The nuclear mess *

2006-10-18 10:27 p.m.

Thus history was made on October the 9th with North Korea claiming (note the word claiming) that it had “successfully” detonated a nuclear bomb. This part will be explored later, but even as it is being investigated, its shockwave created another shockwave through out the international community.

A “highly irresponsible act” declared British Prime Minister Blair. President George Bush said the test “constitutes a threat to international peace and security”. The condemnation came from all over.

In the conventional world view, yes North Korea is an extremely dangerous regime who threatens the security of the Northern Pacific region with its missiles, nuclear programme and other WMD programmes. It also has the history of selling its technology and expertise to Iran and terrorist organizations. Furthermore, it is a staunch Authoritarian Communist regime with a horrifying human rights record. It’s citizens are barely making ends meet while its top leaders live a life of luxury and continued to build a nuclear arsenal.

The above paragraph would no doubt win the praise of the World community, perhaps the United States government in particular. However, the circumstances are very much different. While I’m definitely no supporter of Kim Jong Il, his regime or his actions outwardly, I see to so that the response of the world towards this tests is one that is hitting from only one perspective. There are more areas to cover than that.

Firstly, let me tackle the issue that is common with threats or aggressive acts, the issue of timing. Some have remarked that it was done to coincide with appointment of South Korean Foreign Minister Ban as the next UN Secretary General. There is much of a connection there, even if the next UN Secretary General wasn’t from South Korea, the DPRK would have performed the test. The North isn’t aiming to scare the international community directly, as will be discussed later.

Others quip that it was done just after Chinese Premier Hu Jintao and the new Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe’s meeting in Beijing. North Korea may especially want to send the message to Japan, who has been a strong supporter of the US and in recent years, placed a strong stance against the nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Howevr much Japan is the target, it isn’t the only one for North Korea and with regards to this test, it isn’t the centre of North Korea’s objectives.

Let me then tackle the dispute on whether the North Korean test was a real nuclear test, a false one using conventional explosives or a failed nuclear test. Kim Jong ll falls under the category of dictators like Saddam Hussein. Like Sadddam, he is obsessed with glory and achievements. Sometimes the old Iraqi regime likes to play the game of “bluff” creating dummy weapons programmes sites or missile sites to fool spies or inspectors. Rarely has Saddam bluffed the world; he wants to gloat for real. Thus is the same for Kim Jong II. These craze-driven dictators want to have real glory in all their achievements. At the very most, according to the latest reports, the nuclear test was an extremely minute nuke or a nuke that “fizzled” off.

In any case, it has been tested. The world has screamed at the DPRK. The very first response by its ambassador to the UN was that the world should congratulate North Korean scientists. As the days went by as the talk of a UN resolution stating Chapter Seven of the UN Charter and sanction went on, North Korean constantly stated the threat it felt from the US and promised physical retaliation to any US move.

To a certain degree, the last statement provides the reasoning for the tests as well as the missile launches back in July. North Korean is fearful of the US because it has thousands more nuclear weapons than it has and an army parked next to its door step. The US or rather the Bush administration has been push a tough stance against the DPRK, asking for the a six nation talks and the immediate disarmament of its nuclear programme. The communist (or rather Kim’s version of communism) nation does not want to be pushed around. In the historical perspective of the Korean (well the mindset of the North Korean people mainly), they have faced threats and occupation by various forces. First the Chinese during the Imperial days. Then the Japanese. They resent outside influence and pressure.

Another reason for the North Korean move runs from the argument above. The North Koreans want nuclear weapons to balance the military balance in the Korean Pennisula. As one military analyst remarked, “North Korea’s Armed Froces are plentiful, but their old.” Thus they DPRK seeks nuclear weapons to beef up its defences. After all, the US has nuclear weapons too. While the tactical ones have been removed from US bases in South Korea, the North views the US ICBMs, SLBMS and Bombers as a threat to them. In the worse case scenario, the North will most likely not use nuclear weapons on the South, knowing very well the consequences. Maybe. In any case, its wrath extends beyond its borders to the US, whom is see as the man pushing the plunger on it.

