By Tong Kim
The Korean Peninsula has been thrown into perhaps the worst security crisis in decades that may even lead to an unwanted limited war, of which the scope and duration are unpredictable. The belligerent rhetoric and more possible provocations from the North and the increasing military measures with a matching level of strong rhetoric by the South remind us of an often-quoted comparison of two trains rushing toward each other on a collision course.
Chinese President Hu Jintao told President Barack Obama in a phone call that tensions on the Korean Peninsula could get out of control, if not handled properly. If China and the United States fail to play their responsible roles to rein in their allies in the North and South to maintain the stability on the peninsula, it seems at least for now that the Koreans on both sides are ready to go to war to fight each other again.
The stated purpose of bolstering South Korea’s combat readiness in resolve and capability is to deter further aggression from North Korea, but also to counterattack if the deterrence fails. The South hopes its new posture would scare the North Koreans enough to give up any future attack on its territory. The North is warned of an unbearable or humiliating price to pay if it provokes the South again. In theory, this approach may work to deter the North from launching further lethal attacks. However, the logic of the theory is based on the assumption that the North Korean regime cannot afford to fight an all-out war even if there was massive retaliation against it, because of the North’s instability such as the political issue of succession and a severe economic problem.
Perhaps, a more plausible argument against the possibility of an all-out war should be: (1) the North Korean leadership understands that it cannot sustain offensive maneuvers for long and it understands its regime would be destroyed at the end; and (2) the average people on both sides care for the value of life, and they oppose a destructive war. The people in the South became angry against the North. They demand two conflicting measures: strong retaliation against North Korean attacks and the prevention of war at the same time.
There is a military view that it would take as little as three days to a week for the combined forces equipped with high tech precision strike capabilities to defeat and destroy North Korea as we know it today,
On the other hand, there is no certainty that the defiant North Koreans would be intimidated by military punishment from the South as to restrain themselves from making additional lethal attacks. What if the North Korean military take South Korea’s counter-attack as a start of war? As a Korean proverb says to an enemy, ``When I die, I will take you with me,” or ``You and I die together to settle the account.” Under this kind of suicidal mentality, it is not impossible to imagine that the North Koreans, out of desperation, might fire up all the weapons they have ― missiles, multiple rockets, long-range artillery pieces that are deployed forward to be able to hit South Korea’s capital with a population of more than 12 million people.
North Korea has an absolute superiority over the South in asymmetric offensive capabilities ― with strategic nuclear weapons, missiles, chemical and biological weapons, submarines and Special Forces for launching an unconventional warfare. According to the new defense minister, Kim Kwan-jin, a 61-year-old former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, there is a strong possibility that the North Koreans would launch more surprise attacks against the South with their symmetric capabilities. Like President Lee Myung-bak, the defense minister said, ``We do not want war but we are not afraid of it.” Seoul’s national intelligence chief also said the North is highly likely to attack the South again.
Now the South says it is ready to punish any future North Korean attack with military might ``until the source of threat is eliminated or until the North surrenders.” President Lee Myung-bak said, ``If the North commits any additional provocations…we will make sure that it pays a dear price.”
Pyongyang also issued a series of threatening statements: ``We do not fear war. ``The Korean Peninsula is being driven to an uncontrollable extreme phase. ``Our artillery remains ready to fire more shells to the South in a second and a third round of attacks to wipe out the enemy with a stronger punishment of fire, if its territory or its sovereignty is violated.”
Washington has long waited for North Korea to turn around and show its serious interest in denuclearization. South Korea has maintained its policy of ``denuclearization first” before improving inter-Korean relations, while hoping or waiting for a sudden change in the North, which will give the South the upper hand in unification. The North Koreans have been waiting for the U.S. to accept their conditions for talks to gain benefits. The Yeonpyeong incident has ended the waiting games. The waiting strategy by any of the three countries has produced no positive result anyway.
Now is the time to diffuse the mounting tensions in a crisis between war and peace. It is necessary to strengthen the defense against North Korean provocations, but it also requires wisdom to avoid a war that nobody wants. The recent WikiLeaks reports confirmed that the Seoul government was operating based on the notion of a North Korean collapse. Its ranking officials were predicting that Kim Jong Il would die in five years or less and the North would collapse in two or three years after Kim’s death. There is no hard evidence to support the grounds of these predictions.
If the South Korean government were operating in the wake of the Yeonpyeong incident with the assumption that the North Koreans would not be ready for a general war, it would be too risky and dangerous. President Lee said, ``Only courage that defies retreat under any threat or provocation will bring about genuine peace.”
It would take courage to resolve the crisis through the dialogue of diplomacy towards the achievement of ``genuine peace,” without worrying about the risk of war. People want peace, not war, and peace is achievable. What’s your take?
Tong Kim is a research professor with the Ilmin Institute of International Relations at Korea University and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). He can be reached at tong.kim8@yahoo.com.