Three strikes is an out

By Ben Kolisnyk

Thus far in the discussion about a potential natural gas pipeline from Russia through North Korea into South Korea, most of the focus has been on the economic benefits to Russia and North Korea, the quenching of South Korea’s thirst for fossil fuels in light of its energy deficit, and the possible impact such a pipeline could have on inter-Korean relations.

However, the toxic combination of pumping cash into the Kim Jong-il regime in the North, the ultimate failure of this project to improve inter-Korean ties, and the environmental repercussions suggest that this project should not move forward.

Strike One:

This pipeline is an economic agreement with no obligations on the part of the North to comply with the myriad of international agreements that the world has been pleading it to abide by. The end product for the regime is hard currency for essentially signing a piece of paper. And we all know that this money will not go toward feeding the starving masses but toward missile production and military procurement.

Strike Two:

The jury is clearly still out on the liberal assumption that economic interdependence lowers the likelihood of war, so this pipeline should not be built on the justification that inter-Korean projects and economic cooperation will improve ties, ultimately leading to reunification. Events like the shooting of a tourist at Mt. Geumgang, the sinking of the warship Cheonan and the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island indicate that North Korean aggression is on the rise.

The internal drive to ensure smooth regime succession demonstrates the primacy in North Korea of domestic politics over economic cooperation and the perceived benefits of military restraint. Besides, there are better ways to improve ties; signing a permanent peace treaty, for example, which the North has long called for.

Some have suggested that the problem with this project is that North Korea would have too much control because it could capriciously turn off the flow of gas to the South. This would not happen because the North needs the money. More importantly, the North would be unlikely to do this in light of the impact it would have on Pyongyang-Moscow relations.

Kim Jong-il seems to see the pipeline as a way to play Russia off against China and gain favors from both Moscow and Beijing in true North Korean fashion. If Kim hopes to use a future rail link involving the Koreas and Russia as another point of leverage in negotiations over things like its nuclear program and humanitarian aid, upsetting interested parties on this project would not make sense.

Strike Three:

Until now the environmental factor has been completely ignored. As a former resident of the South I’ve witnessed the environmental destruction firsthand that has gone on under the current and past administrations as they narrow-mindedly pursued development, resulting in the degradation of Korea’s fragile natural world.

It is no surprise that energy poor and atomic energy dependent South Korea welcomes the chance to shift its energy infrastructure away from nuclear power to natural gas, especially as the Fukushima nuclear disaster has demonstrated that we are no closer to nuclear power safety than we were following Three-mile Island or Chernobyl. But rather than turning to fossil fuels, South Korea should pursue clean, sustainable, safe and self-sufficient energy sources like wind, solar and tidal options.

South Korea recently announced it will move to have the DMZ declared as a UNESCO Eco-reserve. Rather than moving forward with this pipeline so that dirty natural gas flows through the pristine land of the proposed eco-reserve, South Korea ought to take a card out of Pyongyang’s playbook and cancel this project.

The writer holds bachelor and master degrees in political science and is a former longtime resident and frequent visitor of South Korea. He can be reached at benkolisnyk@hotmail.com.