A third reason for the test is that of double standards, which is the chief common reason for states to pursue WMD programmes. If the US, Russia, the UK, France and China can have nuclear weapons, why can’t we? Stretching the argument further, why can states like Israel, Pakistan and India have known nuclear weapons programmes without UN condemnation? It is also interesting to note that India has publicly condemned the North Korean test when itself conducted such a test before in 1990s. Coming back to the issue, the culprit behind this questioning is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This treaty states that only five nuclear powers shall remain and signatories of the pact pledge not to pursue nuclear weapons programmes. With no enforcing measures, it also means that countries who have not signed the act do not fall under its jurisdiction and that countries can leave the pact anytime. With regards to the former statement, examples include the countries stated above. Israel is a hotly mentioned country since it has never publicly declared that it has nuclear weapons and has never been singled out by the US. It is no wonder so many Arab countries in the past and present wanted to gain nuclear weapons to in self defence. India and Pakistan both are reported to have nuclear weapons , but no want has bother to scream at them. So we can’t we have nuclear weapons, say the North Koreans? After all, we (the DPRK) left the NPT and don’t have to adhere to any rules. This will be the crucial point which we will address later.

Looking at what I’ve mentioned, it is almost all a mirror image of what the North Koreans will say. Does that mean that the world fails to see that? On closer analysis, yes any nuclear weapon armed state poses a threat to regional or even international security, even the five permanent nuclear powers. What is constituted a “real” threat is therefore due to the history and politics behind that state. North Korea has invaded another country (South Korea) and is still technically at war with that country. It also is a closed up dictatorial country which has build up massive arms. This is the threat and dictators with the mindset of power and aggression behind them creates “clear and present danger”. With regards to the three points, no one wants a nuclear weapon state beside other no nuclear weapons states—that is the norm. Secondly, the international community just does not want another nuclear weapon state, despite the loopholes in the NPT.

So what does the nuclear test mean for the foreign policy of countries? Since the US created the six nation talks, let us focus on the five nations who are pestering North Korea to return to the negotiation table.

Russia was roped into the six nation talks because firstly it has a geographical boundary with the North and second they were long term allies. In fact, although North Korea claims its nuclear breakthrough was indigenous, it was in fact a left over from the help USSR gave them during the Cold War days. So, in a way, the US is roping in Russia because they are partly responsible for the mess that is happening now. Russia so far has been compliant with the US led six nation talks, toying the same line as the US. Of course this is natural since it is Russia and not the USSR anymore. However, even so, Russia still maintains considerable economic links with North Korea. It has warned against a UN resolution hinting the use of force. This is still typical of Russia stance in most US proposed UN resolutions. It stems from the pragmatic view point, given that North Korea still can be befriended in the world. Personally, It think Russia is a small player in the six nation talks; with or with out Russia included, there would not be any major difference.

China was also once a communist regime like Russia and still is in the political sense. Unlike Russia, China has the history of directly supporting the North Koreans durng the Korean war. (Russia’s support during the Korean War was indirect and not publicly announced, thus it is not exactly considered as direct support). In fact , during the Cold War and now, China had a stronger relationship with North Korea. In the preceding years before the missiles launches and the nuclear test, China has always been the one with the soft stance, trying to act like a mentor towards North Korea, coaxing it while not agreeing always with the hard-line US stance towards the communist regime. A large trader with North Korea, China’s patience now wavering with the nuclear test. As many new reports suggests, the last thing China’s wishes is a blown up regional crisis at its door step.

In fact crisis or no crisis, the major Chinese fear is the mass movement of North Koreans across its border due to conflict or just because of social-economic factors. That would be a nightmare for the Chinese, despite the availability of relief groups. The second reason China does not want to have a crisis at its doorstep is because push come to shove, a military conflict will ask China to choose sides. Given China’s movement away for being pro-North Korean, there is a likelihood North Korea would strike China with whatever nightmarish devices it has.

So it is due to these two major reasons that China is one of the more interested members of the six nation talks. A third but lesser said reason is China’s linkage with the US. China is already facing massive pressure by the US to float its currency and is persistently blamed for America’s trade deficit. A deviation from the American led stance might cause America to retaliate in other areas of the Sino-Us relationship. Even so, because of the reasons, China expressed objection in using the terms “military force” in the latest UN resolution against North Korea and still showed sign of reluctance in carrying out terms the resolution it voted for. These terms include the stopping an inspection of ships and freight in and out of North Korea that deal with luxury goods, major military hardware and WMD related items. China, reading North Korea’s remarks, fears the exacerbation of the crisis if ships are stopped.

