How to maneuver around a war with North Korea

CAIRO - 1 October 2017: For the 60-plus years that have followed the Korean War (1950-1953), North Korea has chosen a path of obstinacy and a lack of cooperation, or so it seems to the world. Namely, its lack of cooperation is a result of its intuition regarding the United States’ intentions for its regime.

It is because of this war that North Korea clings so fervently to its nukes and nuclear program. Pyongyang’s obstinacy solely aims for its regime’s survival, out of knowledge that Washington will not hesitate to dethrone its regime once it gives up its nuclear program, the only safeguard it has.


North Korean leader Kim Jong Un (not pictured) guides the launch of a Hwasong-12 missile in this undated combination photo released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on September 16, 2017. KCNA via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS

It is this realization that set in after it witnessed the United States’ intervention in Libya in 2011, when the U.S. intervened and in effect delivered regime change. While officials argued that the intervention was under a humanitarian cause of delivering the Libyan people from Qaddafi, Foreign Policy reported otherwise.

“The intervention in Libya shows that the slippery slope of allegedly limited interventions is most steep when there’s a significant gap between what policymakers say their objectives are and the orders they issue for the battlefield. Unfortunately, duplicity of this sort is a common practice in the U.S. military. Civilian and military officials are often instructed to use specific talking points to suggest the scope of particular operations is minimal relative to large-scale ground wars or that there is no war going on at all,” wrote Micah Zenko for Foreign Policy.

This was the moment of truth for Pyongyang. Quite self-aware, the leadership could recognize that the factors that led the U.S. to intervene in Libya were very much similar to those existing in North Korea. Repression? Check. Starvation? Check. Dictatorship? Of course.

“Kim sees nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles as ‘his ticket to survival,’" Senator Bob Corker said at a hearing at the chamber on Thursday, Reuters reported. But that means that we’ve been living in a stalemate, one that seems to be slowly destabilizing to heighten the tension.


The U.S. has attempted to initiate dialogue with North Korea, trying to graft a chance to dissect Kim’s mind, Reuters reported; but the “State Department said later there were no signs Pyongyang was interested in talks.”

However, on Sunday, Trump ruled out dialogues. “I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man," Trump wrote on Twitter a day after Tillerson disclosed the United States was directly communicating with North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs but that Pyongyang had shown no interest in dialogue.

I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 1, 2017

"Save your energy Rex, we'll do what has to be done!" Trump added.

...Save your energy Rex, we'll do what has to be done!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 1, 2017

While the main aim worldwide is to defeat Kim Jong-un, it is also and perhaps more primarily, to make sure that the world sees a safe transition from a state waving its nuclear arms in the air as a threat, to a state that can provide the minimum acceptable living standards, without a nuclear war launching on hand.

Previously, Reid Pauly, a Ph.D. candidate in political science at (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) MIT and predoctoral fellow at Harvard who researches nuclear proliferation, nuclear strategy, deterrence and assurance theory, spoke to the Business Insider about North Korea’s concern.

“Fast forward to today, American power in the western Pacific is not in doubt in Pyongyang. What is in doubt is the credibility of American and allied pledges not to intervene in North Korea. Until that fundamental security assurance is made credible, expect Kim to hang on to his nuclear deterrent,” Pauly said.

Since all that is now in the past, there is no possibility that North Korea will back down. Now that the U.S.’ threats are becoming a reality, both states are certainly tempting fate.

Weeks ago, while threats of “fire and fury” were being exchanged between Trump and Kim, President Putin has ascertained that the U.S.’ approach of imposing even grander sanctions will lead nowhere in his famous phrase, “They’ll eat grass, but they won’t abandon their program.”

But Putin was right in that regard for several reasons, most importantly because North Korea’s sole ally and trade partner, China, is still North Korea’s ally. In addition, Stephen Haggard, the director of the Korea-Pacific Program at University of California San Diego, when interviewed and asked about North Korea’s trade ties, stated to Egypt Today, “The Committee of Experts report suggests that there was a lot of illicit trade with North Korea coming from and going to other countries as well.”

So, in order to be able to assess the best possible strategy to end this conflict, one must question China’s motives, as it is the most crucial trade partner North Korea has. How far is China willing to go for North Korea?

The world recognizes that while North Korea has taken its nuclear program off the table and ascertained that it is not a bargaining chip – China might be. It might be the best bargaining chip left. China counted for 92.6 percent of North Korea’s trade in 2016, according to Public Radio International (PRI).

It is absolutely vital to understand that North Korea is basically the most isolated state in the world. No media gets in and no media gets out. Coverage is near impossible to enter the country and no one can report back to the world. Everyone inside is stuck inside with very little prospects of being rescued. In 2017, North Korea came at the very bottom of the World Press Freedom index, said Reporters Without Borders in April. “The Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) is the sole source of news for the print and broadcast media and listening to a foreign radio can lead to a concentration camp,” the report read.

Therefore, it is difficult to have a clear image of the living conditions within, save of course for the all encompassing repression its citizens live in. Even though information and statistics on North Korea are difficult to attain, since the state never publishes its economic data, and the economic data available to the world comes from South Korea, as Reuters reported, one can safely assume that most of the state’s finances are spent on nuclear militarization and development.


North Korean leader Kim Jong Un gives field guidance during a visit to a fruit orchard in Kwail county, South Hwanghae province in this undated photo released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang September 21, 2017. KCNA via REUTERS

While that sounds like the state is running itself into the ground, its focus on nuclear development has actually bolstered its economy, increasing its gross domestic product (GDP) in 2016 3.9 percent from the year before, Reuters reported.

