For inter-Korean relations

By Tong Kim

North Korea is expected to hold a large military parade, to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of its Korean Workers Party on Oct. 10. Through such show of force, the North Korean regime demonstrates the capabilities of its military equipment and personnel to defend the country and the military’s loyalty to its leader.

Pyongyang’s typical parade mobilizes the best of its war assets, including short and long-range missiles, often revealing newly developed rockets and artillery pieces that become a very useful source of information for military planners in the South and the United States. The coming parade will probably not be different in purpose, but is expected to be the largest so far.

The real focus of attention is whether North Korean leader Kim Jong-un will decide to go ahead with a fourth nuclear test in the name of defense or a rocket test for a long-range ballistic missile in disguise of a legitimate space exploration program. The nuclear test site at Punggaeri reportedly is ready, and the expansion project of a missile launcher at Dongchangni would be completed by the end of October, according to expert watchers.

These tests are banned by a series of UN Security Council resolutions, and if North Korea does test a nuclear device or a rocket using ballistic missile technology, more sanctions will be imposed. However, the North Koreans have defied sanctions before, and they might do it again for their perceived political and security purposes.

At the National Assembly hearings last week, Defense Minister Han Min-gu said there was no evidence that the North was planning to test-fire a new missile. In contrast, Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se said, “In view of North Korea’s uncertainty, we cannot rule out the possibility of their strategic provocation of a nuclear test or a missile launch despite the Aug. 25 agreement.”

The August agreement was essentially a tradeoff between the suspension of loudspeaker operations by the South and the North’s promise to cooperate to reduce tension and improve inter-Korean relations. Blue House security chief Kim Kwan-jin said the North understood that the loudspeaker operations would resume in the event of “an abnormal situation”.

Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Choi Yun-hi has told the national legislation that if the North conducted another nuclear or missile test, that would create “an abnormal situation” in his view, although the phrase has never been clearly defined. As a result of the August agreement, the two sides of Korea are scheduled to hold reunions of separated family members on Oct. 20-26 at Mt. Geumgang.

If the North launches another nuclear or missile test, the loudspeakers would restart and the Aug. 25 agreement would be nullified, driving the peninsula back to tension and confrontation. Hopefully, a warning for the resumption of loudspeaker operations would have some deterrent impact on Pyongyang’s decision makers.

They have already demonstrated their nuclear and missile capabilities. For their own interests, other than for domestic purpose, they do not need more tests. They claim they are challenged by the hostile threat of a nuclear war against them, they know they have an asymmetric capability to prevent an all-out invasion from the South, even if they do not believe in the defensive nature of the US-Korea alliance.

Pyongyang is well aware that its ally China does not want more tests, which would certainly contribute further to the instability of the peninsula, which China opposes. The United States and Japan share the same interest in preventing any intensification of tension in Korea that would stem from new adventures from the North.

The way forward for both sides will be to restrain themselves from verbal and physical provocations. Pyongyang is wary of deepening relations between Seoul and Beijing. The North Koreans reacted to President Park’s recent comment in Beijing, asking the Chinese president to exercise influence on Pyongyang to restrain from actions that intensify tension. Pyongyang does not appreciate Seoul’s consultation with the leaders other countries on unification.

Park often talks of the importance of unification, but she or her administration is yet to present a long-term realistic way forward. Kim Jong-il, the previous leader of DPRK told former president Kim Dae-jung at their first summit in 2000 that he thought unification would take at least 40 to 50 years, even if the two sides continued peaceful cooperation without disruptions from that point. Fifteen years have passed since then and no progress has been made.

The starting point of improving inter-Korean relations and to move toward unification requires both sides to recognize each other and work toward solidifying peace and stability, by refraining from agitating or insulting each other and by increasing humanitarian assistance and constructive exchanges. The South should clearly renounce any suspicious policy of unification by absorption and the North should give up any unrealistic policy of unification by military action.

We have to accept that the North Korean regime exists and it does not seem to be collapsing or coming to an end in the near future. Security threats are mutual and both sides have been engaged in an unending arms race. The North is constantly sharpening its military and cyber technology for use in war. One is anxious to see what new weapons Pyongyang will display next month.

The South also constantly modernizes its weapons systems to cope with North Korean threats. South Korea is reportedly considering a test of an 800-kilometer range ballistic missile that could target all parts of North Korea from the southern tip of the peninsula. The South successfully tested a 600-kilometer rocket last June.

The North is no match for the South in terms of economic power. Seoul ranks roughly 10th largest in the world in military spending of about $300 million, 2.4 percent of its GDP. The North Korean threat provides the rationale for the increasing defense spending, because the North Korean threats are real and increasing in the absence of improved relations for peaceful coexistence. 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.