Deciphering the North Korean Crisis - the US, China and India

The brinkmanship and war of words are certainly heating up between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un, both hawkish leaders, each no less predictable than the other. Kim Jong-un continues to provoke Washington with his nuclear advancements, for which he is being severely caricaturized by the western media.

Put this way, Kim Jong-un, even with his eccentricities, has exposed himself to be a powerful and a determined leader, taking the reins from his father Kim Jong-il, and developed a nuclear arsenal that now is seen as a threat to the mighty United States.

Washington's policy towards Pyongyang – a retrospective glance

Donald Trump has said that "strategic patience with the North Korean regime has failed," blaming his predecessor Barack Obama for his inability to contain Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions.

Washington's top priority even before Pyongyang launched its first nuclear in 2006, during the administration of George W. Bush, was to prevent them from doing so. Kim Jong-un detonated four more while Barack Obama was in office. Almost four decades, since Richard Nixon held office, Washington has tried to contain Pyongyang by issuing threats, organizing military exercises, intensifying economic and diplomatic sanctions, pressing Beijing and providing defense systems to North Korea's neighbors.

After the break down of the six party talks in 2009, which involved the United States, China, North Korea, Russia, South Korea, and Japan, there has been little sustained diplomatic channels between Washington and Pyongyang. Bar the deal signed in 2012 by Pyongyang to halt its nuclear weapons program in exchange for food aid, before the ink dried North Korea broke the deal, launched a satellite, which was rumored to be a disguised missile test.

It needs mention that Obama's so called ‘strategic patience' does not mean holding negotiations with Pyongyang. It meant the opposite. He refused to offer incentives to Pyongyang to return to the negotiating table. This was intended to avoid the cycle which was practiced in Bill Clinton and George W. Bush years, where Pyongyang would repeatedly ramp up the pressure, only to offer concessions in exchange for food and aid. Barack Obama clearly believed in isolation of the regime, push them back as possible, so they would stop their nuclear advancements. Well, after these years it is clear that Obama's policy towards North Korea has failed in its objectives, either Obama underestimated time or Kim Jong-un's power.

In 2002, George W. Bush branded the now famous 'axis of evil' - Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. According to Bush, they are rogue nations, even pariah states that confronted the global order with weapons of mass destruction. Bush swore that he will not allow these nations to threaten the United States, which didn't work out so well. Washington invaded Iraq, toppled Saddam Hussein, however at a terrible price, leaving Iraq as a highly dysfunctional state. In the meantime, Iran and North Korea only grew tougher, commanding their nuclear weapons program. Indeed, it was his successor Obama who resorted to sanctions and diplomacy, not military means which made an agreement that has temporarily restrained Iran's nuclear proliferation. Now, the sole remaining country in the 'axis of evil' is back, haunting Donald Trump.

Understanding Kim Jong-un and his North Korea

Two interpretations can be made about North Korea and its leader. First, Kim Jong-un is basically illogical, so there is no point in trying to negotiate with him, hence, he deserves an answer with a military machismo. Regrettably, this is a rather popular misconception.

Second, Kim Jong-un has some coherent objectives. He is purely interested in his own political survival and that of his regime, to maintain the popular support and to fuel his political ambitions. Kim Jong-un, like his predecessors, has built the entire regime almost entirely on the promise of standing up to a mighty and frightening foreign enemy, the United States. Reality is, the more looming the threat coming from the Washington, the better the propaganda to consolidate Kim Jong-un's power. Kim believes that nuclear weapons will work as a deterrent to avoid the fate of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi at the hands of United States. These nuclear weapons have become the linchpin of Pyongyang's defense stratagem. Also, as a result, of a calculated propaganda, even people of North Korea are certain that the United States poses a great threat to the very existence of North Korea, and that only a hardliner like Kim Jong-un can save them, at any cost, counting the use of nuclear options.

