On January 6, North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test which it claimed was the first hydrogen bomb detonation with “perfect success.” Although there has been no independent confirmation of the success, the test sparked off swift international condemnation underlining the world powers’ dilemma in dealing with the maverick state’s long-running but escalating nuclear program.
Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, called the test “deeply troubling” and “profoundly destabilising for regional security.” “This test,” he asserted, “once again violates numerous Security Council resolutions despite the united call by the international community to cease such activities.” In fact, North Korea’s apparent aim is to build an arsenal of thermonuclear weapons that could eventually be delivered on long-range missiles sparked off serious concerns to neighboring countries, especially Japan and South Korea.
Despite being North Korea’s only ally, China expressed its “firm opposition” adding that North Korea should “stop taking any actions that would make the situation worse.” It is indeed regrettable, as one non-proliferation expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies remarked that, “both the nuclear and the missile program of North Korea are continuing without any significant control by the international community.”
Implications
What implications could be of such an act of nuclear proliferation by North Korea for its neighbours and global governance? It is noteworthy that in the past 60 years, East Asia has risen from a backwater devastated by war to become the economic and political centre of the world in early 21st century. Its dominant powers -- China, Japan, South Korea, and, because of its presence and interests in the area, the United States -- lead the world in economic growth, technological innovation, and military strength.
North Korea stands apart from the rest of East Asia. In a region known for robust economic growth, integration, and long-term planning -- North Korea is the only country in East Asia that is poor, isolated, and appears to have little grasp of thinking in terms of long term future.
North Korea’s authoritarian leader Kim Jong-Un is focused exclusively on the tactical challenges of short-term survival and perpetuation in power. North Korea continued to pursue nuclear tests in addition to serious violations of human rights undermining international norms and institutions, including the United Nations.
Neighbouring countries and global powers issued stern statements against North Korea following January 6 detonation and called an urgent UN meeting. While it is almost certain that that move will prompt UN imposing further economic sanctions, the measures will not have major repercussions unless the US decides to introduce comprehensive financial sanctions that will essentially ban all global banking institutions dealing with North Korea.
The test is also expected to worsen North Korea’s relations with China which has been frustrated by nuclear programs of this troublesome neighbour, a recipient of Chinese aid and investment. North Korea risks losing yet more goodwill from its main patron and nominal ally. China may not abandon North Korea at the UN when it comes to human rights issues, but there will be more pressure within Chinese society and the political-economic field to turn the screws on this immature state for its nuclear ambitions.
Denuclearisation
The United Nations Security Council adopted four major resolutions since 2006 that imposed and strengthened sanctions on North Korea for continuing to develop its nuclear weapons program and called on Pyongyang for denuclearisation -- to dismantle its nuclear program “in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner.”
All four resolutions were passed unanimously by the Security Council under Chapter VII, Article 41 of the United Nations Charter. While legally binding, states are prohibited from using force to carry out the obligations of the resolutions. The resolutions called upon North Korea to rejoin the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which it acceded to in 1985 but withdrew in 2003 after US allegations that the country was pursuing an illegal uranium enrichment program.
In fact, North Korea’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons’ capabilities continued unchecked, and complicated both military and diplomatic options for pursuing denuclearisation by the United Nations and major powers. Most analysts recommend pursuance of a “combination strategy” that employs deterrence, pressure, and dialogue to bring North Korea to denuclearise.
Unfortunately, the US policy that contains all these elements so far has not been sufficient to make progress. UN secretary general insists on denuclearisation and North Korea’s neighbours should also come to a consensus on the benefits that should rightfully accrue from such a process.
The three relevant countries have diverging priorities, with the United States and South Korea emphasising denuclearisation and China emphasising peace and stability on the peninsula. Harmonising these priorities is a fundamental requisite for adopting a common approach to the North Korean problem, including achieving a denuclearised Korean Peninsula.
China’s deepening economic engagement with North Korea is frustrating to US and, similarly, South Korean attempts to isolate and pressurise the Kim Jong-Un regime have not been very effective.
As China’s engagement continues, it is becoming increasingly difficult to sanction North Korea without impinging on commercial and economic interests of the former. Therefore, the US and South Korea should explore ways to persuade China to join initiatives to curb North Korean provocations and nuclear development in return for clearer assurances about allied intentions on the Korean peninsula over the longer run.
Prospects
Is it possible to denuclearise North Korea -- an immature state that continues to violate international norms and human rights? 12 years ago, in 2003, North Korea joined negotiations on the denuclearisation of the Korea peninsula in the framework of six-party talks that included US, Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea.
The negotiations stalled in 2009 after North Korea withdrew from Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refused to take part in further discussions. Today, North Korea is more emboldened by its hydrogen bomb detonation and seems to have very few possibilities to dismantle its nuclear program as it considers nuclear weapons as a security guarantee to protect its sovereignty from a possible invasion from the US.
China has vehemently reacted to North Korea’s recent H-Bomb Test and urged the resumption of the six-party talks to denuclearise the Korean peninsula. The position of China concerning peace-keeping and stability in the Korean peninsula is consistent and clear. China supports denuclearisation and settlement of the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula by means of peace talks and dialogue.
China consistently speaks up for the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, the protection of the peace and stability, and that the relevant issues are resolved through dialogue. The most critical element is, therefore, the US-ROK-China strategic triangle, which has become the salient mechanism for managing regional crises and shaping a future security structure over the long term. Enhanced co-operation and co-ordination among these three nations can lead to a more effective diplomatic approach to negotiating the denuclearisation of North Korea.
The United States, South Korea, and China should now turn the current crisis into an opportunity to improve tri-lateral security co-ordination and co-operation through enhanced Confidence Building Measures (CBM) and other risk-reduction process.
The best option is, therefore, to engage with China in deterring North Korean provocations and weapons of mass destruction and pursue vigorous diplomatic efforts under the UN auspices to denuclearise North Korea on urgent basis.
