Modify engagement policy toward N. Korea

By Shim Jae-yun

“Will war break out in Korea?” This is a question I get often these days. Like most people here staying calm despite rattling dispute over North Korea’s repeated firing of missiles, I have remained largely negative over the possibility of war on the peninsula.

The war could, however, take place under two scenarios with either the United States making preemptive strikes against the reclusive nation or the North invading the South or firing at U.S. territory. The first is unlikely to occur. This will mean an outbreak of all-out war as China will engage in the possible military conflict triggered by the U.S. The latter seems also unfeasible. This is because North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is too smart to run the risk of getting himself and his dynasty crushed by invading the South.

Tensions appear to be growing again, triggered by U.S. President Donald Trump who cited the need to “totally destroy” North Korea in his UN speech, Tuesday. But his remarks will unlikely worsen the situation given he lost credibility in his remark because of his frequent flamboyant rhetoric.

North Korea has been fully exploiting the delicate relations between the U.S. and China in Northeast Asia in its bid to build up its nuclear capability. With China as its patron, the North has made much progress toward the goal of getting international recognition as a nuclear power. The recent 6th nuclear test proved North Korea has been putting the final touch to its nuclear weapons.

The North will surely press ahead with its nuclear ambitions in preparation for possible future post-nuclear negotiations. The North showed its wayward attitude when it threatened to bomb sea areas around the U.S. territory of Guam.

Now it seems unavoidable to admit the North is a nuclear power state. The focus of future negotiations should shift to how to freeze the North’s nuclear power rather than denuclearize it. While searching for the possibility of dialogue with the North, we should never unveil our tactics in advance.

The U.S. has indicated it would positively consider reinstallation of tactical nuclear weapons as means of pressuring China to wield its influence over the North. Until now, the President Moon Jae-in administration has failed in its efforts to resolve the lingering tension and improve the inter-Korean relations through dialogue. Moon has been sticking to the sunshine policy of engagement with North Korea pursued by his liberal predecessors _ former Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun.

From a long-term perspective, inter-Korean dialogue is essential. Both sides should collaborate toward mutual prosperity and finally the long-cherished national reunification. But it is not the time now to talk about humanitarian aid to the North and the resumption of the Gaeseong Industrial Park. Strategy should change to meet the changed situation. Kim Jong-il, who ruled the North, is now deceased as are his southern partners Kim and Roh.

Young and unpredictable Kim Jong-un will likely employ more aggressive and seemingly riskier tactics toward his goal of negotiating with the U.S. only. He may target a peace treaty and eventually the collapse of the Korea-U.S. alliance through the withdrawing of U.S. forces stationed in the South. This may mean alienating Seoul to the sidelines.

Seoul falls short of Pyongyang in unsymmetrical military power. We need to build up the military to be able to deter the North’s nuclear ability. Heavily depending on the U.S. military especially its own nuclear umbrella is vulnerable. We need to strengthen competence to defend ourselves.

Though Cheong Wa Dae refuted it, the possible winning of nuclear submarines will likely help fortify Seoul’s deterrence against the North’s nuclear potential. West Germany eventually realized unification with the East Germany by first arming itself with nuclear power against all odds. What we need is to dare to brace for the possible balance of fear. One can enjoy peace based on power to keep it.