By Kyler Ong
After its failure to launch rocket Unha 3 just over a month ago, a satellite image has revealed that North Korea is already on the verge of completing a reactor containment building intended to house a light water reactor. While this breaches the US-North Korea nuclear moratorium agreed in February this year, North Korea’s nuclear effort has not only come as a surprise but has merely reinforced the persistence of the state to reaffirm its sovereign right to pursue nuclear power. A new approach to tackling the North Korean dilemma is not only instructive, but urgent.
Public Display of Prowess
Despite numerous UN sanctions and US offers for food aid in exchange for nuclear freeze, these strategies have done little to curb the nuclear ambition of North Korea. North Korea has repeatedly breached international trust and agreement by withdrawing from the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, resuming work on its nuclear program, and as of recent, boldly announcing its intent to test launch a rocket to mark the 100th anniversary of the birth of its founder Kim Il Sung just a month after it has agreed to a nuclear moratorium for US food aid. This pattern of luring the international community into believing that it is finally willing to return to the negotiation table and later renouncing any agreement has been observed over the years and can be seen as an attempt to flex its defense muscle and assert its sovereignty. Whether or not the republic’s desire for nuclear power is grounded on domestic or military needs, it is evident that the way it flaunts its rockets during national parades is a sign of agression for the international community to see. Note that the North Korean regime is threatened by its defenseless state due to the presence of U.S. allies (especially Japan, South Korea) surrounding its waters. For a country that has suffered decades of a crippling economy and famine, the only chance to display its prowess is through its military and this will not be hindered just by a starving population.
A New Strategy?
The issue of nuclear proliferation is not a new phenomenon, as many would remember the famous Cold War which almost brought the world to the brink of a nuclear war. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 was exemplary of how much control our world leaders had in decimating the rest of earth’s population with just one button. And hence the solution lies in how well our leaders play the game. Many political observers have denounced the US food-for-non-nuclear policy as too appeasing, while others have lauded the idea of a defensive approach (like with the Soviets) by placing US missiles in the soil of the enemy’s neighbor. However, mobile deployment of these missiles in the region will not deter North Korean aggression, neither will Russia and China accept missiles close to their doors anyway (South Korea recently denounced that idea too).
Furthermore, history has proven that employing hard power had often backfired, and it is also the reason why the US has acquired so many enemies since World War II. Using sanctions and food aid approach is no longer a feasible and effective containment strategy, as exemplified by history. This is because sanctions require the cooperation of external entities, and North Korea has other means of survival (e.g., arms trade with Syria and Burma, trades with China) when others are also willing to defy UN sanctions. Survival to North Korea unfortunately does not mean that of the larger population, but its sovereignty as a whole, and as such, the regime does not care if half the population is starving without food aid. Multilateral talks should resume as soon as possible. However, the focus of the next negotiation round should not be a nuclear moratorium, but one that calls for an independent IAEA supervised program that allows the safe development of nuclear power and ensures peaceful use of its power plants.
On an economic level, North Korea has shown interest in druming up foreign investment (e.g. in Singapore and Indonesia). Encouraging such cooperations rather than condemning the nation with sanctions may help smooth ties and improve relations. In order to reassure and respect the sovereign rights of North Korea as a nation, bilateral defense agreement could be put in place to ensure mutual understanding and military cooperation. Such an agreement, although bold, may override the current impasse driven by the desperate need of the regime to affirm itself as a sovereign nation which stands amidst political enemies. Political goodwill is the first step. A zero-nuke policy is unrealistic and only spells double standards.