So is China the main card that can be played to the North Koreans? As stated before, China has changed from its staunch communist political governance to that of a capitalist economy with a more “open” government. Even if it has been and is good friends with the North for many years, just like many others, it cannot predict the lunacy of the government there. There is also so much the Chinese can say to the DPRK.

We switch over to the land of the rising sun, which to my surprise personally, has been the second most active member in pushing for a nuclear free Korean Peninsula, after the United States. Starting with the Koizumi government, the Japan have been tough on the North Koreans, demanding the same as the US and even adopting their own sanctions right now. Why the sudden shift in in foreign policy in the region?

Japan traditionally has been a partner of the west and the US after World War II. During the Cold War, it and South Korea were the chief “walls of defence” against any Soviet/Chinese/North Korean moves to expanse politically or militarily in the Far East. However, the traditional reliance and alliance on and with the Us is but part of the story. Another likely reason is the kidnapping of Japanese by North Koreans somewhere in the 1970s. Although that has been partially resolved, the tensions remain until now and possibly Japan still finds that an axe to grind with the DPRK. Then there was the firing of a North Korean missile over Japan in the late 1990s. That probably caught the attention of the Japanese. In the worst case scenario again, given the basing of US forces in Japan and Japan’s alliance with America, the North would also not hesitate to strike at Japan, using what ever devices it has. In fact, should it really be nuclear capable, Japan would seem a more “rational” target than South Korea.

So from Koizumi to Abe, the Japanese administration is not letting its eyes of North Korea. It has entered into a joint missile defence shield project with the US and has followed the US in many common areas. Other than that, Japan’s doesn’t exactly gain anything significantly positive from throwing its weight against North Korea.

But it surprises me because Japan does not share any common territorial boundary with the DPRK, unlike the Republic of South Korea. South Korea has unlike Japan, not been toying the same robust stance but rather a very soft “peace-making-in crisis” sort of gesture towards the North. The more commonly known term is the “Sunshine policy” which in a nutshell tries to coax the North Koreans with many incentives such economic and food aid and telling them “please don’t build and missiles or nukes”. Of course, the result so far is pretty evident.

The South Koreas are divided on two camps on this issue. Some are the pro Roh (head of the South Korean government) supporters, who argue that the “sunshine policy” is rational and just so as not to provoke the North Koreans from doing anything rash. It in fact, they argue, benefits the population of the North and could strengthen North-South ties. The other camp vehemently points out that it has been getting us nowhere and the North has been taking the aid while still building up weapons that threaten the South directly. They point to the failure of the Roh government to see this and call for his resignation.

In any case, which ever camp projects a strong argument, yes the South has probably the least fervour to push the North Koreans for disarmament. It also finally highlights the limitations and weakness of having a six nation talks as opposed to strong direct bilateral talks. There is no clear coordinated message sent by the five nations when each has their own beliefs and ideas towards North Korea. Russia as we’ve have seen, is just a marginal player. China plays the super cautious card. Japan is aggressive but pushes mainly for its own security first. South Korea plays its own game with the North. Thus the North can easily play each country off. What about the United States?

“These nations constitute an axis of evil” remarked George W Bush in his 2002 state of the Union address. About a year after, he went after one of the nations he said had weapons of mass destruction that somehow could be passed to terrorist groups and used against Americans. Less than a year after the conflict ended, there widely advertised WMDs were not to be found, but America came to “liberate the Iraqi people” instead. Whilst the “liberation” was occurring, North Korea had already left the NPT and showed little enthusiasm with the newly formed six nation talks. Three years later, Iran remarked that it was going to pursue a nuclear program for peaceful purposes and Bush went after it against with little success at present. Meanwhile, there were “fireworks” just after Independence Day in North Korea. Whilst the WMDs were not found and the “liberation” was ongoing, and while Iran nuclear crisis was being handled more by the EU, the North Koreans tested a failed nuclear device. In the scoreboard of any game, I’ll rank it as North Korea 3, USA 0.

