Pyongyang is trying to mobilize North Korean society around the new leader Kim Jong Un and to convince North Koreans that their young but bold leader is standing up to US imperialists. On the other hand, North Korea wants to pressure the United States and force it to continue dialogue.
What is the likelihood of North Korea launching military operations against South Korea or the United States?
It is unlikely that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is planning to attack South Korea or the United States. It would be tantamount to suicide because the balance of forces is so strongly weighted in favor of Washington and Seoul. The entire current North Korean campaign is pursuing propaganda goals. On the one hand, Pyongyang is trying to mobilize North Korean society around the new leader Kim Jong Un and to convince North Koreans that their young but bold leader is standing up to US imperialists.
On the other hand, North Korea wants to pressure the United States and force it to continue dialogue, and it would like South Korea to provide additional economic assistance, as has often been the case in the past. For its part, Seoul too wants to play tough. South Korea has recently elected its first female president, Park Geun Hye, the daughter of former authoritarian ruler Park Chung Kee, who confronted Kim Il Sung, grandfather of Kim Jong Un, in the 1960s and the 1970s. It appears that the new North Korean and South Korean leaders want to show that they are continuing the policies of their fathers.
How can these North Korean challenges be explained in the context of the country’s unimpressive military power, compared to the potential of the United States and its allies?
Without justifying the current actions of Pyongyang, as well as the entire North Korean nuclear missile program, it should be noted that these actions are largely motivated by an aggravated global situation where the United States claims the right to unilaterally use military force against any countries it finds disagreeable, and when the international community through the United Nations has been unable to prevent such actions.
Washington knew that Yugoslavia did not have any weapons of mass destruction. Consequently, the United States and its NATO allies bombed and dismembered a formerly influential country in cold blood. The United States did its best to ensure, with the assistance of UN experts, that Iraq also had no weapons of mass destruction and occupied that country.
Naturally, in these circumstances, no country, especially one declared by Washington to be a “rogue state,” is going to voluntarily give up any methods, including the most drastic ones, for ensuring their own security. Developments in and around Libya are the latest argument in favor of this approach. Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi voluntarily renounced the country's nuclear weapons program, and the world saw how the West “thanked” him in return.
As for the current situation on the Korean Peninsula, we need to assess previous developments. Protracted military exercises involving US forces were launched in South Korea. These exercises are held every year, and each time Pyongyang raises protests against them. In 2013, the United States, which is well aware of this, expanded the format of the military exercise. Boeing B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers took off from the Guam naval base and reportedly conducted a simulated air strike against North Korea. On March 28, state-of-the-art Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit strategic bombers featuring low-visibility Stealth technology also reached South Korea. Is this not an example of the United States deliberately inciting tensions?
What is the attitude of China, the main sponsor of North Korea, toward these developments?
Naturally, in assessing developments on the Korean Peninsula we should not forget about the Chinese factor. In the past, Pyongyang and Beijing used to say that North Korea and the People’s Republic of China depended on each other like “lips and teeth,” and that the bilateral friendship was sealed with blood. In fact, tens of thousands of Chinese volunteers were killed fighting on North Korea’s side during the Korean War.
Experts point out that in 1961 China and North Korea signed the Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty. However, this treaty does not amount to a military alliance. The Chinese interpretation of this treaty does not imply that Beijing would have to provide military assistance to North Korea in the event of a US attack, or that China would become directly involved in a hypothetical conflict. Should Beijing decide that, given the current situation, North Korean actions might lead to a regional conflict, China would have the right to voice its protest under Article I of the treaty, which clearly states: “The Contracting Parties will continue to make every effort to safeguard the peace of Asia and the world and the security of all peoples.”
At the same time, Beijing is actively expanding its relations with South Korea after establishing bilateral diplomatic relations in 1992. Today, these relations have been elevated to the level of strategic partnership and bilateral trade turnover between the two countries has reached $220 billion, making China Seoul’s number one trading partner, while China's trade turnover with North Korea is less than $6 billion.
Has Beijing sanctioned the current situation?
A hypothetical military conflict between North Korea and the United States or South Korea is not in China's interests, which is why Beijing is reacting to developments around North Korea in a restrained and constructive manner. In its official statements, Beijing is calling on all the parties to keep calm and exercise restraint, not to commit any acts of provocation against each other and not to take any actions that could aggravate the situation. Beijing has expressed the hope that all parties will, in the long term, be able to engage in an active dialogue and maintain contact in order to improve relations, ease the situation, preserve the nuclear-free status of the Korean Peninsula and achieve lasting peace in the region.
What should Russia do in this situation?
Russia and China are in constant contact on the Korean problem. Russia considers completely unacceptable any armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula, missile and nuclear tests and any saber-rattling near its borders, whoever is responsible for it.
Problems can only be solved through dialogue. In 2003, Russia, China, North Korea, South Korea, the United States and Japan launched six-party negotiations on the nuclear issue of the Korean Peninsula. In their joint statement of September 19, 2005, the parties to the talks set out a constructive foundation for subsequent efforts to ensure the nuclear-free status of the Korean Peninsula and to improve the overall situation in the region. If implemented, the provisions of this statement would make it possible to adopt political and economic decisions which could turn Northeast Asia into a region of peace, security and cooperation.
What are the basic provisions of this document? It mentions North Korea’s statement to scrap nuclear weapons and all current nuclear programs, and to abide by the provisions of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the documents of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The document also mentions a US statement that it has not deployed any nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula, and that it has no intention of attacking North Korea or invading its territory using nuclear or conventional weapons. Furthermore, the document mentions the overall readiness of the United States and North Korea to officially respect their sovereignty, to ensure peaceful coexistence and to take action in order to normalize bilateral relations. In addition, the document discusses the commitment of the six parties to ensure lasting peace and stability in Northeast Asia. The parties involved agreed to draft a compromise formula which would eventually enable North Korea to implement civilian nuclear programs and to build a light-water reactor (LWR). And, finally, “the Six Parties agreed to take coordinated steps to implement the aforementioned consensus in a phased manner in line with the principle of ‘commitment for commitment, action for action.’”
However, all these agreements have remained on paper. Not all the parties to the talks have been ready to implement the results of these negotiations, which has eventually led to the current crisis on the Korean Peninsula.
Currently, there is an urgent need to renounce mutual militarist rhetoric and to refrain from any actions that may exacerbate tensions. The parties concerned should try to return to the format of the six-party talks. In my opinion, this is the best chance for normalizing the situation.