This fear mongering assumption brings the North Koreans together and rationalizes Kim Jong-un's diversion of nation's resources into building nuclear stockpiles and ballistic missiles. Sadly to Kim Jong-un, turnover of leadership in North Korean regime is frequent and brutal, and Kim's position is not necessarily secure. He is equally concerned about the potential for a Beijing-backed coup on his own power base. So ‘standing up to the enemy', that is the foundation for North Korea's past and present threat narratives, which plays well with Kim's domestic base and probably helps to reinforce his control over the regime, the military, and the party.

A war remains in no one's interest

It is beyond doubt that things are heated up, but it is too early to hit the panic button, as a military solution would be unwise.

"Once a war really happens, the result will be nothing but multiple loss. No one can become a winner," says Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi

No one in the region wants a war, not even North Korea, perhaps it may spell the end of Kim Dynasty, which is in power since the end of Japanese control of Korea in 1945. Neither Washington nor Beijing can also afford a war considering their economic and domestic situation. Tokyo's intentions are also clear that they will do anything to avoid a war, considering their proximity to North Korea, Japan will surely face the wrath of the war. South Korea, speaking of which is now under a liberal leader which is within the range of North Korea's conventional artillery rules out any option of war. They don't want to be scorched due to the hostility between the Washington and Pyongyang.

January 17, 1951 - Tank-led patrol of Leathernecks hunt down North Korean guerrillas somewhere in the mountainous region of Korea.

Kim Jong-un is not eager to stop his brinkmanship until Washington recognizes North Korea as a legitimate nuclear power. Such recognition will also make Kim Jong-un as the only ruler, who is capable of defending his people against the mighty United States.

But the combination of two unpredictable leaders, Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un, with nuclear launch codes, has created an atmosphere where anything seems possible in future. A possibility this time around is that Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump may have too much confidence in their capacity to manage a crisis.

Previous circumstances have taught us where a sudden and unexpected moment leads to a hasty and sensitive judgment that drives both sides down a tragic path from which there is no return. Say, for example, Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Can North Korea certainly win a war against the United States?

Strategic analysts around the globe have offered a range of mixed opinions. Some are convinced that Pyongyang already has the capability to strike Washington with nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. While some differ, for them even though North Korea maintains one of the world's largest standing army, it is no match for the United States Army.

Pyongyang's nuclear program is nascent and to make it efficacious in precision and target-hit they will still need a few more years. Apart from the nukes, North Korea has piles of chemical weapons and a large horde of submarines, even though redundant and not state-of-the-art, these can for sure inflict a subsequent damage on its enemy forces. All must agree to the point that North Korea is working on the machinery and it is rapidly making progress on its nuclear advancements.

Unlike Iraq where the Western rhetoric on weapons of mass destruction far overshadowed the facts on the ground, Pyongyang's nuclear arsenal is quite real. So, if the United States chooses to war against North Korea, it will be the first attempt to be made to overpower a country readily armed with a nuclear arsenal. Also, Pyongyang's nuke might work as a deterrent as it believes, and it would be suicidal for them to actually use and risk retaliation by the much more powerful American military.

Ambiguity in Washington's North Korea policy

There is a lack of clarity in the signs made by Washington, which has worsened after Donald Trump took his office. With Washington's unclear message to North Korea, things will only heat up further.

For instance, Donald Trump recently said if North Korea continues what it is doing, it will be "met with fire and fury like the world has never seen", which can be deciphered that Washington will be hard on North Korea, perhaps with its military machismo. On the contrary James Mattis, the Defense Secretary said in a press meet that "The American effort is diplomatically led, it has diplomatic traction, it is gaining diplomatic results and I want to stay right there right now...The tragedy of war is well-enough known it doesn't need another characterization beyond the fact that it would be catastrophic."

Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA has said that "it would be a great thing to denuclearize the peninsula, to get those weapons off of that, but the thing that is most dangerous about it is the character who holds the control over them today…. So from the administration's perspective, the most important thing we can do is separate those two. Right? Separate capacity and someone who might well have an intent and break those two apart." This is a clear signal that a regime change plan is in his cards.