How could an administration that stated it would not tolerate a nuclear North Korea let it develop nuclear weapons three years later? The main common answer people will give is the lack of attention the Bush administration paid to a credible nuclear threat. Back in the early months of 2003, the war drums were beating towards a country that America believed that it had WMDs. After that proved to be wrong, they fenced off criticisms by saying it was the best intelligence possible. If that is the case, the best intelligence should have also notified the President and his staff that North Korea was in the process of building nuclear weapons. The Iraq war and the aftermath of trying to rebuild the “mess” America created did throw focus on Iraq more. However, that focus was through military means more so that political or diplomatic ways. President Bush calimed in one of latest press conferences that he was dealing with both Iraq and North Korea equally. If we are trying to be frank, we would still criticize Bush for wasting resources and going after a “wrong” target.

Perhaps another failure of America from preventing the North from building bombs was the manner in which it approached the DPRK. The Bush administration has always been a staunch critic of the Clinton administration and revamped many if not all of the policies the Democrats made. The arena of foreign policy was no exception. Instead of approaching North Korea through bilateral talks like the Democrats did, it roped in four other countries and created the six nation talks. The rationale was that North Korea was playing games with the US and other nations when bilateral talks were used and they did nothing but defy obligations and deceive the US. With four nations neighbouring North Korea, the US believed the additional pressure would cause the North to comply with the demands.

It looked like the picture perfect form of diplomacy, except like the format before it, it had its flaws. As pointed out together, the six nations talks are only most effective if the five nations demanding a nuclear free Peninsula show one united front and say exactly the same thing with the same amount of force. As noted above, each of the five nations all had varying approaches towards the DPRK, with Japan and US the only ones toeing the same line. Thus, just like in previous cases, the North Koreans could sail by and play nations like South Korea and China off.

The second disadvantage is the diplomatic moves or to be more specific, the manner in which North Korea was approached. If I remember correctly, The North wanted economic and food aid before it would dismantle its nuclear programme. The US on the other hand, offered no reward but just demanded the ending of its nuclear programme. Then, just last year or so, the US froze North Korean assets in a Macau bank and did not agree to return the money to the North. Thus North Korea saw no reason why it should return to the six nation talks. Coming back to the issue of the Iraq war, the North thus began to see the US as a hostile nation threatening it. Thus it resorted to a nuclear weapons programme.

In any case, the nuclear has gone off and they say another is scheduled soon. In the meantime, Resolution 1718 has been passed, one which is trying to squeeze North Korea even tighter by denying it access to major weapons or WMD related components, from exporting WMD components overseas, and from importing luxury goods. The last is personally aimed at Kim Jong II, so says US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, to trim his weigh tand height a little. It was a unaminous vote but two things remain to be seen. One, whether all nations, especially Russia and China will carry out the rules set in it, and two, the next North Korean response. With regards to the first item, China has already expressed reservations towards stopping and inspecting North Korean ships for that could simply escalate tensions between the two sides. The North in response has called it a declaration of war, but I believe Kim isn’t that irrational to launch and attack yet.

The US wants to hit the North Koreans hard with this Resolution. Yet, that may not necessarily be the case. For one, the North already looks like it has a credible nuclear weapons programme in place and has, according to sources, several nuclear weapons. The ban of other material will at most prevent the North from gaining the know how of how to miniaturize its nukes into proper nuclear warheads. Or maybe the North can learn how to do that itself. With regards to the ban on exporting nuclear components, that is due to the fear of the North selling its technology to terrorists or other states like Iran. It is said that the North has had a history of selling such technology. However, I believe that such a sale is less of a probability. States like Iran are pursuing their own nuclear programme and even though Iran’s missiles are partly an Iran-DPRK project, the ideologies of the two states differ too greatly for them to be mutual partners. Likewise for terrorists organizations. Kim may be a war drum beating dictator, but that doesn’t mean he associates himself with groups like Al-Queda, who are aggressive because of a different set of beliefs. With regards to the ban on major military hardware, that could be the most effective part of the Resolution. As for the ban on luxury goods, it will have only a long term effect as Kim and his inner circle probably has such goods stocked up.

Who is hit the most in any case is not the military, not Kim and his party members, but the North Korean people themselves. More than half of them are starving or malnourished while thousands are dying every day. A recent news article cited how the ordinary person lives of bark and weeds while Party cadres dine with foreign food and luxuries. It not as if food aid has not reached the people though. Neutral NGOs have actually sent aid to the people, but most of the aid ends up with the party officials who hoard the for themselves. Countries like South Korea and Japan have even provided aid in recent years but have now stopped. The US naturally has stopped all assistance and that has angered groups like the World Food Programme.

