North Korean Nukes, South Korean Strain
The United States needs to carefully explore its options for dealing with North Korean nuclear ambitions while repairing a strained relationship with South Korea.
February 2003
he United States and North Korea are tangled in a familiar confrontation over nuclear arms. Meanwhile, the United States and South Korea are undergoing unfamiliar shifts in their vital alliance.
A nuclear-armed North Korea threatens vital American interests, the security of the region, and the global nonproliferation regime. A meeting of Korea experts at the Institute in December agreed that the options for dealing with this threat fall into three categories: toleration, negotiation, and retaliation.
Considering both the first nuclear crisis in 1993–94 and the current situation, the experts agreed on several important points.
North and South Korean border guards at the demilitarized zone between their two countries.
- Third party mediation by regional allies may be a way to break the stalemate without a significant loss of face for the parties involved.
- North Korea is skilled in brinkmanship. The United States, after 10 years and with a much clearer understanding of North Korea's negotiating style, is better positioned to anticipate and counter their tactics.
- The first North Korean nuclear crisis taught the United States that effective policy requires a clear objective and establishment of "red-lines"—lines that must not be crossed—that are fully understood by, and credible with, North Korea.
- The United States must remain focused on preventing a North Korean "strategic breakout" (acquiring nuclear weapons and associated long-range missile delivery systems). Other considerations—regime change, humanitarian relief, and human rights—remain secondary.
The Institute hosted a Current Issues Briefing about the dual crises on the Korean peninsula on January 13, chaired by Institute Research and Studies director Paul Stares, with presentations by Robert Einhorn, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Marcus Noland, Institute for International Economics; and Research and Studies deputy director William Drennan.
A poster released by Pyongyang's Korean Central News Agency reads "Ruthless Punishment to U.S. Imperialism."
A military response to the North Korean threat is an extreme option, said Einhorn. On the other hand, active political and diplomatic engagement with North Korea would not likely address core issues and may reward "nuclear blackmail." And economic coercion may further strain U.S. relations with South Korea.
Einhorn concluded that talks must take place, but not under duress. The United States must be prepared to address North Korean concerns without rewarding its recent behavior. He advocated "incremental" engagement, beginning with the issue of nuclear proliferation and moving to issues of humanitarian needs, economics, and human rights. The current crisis, future agreements, and the necessary verification regime afford roles for all regional powers, including South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia.
Noland focused the discussion on North Korean motivations. He presented the North Korean nuclear strategy within the context of an effort to strategically reposition itself within the international community and ensure regime survival in the long-term.
Noland warned of increasing rifts between South Korea and the United States regarding North Korea's intentions. South Korea is more concerned about the North Korean economic situation and troop build-up along the Demilitarized Zone separating the two countries than about weapons of mass destruction. "The U.S. administration's . . . focus on one—albeit important—part of this puzzle is unlikely to resolve the entire nuclear conundrum," said Noland.
Drennan wrapped up the discussion by emphasizing the changing relationship with South Korea. A growing middle class in South Korea has produced a new generation of leadership that downplays the threat posed by North Korea and that tends to view American forces more as an obstacle to better North-South relations than a security shield. America's longstanding relationship with South Korea is essential to both countries, stressed Drennan, but is threatened by rising anti-Americanism in South Korea and the resulting anti-Korea backlash in the United States. The alliance has served—and can continue to serve—as a linchpin in ensuring stability and security in East Asia, but it must be modernized to reflect new conditions in South Korea if it is to survive.