Secretary Tillerson And Secretary Mattis

"The U.S. has no interest in regime change or accelerated reunification of Korea. We do not seek an excuse to garrison U.S. troops north of the Demilitarized Zone" wrote Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State and James Mattis in an editorial.

Pyongyang has no opposition party or any defection among ranks or any camp against Kim Jong-un or an autonomous military leadership. Considering the ground factors in North Korea, there are limited options for a regime change. Soon after assuming the leadership in 2011, Kim Jong-un spent the initial years in consolidating his power among military and bureaucratic ranks, eliminating his potential rivals by a purge, to him regime security is directly linked to his security as a leader.

Regime survival is the top priority of Kim Jong-un, if Washington makes any effort to alter it, things will get worse as Kim Jong-un will go to any extent to save his regime.

Why are sanctions not helping?

North Korea is one of the most heavily sanctioned nations on Earth. Unfortunately, North Korea one way or the other manages to do arms smuggling and illicit trading via its front companies at times with the help of countries like China. For example, in 2013, a North Korean ship was seized by the Panamanian government with Soviet-era weapons and fighter jets hidden under bags of sugar. Pyongyang claimed the aging weapons were simply being transferred to North Korea to be repaired.
Three years later, with more stern sanctions in place, another North Korean vessel, Jie Shun, was intercepted, this time in Egypt. The vessel's cargo included thousands of rocket propelled grenades along with other powerful military equipment. Iron Ore was the ship's stated cargo. United Nations described the haul as the "largest seizure of ammunition in the history of sanctions" against North Korea.

Pyongyang employs numerous front companies for agents and foreign banks to move money through, that leaves little to no paper trail to the regime, and when that won't do they hold large reserves of foreign cash. Strict sanctions' implementation is needed, which is unlikely.

Authorities uncovered 25 containers of military equipment buried under tonnes of sugar on the ship in July [AFP]

An important reason for the failure of sanctions is that it is not imposed by Beijing. China the northern neighbor of North Korea is the major trading partner and the largest provider of oil, energy, food, and aid. Even though this year saw the most powerful United Nations Security Council sanctions, trade between Beijing and Pyongyang remains unaffected. Even after the global pressure, Beijing remains silent when Chinese companies transfer technology and aid to North Korean counterparts, an act seen to be encouraging North Korea. Any sanction without Chinese collaboration will be futile, considering Beijing's agenda which is not likely to happen easily.

Should India be a bystander or actively engage?

India is one of the major trading partners (until April 2017) and the biggest food aid provider to North Korea.

However, New Delhi has been increasingly hawkish towards Pyongyang's proliferation record and has also been wary of North Korea's nexus with arch-rival Pakistan. Needless to mention, India also condemns Pyongyang's solid support towards Islamabad on the Kashmir Conflict.

India has always remained a country which supports the ‘reunification of Korean Peninsula'. Standing in a testing position, today New Delhi looks forward to strengthening ties with Washington to counterweight the assertive Beijing (U.S. keeps pressurizing India to scale down its North Korean ties) at the same time worries about the declining faith in Korean Peninsula. In April 2017, India aligned with United Nations' terms by prohibiting all trade with North Korea, with the exception of shipments of food and medicine. Washington praised India for its support to the sanctions. Since then India ships only food and medicine to the North Koreans.

Nehru with Mao Zedong

India has never failed to condemn the nuke tests staged by North Korea, at the same time continues to press for a peaceful dialogue as the only possible route and is concerned that scaling down in diplomatic ties may weaken India's already very narrow influence in the international debate on North Korea. On the brighter side, India's policy shift on North Korea may help strengthen its relationship with South Korea and the U.S. South Korea's new government has recently shown its interest to boost its ties with India.

"Changing the mindset of North Korea's ruler Kim Jong-un needs concerted efforts by all international players, including India" opined Enna Park, South Korea's ambassador.

It is evident that New Delhi played a dynamic role during the Korean War that left millions dead, injured or missing. In the build-up to the war, facilitating intra-war communication and helping implement the armistice, Indian diplomatic cables were intensely involved in the Korean peninsula.