Resolution 1718 has not specified the ban of ordinary goods but embargoes and cuts of aid are already in place. On the opposite end, the people who need the aid cannot get the aid. There has been talk about linking aid to the disarmament of the North nuclear weapons. “North Korea can have nuclear weapons or it can have a future,” quipped an American official. What is not said is that it any way, the people still loose out while Kim still holds on. The issue of how the regime can still surive will be dealt with shortly.

So what is the solution now? Many critics of the Bush administration pressure it to engage directly with North Korea. The administration still holds on to the idea of the six nation talks. Bilateral or not, the key is to remove the North’s fear that it is being “attacked” while at the same time, not given easy compromises to the DPRK, while not pushing the same aggressive line. That is, as the cliché goes, easier said than done. The “ball is in North Korea’s court”, said John Bolton. Its actually in the US own court, as well as the UN.

We come back to the NPT, the treaty which leaves only five countries that can have nuclear weapons. As said earlier, its much an issue of double standards in North Korea’s eyes. Why are countries like Israel, Pakistan and India allowed ot possess nuclear weapons, when they are non NPT states like we are? The question boils back down to the idea of trust and beliefs. The US trusts Israel who has been a long ally of it. It has believed the presence of nuclear weapons in Israel, whether or not it is official, is justified to protect the existence of the state. Israel after all does not harm the US in any way unlike North Korea. The case India and Pakistan is different. Although Pakistan was the ally of the US for a long while, the US has no reason to complain against Indian nuclear weapons or Pakistani nuclear weapons because both states are again not the aggressive type and do actually benefit the US in many ways.

You would further question why five nations are given the special privilege of holding on to nuclear weapons and how other nations, NPT or non NPT are not allowed to have them. I suppose it is partly history and partly the length of time. History in a sense that these five were the five who managed to create A and H bombs first before anyone else. The NPT was then formed and they got the say that they can still keep nuclear weapons. It is definitely double standards but nations in the NPT have to live by the charter. The ideal world therefore would be the total disarmament of nuclear weapons world wide but that is a highly impossible scenario even in our time. Geopolitical rivalry would deter that from happened. Even though the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction is one from the past, it still holds in a certain way today.

Coming back to North Korea, what will happen next? Kim still holds control of the party and the party controls the state. Some reports remark that is power is waning given the social-economic factors in the country and that given the Party shows signs of discontent. Still, there will be stability because of the driven ideology that the state has moved into the minds of the people. The people in many cases, don’t have much of a choice because they either starve to death, get beaten to death, or escape and may die along the way. The last option is popular now, but is not yet in a mass movement. Kim holds on by given the people no option to turn too.

Part of this “no option” idea is suggested in Paul Bremmer’s concept of the J curve, whereby Stability is weighed against Openess or the western concept of freedom. Countries like the US are on the right hand side of the curve which is upward sloping, suggesting both concepts working hand in hand. Countries like North Korea are on the left hand side, indicating strong stability but a small amount of openness.

Up to this point, I am comfortable with the concept. However, I do not agree when Bremmer suggest that we engage such totalitarian countries so that they are brought down the curve (that is made more open) and thus undermine the dictatorship. Bremmer gives the case of China, which is still a police state is many ways but at the bottom of the J curve. He is promoting direct engagement through investment which he says will bring down Kim’s iron grip rule.

The first flaw I see is that will Kim and his government even allow such direct investment in the first place? Even if by some chance the US lifts sanctions and encourages nations to trade with the DPRK, I sincerely doubt Kim will suddenly allow foreign companies to enter the North. Kim’s concept is picking at suitable allies, China is one of them. Let us also suppose the US gives the North its demands and the like. I fail to see how Kim might lose power. Conversely, such engagement may even prompt him to be even bolder.

Secondly, while dictators might loose part of their grip as people get more exposed to outside influences, and if the regime will fall, Bremmer fails to see that political and social consequences of it. North Korea is hardly an East Germany that can be incorporated into South Korea. The mess of the fall of Kim’s rule will be probably the messiest of all government changes.

Bremmer is right on one point though. The policy of isolated states like Iran and North Korea isn’t working. However, engagement with the North is not simply throwing its chips to them. It is the long complex process of deciphering a dictator’s beliefs and actions and thus more than just given and taking. As I said, six nation or bilateral talks, the US must rethink its moves to towards the DPRK, or there may be no other moves left.

previous - next