More nuke tests likely after US election

By Kim Jae-kyoung

North Korea is expected to perform more nuclear and missile tests after the U.S. presidential election in November to gain an edge in negotiations, according to a North Korea expert.

“As we course through the next U.S. president’s first term, we will likely see more nuclear and missile tests as Pyongyang tries to scare us into believing it is impervious to military action on our part,” William Brown, professor at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, told The Korea Times.

“And it will continue to demand our acknowledgment of its new powers,” he added. “We have to look tactically at what North Korea is up to and how our leaders will respond to its provocations and potentially more constructive initiatives.”

According to Brown, it is estimated that North Korea had a few crude nuclear devices at the beginning of Obama’s term but now has upwards of 20 weapons, and is on the way toward a hundred or more in the not too distant future, all deliverable by missiles targeting South Korea, Japan, and U.S. bases.

“North Korea wants us to be aware of its growing capabilities and thus willingly shows off that it has both plutonium and enriched uranium facilities in operation, presumably cranking out fissile material,” he said.

“Once you have plenty of highly enriched uranium, it is expensive but relatively easy to develop powerful weapons and shorter range missile delivery systems,” he added. “Kim Jung-un is able to laugh at our sanctions with impunity and promote his “byeongjin line.”

However, Brown, who is also a non-resident research fellow at the Korea Economic Institute in Washington, pointed out that the byeongjin line — its dual policy to pursue nuclear armament and economic developments simultaneously — may backfire on the young, unpredictable leader.

“Kim is shooting himself in the foot by allowing market forces to increasingly dominate his command economy and that will come back to haunt him,” he said.

“So it’s kind of a race inside North Korea and we need to be quick to take advantage,” he added.“I’m thinking some changes in our defense and sanctions policies are needed in order to accomplish that.”

When asked which U.S. presidential candidates — Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump — would be better for Korea, he said that it depends on whether the situation is sustainable or unsustainable.

“If the track is sustainable, Clinton might be the better choice for a stable South Korea,” he said. “If unsustainable, something needs to change and Trump would seem to be the more likely one to induce needed changes.”

Brown expects that Clinton, especially given the increasing weight of left-leaning Sander’s supporters, would respond with efforts to negotiate, while Trump would probably try something more dramatic and adventurous that can be scary for Seoul.

“Kim Jong-un must be more than a little afraid of Trump, and less afraid of Clinton, so I figure the former is the better deterrent for our side,” he said.

“One concern for Trump is that he will not be ready, given his lack of Washington experience and what will be an entirely new executive branch,” he added. “Trump probably would have to rescind the Obama executive action that specifically sanctions the young Kim.”

He said that Clinton has plenty of experienced people to fall back on but the question is “Do we want that kind of experience?”

“Clinton might try to engage again using her husband, who visited Pyongyang and met with Kim a couple of years ago,” he said. “Or she might again use her friend Madeline Albright, also with experience in Pyongyang.”