Dealings With North Korea: Why Is War Not An Option?

Last year, North Korea joined the group of nuclear-armed states. In the world, only the U.S., Russia, the U.K., France, Israel, India, Pakistan, China, and now North Korea have nuclear weapons in their military arsenals. However, today, only the North Korean nuclear capacity seems capable of destabilizing the world and causing a major international conflict. In one way or another, it could be said that the international community is already accustomed to the possession of nuclear weapons by major powers, while the tension between India and Pakistan, which once encouraged the development of “the bomb” by those countries, now seems too far from a nuclear escalation. In addition, it is believed that Pyongyang is considerably close to the development of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) after the last test weeks ago. If that is the case, North Korea is about to change the nuclear strategic balance in the world, and the violent rhetoric from Kim Jong-Un about “destroying America” could become a real threat.

In the past, violence has been used to prevent the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by “aggressive” or unstable regimes. The most recent case was the Iraq War in 2003. The US and the UK, without the full support of the United Nations Security Council, decided to invade and occupy Iraq, claiming that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Since the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Hussein had shown interest in developing WMD, and by the early 2000s, the regime was not showing commitment and support to the inspections of the United Nations. With the concern about nuclear or chemical weapons under Hussein´s control and with the memory of the humanitarian crisis caused by the regime during the nineties, the US and the UK attacked Iraq in April 2003. It could be debated whether the Iraq war was successful or whether or not the harm caused outweighed the good achieved. However, despite the social disquiet and the internal conflict, today, Iraq has stopped all programs focused on the development of WMD, and the government is no longer considered hostile or a threat to the Western powers. Even though the WMD were never found during the war, the international order assured an Iraq free of nuclear and chemical weapons for, at least, ten or twenty years in the future. In theory, this type of strategy is known as coercion by denial, in other words, the US and UK used limited force to stop Iraq from the acquisition of WMD, an act considered hostile and too dangerous to admit.

It is too late to use coercion by denial with North Korea. The military capacity already acquired by Pyongyang suggests that any violent clash with the regime would escalate easily. The South Korean capital, Seoul, is only 20 miles away from the border in the Peninsula, and Japanese cities, including Tokyo, were already within the missile range of North Korea years ago. The US or whoever decides to attack North Korea in a pre-emptive strike, stopping the regime from developing more powerful nuclear weapons, would have to do it exceptionally quickly and effectively to eradicate any chance of a second strike from Pyongyang to South Korea, Japan or even the US mainland if ICBM are used. If the pre-emptive strike is not effective enough, the world would face the risk of escalation of a conflict that, thanks to the presence of nuclear weapons, could cause millions of civilian casualties in a few days. This is a risk that nobody can take. Not even the US has reported having all the information about North Korean military bases and nuclear facilities, basic military intelligence to guarantee a successful first strike. As it was used in against Hussein in Iraq in 2003, a pre-emptive strike is much more likely to be successful before the enemy has reached nuclear capacity, when the attacking power has the time and resources to invade the “hostile” country and neutralize its military forces. After the acquisition of the bomb, there is no time to do so. Even during an eventual attack on North Korea, only ten or fifteen seconds would be required by Kim Jong-Un regime to launch a missile to Seoul or Tokyo risking millions of lives.

The regional role of China is another obstacle for those who consider the use of force against North Korea. A pre-emptive strike was a plausible option some time ago, before Pyongyang was fully nuclear-armed. However, the interest of Beijing to emerge as the only power in the region and its opposition to any interference of any other foreign military power in Asian affairs were determinant for the protection of North Korean regime. In fact, the Chinese “umbrella’” protected North Korea during its development of the nuclear program. Today, it is well known that the Kim Jong-Un regime survives mainly supported by China’s economic aid and partnership. Despite the fact that Beijing has applied some economic sanctions to North Korea after the nuclear exercises and missile tests, it is true also that China has condemned strongly any foreign interference in Asian issues such as the South China Sea tension and the conflict between Beijing and Taiwan. In this scenario, any Chinese support for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea cannot be expected, undermining, even more, the chance of a truly effective and safe use of force against Pyongyang.

As war is too costly and too risky to be even considered, diplomacy appears as the only option in dealing with North Korea. In an article for US News, Thomas Graham Jr. – Member of the National Advisory Board of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and former senior US diplomat – pointed out that North Koreans are not as irrational as some may think. According to Mr. Graham, the regime has had three main objectives: survival, economic benefits, and a relationship with the U.S. When these objectives were acknowledged, the international community made real progress. During the Clinton administration, the U.S. and North Korea agreed to the shutdown of the nuclear program and the end of the ICBM program. However, President Bush adopted a more aggressive position and included Pyongyang in the “Axis of Evil” list of countries. With the hostility back, North Korea withdrew from any non-proliferation treaty and conducted multiple missile and nuclear tests in the past years. Graham Jr. points that now the negotiation possible with Pyongyang has to include the first three objectives of the regime as well as the recognition of it as a nuclear state.

The idea of accepting North Korea among the nuclear-armed countries is difficult for all of the international community. There is no certainty that the Kim Jong-Un regime has the strategic capacity, responsibility, and command and control procedures to handle nuclear weapons. In fact, in the past, the regime was accused of transferring nuclear technology to Syria, despite the opposition of the international community. It would be a real concern for the world if the North Korean regime is willing to sell nuclear weapons to other states or even terrorist groups in order to get economic resources to survive. However, the hard-line adopted since Bush presidency has not had any positive effect. Neither the economic sanctions nor the “strategic patience” has stopped Pyongyang´s nuclear program, and war is now too risky to be considered. The costs and risks of a violent clash between North Korea and the U.S. outweigh any possible gains. The elimination of the nuclear program and even the change of regime in North Korea are worth much less than the lives that could be at stake if there is a nuclear confrontation that could easily reach some of the most populated regions in the world. Diplomacy may not be enough to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, but it would be a vital step in reducing the tension and hostility in the region.

Diego Cardona T.

Related