Escalating tensions on Korean Peninsula
.jpg?w=728)
By Tong Kim
The strategic situation on the Korean peninsula is getting more complicated because of a recent chain of ill-advised actions and reactions by the relevant adversaries including the two Koreas, the United States, and China. Tensions have escalated, threatening the uneasy peace in Korea, making it more difficult to seek any peaceful resolution to the North Korean issues of nuclear and missile development, and human rights abuses. Forget about unification.
During the last two weeks, two notable actions were taken, which brought about immediate reactions, signaling more bad news for the Korean peninsula. First, Washington designated Kim Jong-un as a target to sanction for his responsibility for human rights abuses in North Korea. Then, the Seoul government announced its decision to deploy the THAAD system to South Korea. Pyongyang and Beijing reacted in strong terms.
Announcing the list that identified the North Korean leader and some of his subordinates as abusers of human rights, senior officials of the Obama administration said that with the new human rights sanctions in place, the United States now could address both issues ― nuclear weapons and human rights ― at the same time.
The sanctions prohibit the individuals on a blacklist from travel to the U.S., freeze their assets in the U.S., and deny them access to the international banking system. In reality, the targets will not be directly affected. They have no known assets in the U.S. and they would not miss travelling there. They can always use other individuals or entities to use third country banks.
The administration does not expect the new measures to affect the target’s interests immediately. But it hopes that in the long run, it would have a restraining effect on the “low and mid-level functionaries to think twice before they decide on an act of cruelty or repression.”
This hope is based on an assessment that “more and more people, including those within the regime, are conscious that the political situation in the North may change in their life times” and they will realize if they were put on the sanctions list, their lives would be disadvantaged. This could be a message to those “who run concentration camps or hunt down defectors” only in conjunction with a collapse scenario of the North Korean regime.
Pyongyang’s reaction was quick and concrete. The DPRK called the U.S. human rights sanctions a defamation to “the dignity of the supreme leadership” and “a declaration of war.” It tested another submarine launched ballistic missile. It toughened its belligerent rhetoric against the U.S. It officially closed the “New York Channel,” the only remaining line of communication between Washington and Pyongyang until that point, pronouncing that any matters involving the U.S. will be handled according to the DPRK’s “wartime law.” The North gave up any hope of dialogue with the Obama administration.
Seoul’s decision to deploy the THAAD system is more complete and more controversial. Aside from technical questions about the effectiveness of the system and its impact on the safety of people who live near its base due to radiation generated, it became a political issue at home in the South, and a contentious issue with China and the North.
Local residents in the county of Seongju, the designated site for THAAD deployment, have been staging demonstrations against the deployment with support of most of the national legislators representing North Gyeongsang Province, a power base for President Park. But, all politics are local.
Opposition parties have raised questions ― about the secretive process by which the decision for deployment was made, the decision’s legality, the limitations of the system’s capability, its strategic impact on the overall security environment in the region, and its diplomatic repercussions. Many members believe the decision should be subject to review and approval by the National Assembly. One prominent politician is calling for a national referendum on THAAD deployment.
The Global Times, an official organ of the Chinese Communist Party, warned Seoul not to underestimate China’s resolve against THAAD. It suggested to impose Chinese sanction against Seongju and its products, voicing that the Chinese army should target missiles at the new THAAD base, “to neutralize any potential threat.”
China, along with Russia and North Korea, strongly opposes the deployment. China does not accept explanations from Seoul and Washington that the deployment aims only at the threat of North Korean missiles.
In the meantime, the artillery bureau of the KPA’s General Staff, issued a warning that “the DPRK will take strong physical counter action” upon confirmation of the THAAD’s location and “it will make the warmongers suffer from the nightmare of extreme uneasiness and terror.” A spokesman for the Committee for the Reunification of the Fatherland of the DPRK called the THAAD deployment “an unpardonable treacherous act” by President Park, vowing to bolster Pyongyang’s nuclear force.
As we can see, the immediate reactions to the two important measures ― human rights sanctions and THAAD deployment ― were disturbing. If the human rights sanction was designed based on a collapse scenario, it will have no practical impact on the current North Korean leadership. On the other hand, it will serve to increase attention to the serious level of human rights abuses that are hard to ignore from human conscience.
THAAD on the other hand has some military merit, despite its technical limitations against incoming missiles from the North. While it is not a perfect weapon, it can still contribute to the overall strengthening of a multi-layer missile defense system. China’s opposition is based on its strategic perspective. China sees it as a tool of containment against it. Beijing thinks THAAD tilts the military balance of power in favor of the U.S. and its allies in the region. In a recent meeting, the leaders of China and Russia shared a view that THAAD deployment would undermine the stability of the region.
There are concerns in Seoul that China may pull back or slow down its implementation of UN sanctions against North Korea. China may retaliate against Seoul’s THAAD decision by restricting trade or reducing Chinese tourists to South Korea. It may invite Kim Jong-un to Beijing to solidify a revived alliance that would include Russia to counter the expanding military capabilities of the U.S. alliances in the region. What’s your take?
Tong Kim is a Washington correspondent and
columnist for The Korea Times. He is also a fellow
at the Institute of Korean-American Studies. He
can be contacted at tong.kim8@yahoo.com.