Considering the present scenario, India favors a stable neighborhood and regional peace. It cannot take a risk to be torn by another war. New Delhi needs to push its diplomatic cables to try to negotiate peace in the peninsula. And in successfully doing so, its diplomatic stature in the Asia-Pacific region will rise significantly, strengthening New Delhi's long-term aspirations of being a viable competitor with Beijing for regional influence. With so much at stake, it is important that India stays engaged with the developments in the Korean peninsula.

What is China's role in the North Korean crisis?

China is North Korea's chief ally, major trading partner, the main source for food and energy. It has lent a hand to sustain Kim Jong-un's regime and has historically opposed harsh international sanctions on Pyongyang.

Beijing's support for North Korea dates back to the Korean War when Chinese troops flooded the Korean Peninsula to aid its northern ally. Since the war, China has lent political and economic backing to North Korea's leaders starting from Kim Il-sung, and Kim Jong-il to Kim Jong-un.

Chinese and North Korean flags attached to a railing as trucks carrying Chinese-made goods cross into North Korea on the Sino-Korean Friendship Bridge at the Chinese border

As a coaxing response to the global pressure, Beijing has taken limited measures to squeeze North Korea economically. In February 2017, China's commerce ministry temporarily suspended coal imports from North Korea through the rest of the year, a move that enhances the effectiveness of existing UNSC sanctions against North Korea. Beijing had previously banned coal imports from North Korea in April 2016 but had allowed exceptions in the name of "people's well-being."

Above all, China has established rail roads, and ship-ways to trade with North Korea, Bilateral trade between China and North Korea has steadily increased in recent years.

China, Japan, South Korea, and the United States have provided more than 75 percent of food aid to North Korea since 1995, but donations from all countries except for China have minimized significantly since the collapse of the six party talks. Since then China is the only major donor of food and energy.

China regards status quo on the Korean peninsula as its primary interest. Its support for North Korea ensures a friendly nation on its northeastern border and provides a buffer between China and the South Korea, which is home to around twenty-nine thousand U.S. troops.

To Beijing, any sudden collapse of the North Korea would in itself have destabilizing and unpredictable consequences. It might trigger an exodus of refugees into China. Even more importantly, it could fundamentally transform the existing balance of power in northeast Asia. The refugee issue is already a big menace in China.

Speaking of China and Japan relations, they are in new low, Beijing has and is using North Korea a buffer to Japan. Pyongyang too maintains an explicit hostility towards Tokyo.

Another point is that Beijing doesn't want the two Koreas to be unified, as anticipated they would be, this would create a formidable new power in the region. More importantly from a Beijing's perspective perhaps, the North Korean buffer zone would disappear and China would find itself with yet another potentially hostile power on its borders. Perhaps, unless the United States withdraw its forces from the South, China would also have to contend with an American military presence in its own back yard.

Much of Beijing's foreign policy is dedicated to re-establish what its people see as its rightful place at the epicenter of regional affairs. The disappearance of North Korea might not advance this plan and illustrate the Washington's continuing ability to contain Beijing's ambitions.

Looking forward

Apart from being recognized as a legitimate nuclear state, Pyongyang further wants to establish diplomatic relationship with Washington. Also, it is in the North Korean calculus to break the U.S. – South Korea alliance and undermine the South Korean initiatives for improved inter-Korean relations.

Kim Jong-Un inspecting the test-fire of intercontinental ballistic missile Hwasong-14 at an undisclosed location.

For now, policy failure on the peninsula has dampened hopes for a de-escalation of regional tensions. Though China, South Korea, and the United States agree that a denuclearized North Korea is a top priority, differences remain over how best to strip the country of its nuclear threat. Washington must be clear in its North Korea Policy and redefine its signals by involving Beijing into negotiations with North Korea. In other words, it is up to the major powers, especially Beijing and Washington, to beseech peace for the sake regional security in the name of a "grand negotiation".