 |
| gettyimagesbank |
By Kang Seung-woo
Against the backdrop of 38 ballistic missiles launched last year, North Korea has shown its intention not to give up on its nuclear ambitions, raising speculation that nuclear arms control is emerging ― in the United States ― as an alternative method to contain Pyongyang's evolving nuclear program.
However, the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, a Seoul-based think tank, claims that negotiations with North Korea on nuclear arms control would be the starting point from which the South Korea-U.S. alliance could begin to fragment.
An arms control deal would mean curbing North Korea's nuclear development and avoiding the use of its existing weapons, but there are lingering concerns that, should the U.S. reach such a deal with the North, it would formally recognize the Stalinist state as a nuclear power ― a status the country has been aggressively seeking.
"Negotiations on arms control between the U.S. and North Korea will open a Pandora's box that could break the alliance and that is what North Korea is aiming for," its latest report said, Wednesday.
"North Korea has so far insisted on halting the South Korea-U.S. combined military exercises, the deployment of U.S. strategic assets and withdrawing U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula as prerequisites for denuclearization, which have played a role in deterring North Korean provocations. However, with the beginning of arms control talks, it will ultimately seek to dismantle the ROK-U.S. alliance."
The ROK stands for the Republic of Korea, the official name of South Korea.
The report also said that the arms control talks are likely to spark questions among American citizens on why Washington is keeping the alliance with South Korea and keeping U.S. Forces Korea on the peninsula, with threats from North Korea decreasing.
The Asan report came as the U.S. government, seemingly, hasn't ruled out the possibility of engaging in arms control talks with the Kim Jong-un regime.
"If they would have a conversation with us … arms control can always be an option if you have two willing countries willing to sit down at the table and talk," Bonnie Jenkins, State Department undersecretary for arms control, said last October.
In addition, experts, who advocate for the non-proliferation of North Korean nuclear weapons, claim that the international community should admit that North Korea has secured nuclear capabilities and that arms control negotiations are necessary in order to prevent its nuclear and missile programs from advancing further.
Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear non-proliferation expert at Middlebury Institute, said in his New York Times op-ed in October that it is time to recognize North Korea as a nuclear power.
However, the Asan report says that arms control talks are against the U.S. national interests because that is an idea that China and Russia, the two main foes of Washington, are supportive of.
"As for China and Russia, the breakup of the South Korea-U.S. alliance would undermine the U.S.' global leadership and make it lose its presence in Northeast Asia," it said.
In addition, the arms control talks are likely to result in shaking the international non-proliferation regime that the U.S. has consistently tried to maintain since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entered into force in 1970.
"Arms control negotiations cannot prevent North Korea's nuclear and missile provocations," the report said.
"North Korea will interpret the U.S.' willingness toward arms control talks as the success of its tactics and further modernize its nuclear and missile programs before the negotiations. Eventually, the arms control talks will promote North Korea's provocations."
Amid concerns that North Korea succeeds in its seventh nuclear test and test-firing of an intercontinental ballistic missile, this would back up the argument for arms control talks. The think tank advised government and private groups to seek countermeasures.
"The government should ask the U.S. to establish a clear position related to arms control negotiations, while private and academic groups should actively point out the logical contradiction," it added.