But even North Korea’s only ally, China, had approved imposing sanctions on exports of iron, coal, iron ore, lead, lead ore, and fish on North Korea in the UN Security Council earlier in August, according to the Inquirer.

China does not seem to take a clear stance in the crisis. While at times it threats that it will back Pyongyang, other times it appears to be as reluctant as possible to do so. Some other times, China even seems willing to cooperate with the U.S.

“A series of shifts in China’s military posture near the North Korean border suggest a military increasingly willing to send forceful signals to Kim Jong Un: at times of heightened tensions, the Chinese military appears to be preparing itself for the fall of Pyongyang,” The Atlantic stated.

Which brings us back to China’s interests; how does China benefit from its relation with North Korea?

First, North Korea is the only other communist state in the bloc. It is also a safeguard against U.S. actions in China, and vice versa. The cornerstone of North Korean-Chinese relations is the survival of both respective regimes. They ensure each other that their regimes will not be overturned by either external nor internal influences or actions.

This is all a part of the “democratize the world” policy that the West, primarily the U.S., is known for. While most people believe this policy is majorly targeted and carried out in the Middle East, it is also familiar in Asia. It is a perceived notion in the U.S. that any state using a governance system other than democracy is ultimately repressing and violating the rights of its citizens. Whether or not that is true, is a discussion for another article, perhaps.

Second, the U.S. forces stationed in South Korea cause China some anxiety. While Chinese-American relations remain diplomatic and somewhat amicable, China cannot be said to trust the U.S. and vice versa. The different ideologies and regimes that both states respectively employ disallow them from openly trusting one another.

Third, North Korea is very much a strategic ally indeed. The trade partnership between them is quite fruitful for China; it is basically monopolized by China. As mentioned before, China comprises more than 90 percent of North Korea’s trade, thus, making it all the harder for China to want to lose such a lucrative ally.

Fourth, Haggard also stated that one of China’s concerns is the consequences of North Korea crumbling. Refugees would flood into China, and as is China struggles to provide for its own massive population. According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), “Beijing began constructing a barbed-wire fence more than a decade ago to prevent migrants from crossing, but the International Rescue Committee estimates thirty to sixty thousand North Korean refugees live in China, though some nongovernmental organizations believe the total to be more than two hundred thousand.”

If North Korea crumbles, the peninsula will in effect be flooded with chaos, as CFR predicts.

Hence, it will be very hard for the U.S. to convince China into reigning in North Korea. China benefits more from its alliance to North Korea than it probably would from its ties to the U.S.; even if it strengthens them.

Now looking into the U.S.’ role in curbing the conflict, one must shine a special spotlight on Trump. While provocations were issued from both sides, Trump’s goal should be to avert a war from happening, especially one that might take place on a land covered with hidden missiles, as the Guardian reported. However, Trump so far is rooting with all his might for a war. A war that will consequently drag in several other states, turning into a global one.


U.S. President Donald Trump (R), flanked by Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Tom Price, delivers remarks during an opioid-related briefing at Trump's golf estate in Bedminster, New Jersey, U.S., August 8, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/Files

What happens if the U.S. and North Korea go to war:

Warfare between the U.S. and North Korea would entail the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and neither state can afford that. Even if they used traditional weapons and means of warfare, there’s the issue of the hidden missiles in North Korea, which would multiply the damage either way.

More importantly, the war will drag in its path many states.

Supposedly, China under the Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty of 1961 would be obliged to come to North Korea’s aid. Taking these briefly discussed factors into consideration, this would be a war lost before it has been fought. On the other hand, Business Insider and The Atlantic have reported that China is not willing to risk itself by backing Pyongyang.

On the U.S.’ side, Australia has pledged allegiance. “Australia, a long-time U.S. ally, has stated that it will invoke a mutual defense if the U.S. is attacked by North Korea,” the Business Insider reported.

Japan is already preparing. “Japan's government is preparing to position Patriot Advanced Capability missile defense batteries along the route of a possible North Korean missile strike on Guam, according to Nikkei Asian Review. The U.S. and Japan cooperate closely on defense, and Japanese ships support the U.S.'s Aegis missile defense systems at sea and on land,” the Business Insider stated.


Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (R) listens to Shigeo Iizuka (2nd R), leader of a group of families of Japanese abducted by North Korea, and its members at his official residence in Tokyo September 28, 2017. REUTERS/Toshifumi Kitamura/Pool

In attempting to liberate the people from Kim Jong-un’s rule, the U.S. would be killing them along the way, that is, civilian casualties and even the soldiers fighting against them. There would be no effective means of protecting them from a war.

Second, the United States, even though considering this as an option, cannot assassinate Kim Jong-un. According to the Guardian, South Korea has brigades trained in assassinating the North Korean dictator, but again… what would guarantee that his successor is any different? That is not to mention that this would be a low tactic to use, one far from the diplomacy and discussions that mark 21st century politics. In addition, even this option could also end up with a war, which has to be avoided at all costs.

Third, and perhaps most rationally, the U.S. would need to come up with an agreement that China would find more favorable than its alliance with North Korea. As is, China seems to be edging a little further away from North Korea as its conflict with the U.S. darkens. According to the Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty signed between China and North Korea, China is obligated to come to North Korea’s aid if the U.S. launches the first attack.

Such as it is, it has been said that even China discusses denuclearization with North Korea in their meetings, and that their patience “may be waning,” as Ian E. Rinehart and Mary Beth Nikitin stated in their report, “North Korea: U.S. Relations, Nuclear Diplomacy, and Internal Situation Emma Chanlett-Avery, Coordinator.”

So it all comes down to one last question: If China withdraws its support to North Korea, will it still pursue its aggressive policy or cave?