U.S.-NORTH KOREAN CRISIS

BY NADIA KHAN*

INTRODUCTION

            The ongoing crisis between United States of America (USA) and North Korea (NK) has not suddenly abrupted but it had begun immediately after 9/11 and has continued till now. Since 1993 when NK government refused to let inspectors examine the suspected sites of nuclear weapon production and threatened to withdraw from nuclear proliferation treaty, which the government had signed in 1985. The issue was temporarily resolved in 1994 by an agreement between USA and NK.

USA AND NK CRISIS

            In December 2002 Pyongyong threatened that it would reactivate a nuclear reactor that it had agreed to close and to resume construction on two other. A month earlier the regime had admitted that it was secretly developing a Uranium enrichment program and it further threatened to expel International inspectors who are there to insured that spent fueled rods are not used to produce nuclear weapons.

            Initially NK appeared conciliatory but later on declare that it is their right to develop nuclear weapon for their security. As a reaction USA announced the aid to NK is put to end and also halt oil shipment to NK. NK rejected international inspectors and reactivate its nuclear facilities for energy generation in Yongbyon plant and begin shipping fuel rods which is used to produce Plutonium by giving justification that USA halt oil shipment left no choice and blamed USA for wrecking 1994 pact.

            NK nuclear issue is a hot potato for all nations around peninsula as well as for international community whether USA will rely on military means as the last resort to solve the issue, as is the case with Iraq. However, there are several salient reasons that distinguish the two cases in nature and characteristics. The Bush administration truly believed that Saddam’s Iraq had a very high possibility of obtaining nuclear weapons in a number of years. Such a military capability of Saddam would have increased to danger USA troops in Middle East dramatically. It would have increased costs, in lives and money.

            However in looking NK problem, one cannot transplant the action in Iraq to Korean Peninsula. Iraq sits on nearly two third of world’s known oil reserves. An aggressive dictator controlling part of it and threatening the rest automatically draws the USA in, but what is the US interest in Korean’s problem?

            The current security arrangement with South Korea (SK) represents a leftover obligation from cold war where the US interest was the containment of communist expansion. The threat of communist expansion is gone. And for this reason US is now using the strategy by getting other involved in multilateral talks such as SK, Japan, China, and Russia and refused to get involved in bilateral talks for which NK was insisting. The participation in the talks allows US to demonstrates that it s taking a reasonable diplomatic approach to the crisis but the US objective is to force NK to back out of its Nuclear programme. US have also indicated that it may be willing to grant certain concession such as some kind of security guarantee. One advantage of the multilateral format is that it is a package that includes other parties and would make it easier for US to disguise any concession that might otherwise appear to reward NK blackmail and hence keep other states from employing the same technique.

INTERESTS AND OBJECTIVES

NORTH KOREA

            NK objectives will include obtaining a formal security guarantee from US and removing political and legal obstacles to economic assistance from Japan, SK and International financial institutions. NK will attempt to play the others five nations against another and exploits differences with respect to the urgency of disarming the NK. NK might for instance make a settlement that is acceptable to China and SK but unacceptable for US, sowing tension and disunity among the other parties.

SOUTH KOREA

            Negotiation settlement would remove the NK nuclear threat. SK would like to see NK adopt economics reforms and less threatening military posture that might facilitate eventually reunification. SK at same time is worried about US military actions that might escalate in a large military conflict.

CHINA

            Beijing has been forced to take a more active diplomatic role in order to ward off negative outcomes such as a major military conflict, a permanent NK weapons capability or a regime collapse that might sent NK refugees flooding into China. China’s short-term goal is to halt escalation (by either side) towards a military conflict and to keep the negotiation process going on and long-term goal is a nuclear free Korean peninsula.

JAPAN

            Tokyo is concerned about NK nuclear weapon capability, deployment of Taepo Dong missile that can reach Japan. Tokyo doesn’t have any interest in the resolution of the nuclear issue but is to leave Japan vulnerable to NK missile. If a negotiating settlement involves a significant economic assistance to NK, Japan will be expected to foot a large part of the bill in return of the missile and abduction issue must be resolved first. 

 RUSSIA

             Moscow’s reemergence as a key player in Korean negotiation is because of its own interest that is Moscow sees the Beijing talks primarily as an opportunity to promote long term economic, political and security interest in North East Asia. These interests are fortunately consistent with those of the US.

 CONCLUSION

            This issue would be resolved not by means of war but by multilateral talks because of the involvement of big powers which is the historical guarantor for resolving crises.  

*STUDENT, B.A (HONS) THIRD YEAR DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI

All content (C) Department of International Relations, Karachi University

Website designed and maintained by Techdorado Web Technologies Inc.
Disclaimer Email Webmaster, KUIRD.org