the Korean government had failed to show either the initiative or the earnest to solve the problem.

From the beginning, the incumbent Lee administration had defined the Kim Dae-Jung and Roh Mu-hyun administration period as the “lost decade”, and has denied both the June 15 and Oct. 4 joint declarations between two Koreas that were made in each two past administration. As I have mentioned before, the Lee administration has announced its full participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative, which North Korea had condemned as a declaration of war. What is worse, the government officials are presenting distorted information, and are even profusely sending out statements that South Korea may carry out a pre-emptive attack on North Korea. The only agenda South Korean government is sincerely active is to promote the North Korea Human Rights Resolution and North Korea Sanctions Resolution. Granted that North Korea should supremely be held responsible for this nuclear crisis, South Korea cannot be exempted from accusation that it offered a cause for the crisis by reversing the inter-Korean relationship and relapsing into the Cold War type of policies. .

To make it worse, South Korean government has pushed for the necessity of US nuclear umbrella and the Atomic Energy.. Such action is evident fact that it is South Korean government that is violating the principle of denuclearization in the Korean peninsula. In the meantime, the Cold-War minded press in South Korean is almost making propaganda for assaulting on the North-South Agreement on Denuclearization because it is a hindrance to South Korea’s possibility of retaining nuclear weapons. These actions and statements are vivid examples of hypocrisy hidden in their voices condemning  North Korea’s nuclear test. This also implies a dangerous notion of “fighting a nuclear weapon with a nuclear weapon”. Thus, the civil society, in hope of peace, is holding a deep regret and concern over the South Korean government’s policy direction.

Recently, PSPD has examined the chronicle of South Korea’s vote in many nuclear weapons resolutions in the UN history. We found that the record of its voting sharply contradicts its expressed position toward nuclear disarmament and non-nuclear states’ effort to enhance Negative Security Assurances. The Korean government has consistently abstained from voting on resolutions regarding “Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons”, “Nuclear disarmament”, “Missiles”, etc, not least because U.S. voted against all of these resolutions. To de-nuclearize the Korean peninsula and the Northeast Asia for that matter, Korea should remove its double standard on the UN resolutions related to nuclear weapons issue. 

The tasks and challenges for our movement

We share a concern that a new nuclear crisis began in Korean Peninsula. We also have the same mind that military measures and sanctions cannot be an option in any circumstance and at any cost. We also stress with all our might that any kind of sanctions and nuclear umbrella will only generate more serious conflicts and escalate already grave situation into an irreversible disaster. Absolute majority of Korean citizens anxiously want to see the situation resolved by political and diplomatic means. No one wants to see the nightmare of Cold War resurrected in this beautiful and peaceful country, except for the die-hard conservatives and their propaganda medias who will  benefitted enormously from the Cold War of yesterday. .
  
We must be cautious not to be deceived by the unwarranted exaggeration of security danger. The exaggeration creates a series of result. First, it concentrates more power in the hands of the state and its intelligence and security organizations, And then, this unchecked power of a state to pursue more military capacity will make a vicious circle of arms race among nations in this region. Therefore, we should first find a way to dismantle the structure of reproducing the exaggeration of security danger. If it persists to work in this crisis as well, the nightmare of universal nuclearization will creep up to the reality of Northeast Asia in the future not very far.

The Korean peaceful citizen has on the table the vitally important agenda of improving the Inter-Korean relationship and denuclearing the whole Korean Peninsula. The two agenda are closely bound up: without the former, there is no peace momentum in the Peninsula. In this crucial juncture, some Korean peace activists took the initiative of organizing direct actions on 59th anniversary of the Korean War, titled ‘Buddy, let the guns put down!”. Many people on the street voluntarily joined it and showed solidarity. We could feel how much Korean people yearn for the peace and good relationship with North Korea with all their heart. 

However, this strong desire for peace in the mind of Korean people is frustrated by the escalation of the current crisis and the absence of solution for fundamental problems between two Koreas. With the principle of denuclearizaion of Korea fundamentally undermined, the offensive by those who demand nuclear deterrence is getting rampant everyday. Also, the unilateral actions by North Korea instills a sense of incapacity to the mind of devoted peace activists, for all our endeavors until now seem to have been totally powerless in affecting the agents in international society, or persuading those who demand nuclear sovereignty.   

We must concentrate our mind on how to get out of this state of incapability. As a starting point, I would like to re-assert several principles. First, nuclear weapons cannot be an antidote for nuclear weapons, which will only lead to the universal annihilation. Second, sanctions and coercive pressures not only cannot bring any effective result, but also are inconsistent with morality of cause for peace. Third, we cannot be overemphasize the urgency of stopping the vicious circle of arms race in Northeast Asia. The current situation makes an ideal excuse for Korea, Japan, and US to expand their own military budget. In fact, the governments in the Six-party Talk alone account for 65% of world military expenditure. It is not unnatural to expect the acceleration of this already rapid rise of military budget.  

It goes without saying that the solidarity of civil society in the dimension of Northeast Asia for is the vital moment for peace. Its action may be invisible. Its power may be unfelt in a short period of time. But ultimately, there is no power under the sun that dares to defy the power of solidarity among those who sincerely hope for peace and brotherhood/sisterhood for everyone. That is the underlying source that keep encouraging us peace activists, and our permanent motto will be No-war, No-Nuclear, and Yes-Peace! Thanks very much.

This article was written for the 64th World Conferences against Atomic and Hydro bombs in Hiroshima by JIEUN LEE(Coordinator of the Center for Peace and Disarmament, PSPD)