Crisis on the Korean Peninsula

1
Crisis on the Korean Peninsula

• AsiaNZ Korean Studies Programme
• Briefing for Scholarship Students
• 17 February 2005
• Tim Beal
• Victoria University of Wellington

2
Dangers and delights

• Korean Peninsula described as most dangerous
  place on earth
• Is it?
• Do the dangers match the delights?
• Answer clearer at end of presentation
• First backgroundgtcurrent situationgtassessment

3
1945 and its consequences

• Japanese colony gt divided by US at 38th parallel
• Soviet Union took Japanese surrender in north, US
  in south
• Two contesting states set up gtgtKorean war
• Millions dead, huge devastation
• 1953 armistice..still no peace treaty

4
Two states

• South Korea Republic of Korea (ROK)
• North Korea Democratic Peoples Republic of
  Korea (DPRK)
• NK originally more successful than SK
• SK overtook NK between 74 -84

5
Per capita GNP, North and South Korea, 1953-1990
Source Eui-Gak Hwang, The Korean economies ,
Table 3.11, pp. 120-1
6
Reasons?

• SK client of US, access to US market, Japanese
  reparations
• KW was US first defeatgtgtNK locked into US
  hostility/ East Asian strategy
• NK able to play off SU and China but US hostility
  kept it out of world markets
• 1990 collapse of SU disastrous
• gtgteconomic crisis , famine

7
Present economic situation?

• The international assistance provided, as well as
  measures taken by the DPRK government, have
  brought about changes but substantial needs for
  investment in infrastructure, energy and
  transport remain crucial if the country is to
  achieve real and lasting improvements. Moreover,
  with the economic reform process that started in
  July 2002 new vulnerability patterns are
  emerging, creating challenges for the
  humanitarian aid agencies and the government.
  
• Kathi Zellweger, Caritas

8
Constraints

• Lack of energy, investment, foreign currency
• Military burden
• Energygtgtnuclear power
• Present crisis
• Long-term US hostility
• Specific nuclear issues

9
Nuclear issues

• Nuclear reactors
• Energy
• Material for nuclear weapons
• Early 1990s US thought that NK was potentially
  producing weapons grade plutonium
• CrisisgtgtAgreed Framework 1994

10
Agreed Framework 1994

• Negotiated settlement between Clinton
  administration and Kim Il Sung/ Kim Jong Il
• Provision of LW reactors, oilgtgtsecurity
  guarantees, normalisation of relations
• NK to mothball plutonium reactorsgtgtdismantled
  when LW in place

11
AF success and failure

• Clinton lost control of Congress, never really
  implemented AF
• However, Kim Dae-jungs sunshine policy brough
  Washington closer to Pyongyang
• 2000 Pyongyang summit, Sec Albright visits
  Pyongyang, Clinton invited

12
2000

• Bush won US election gtgtABC foreign policy
• AF one casualty
• But how?
• NK continued to mothball plutonium reactor no
  excuse to abandon AF
• Also worried by SK and Japan

13
SK and Japan

• the growing alarm felt in Washington in the
  preceding five months over the ever more
  conciliatory approach that Seoul and Tokyo had
  been taking toward Pyongyang
• Selig Harrison, Foreign Affairs, January/February
  2005

14
What did they do?

• October 02
• Kelly gtgt Pyongyang
• Two claims
• Confronted NK with accusation of an enriched
  uranium programme
• NK admitted this

15
Charges and denials

• NK denied both
• No enriched uranium programme
• No admission
• Likely that US sexed up civilian uranium
  programme
• China, probably SK, do not believe US
• US has never produced and evidence

16
Agreed Framework destroyed

• US suspended oil shipmentsgtgtNK regarded this as
  abandoning AF, reactivated reactor
• just for energygtgtno negotiations from US gtgt
  building a nuclear deterrent

17
US strategy

• Powell
• No negotiations with NK
• Demand NK completely, verifiably and
  irreversibly destroy nuclear programme before
  discussion of concessions
• Pressure on regional powers (China, Japan, SK,
  Russia) to put pressure on NK to comply with US
  demands
• The Six Party talks

18
Impasse

• NK would not/could no buckle
• China, SK against
• military action by US gtgtwar
• Collapse of NK

19
New team at State

• Bush re-election PowellgtgtRice
• Possibility of change in US strategy
• Response from SK, China, NK?

20
Response from SK, China, NK?

• Roh Asia/Europe tour calling for change in US
  policy gtgtnegotiations
• SK and China asked Bush/Rice not to be
  provocative
• NK hosted two US congressional delegations
  reiterated wanted to be friend of US

21
US policy unchanged

• Bush, Rice made it clear that policy was
  unchanged
• NK responded to this 10 Feb
• Has nuclear weapons
• Will withdraw from Six Party talks until US
  changes hostile policy
• Remains committed to a nuclear-free Korean
  peninsula

22
What is going on?

• Critics of Bush bemused
• Eg Leon Sigal
• US policy will not work
• NK will acquire nuclear deterrent unless there
  are negotiations
• Negotiations not that difficult

23
Leon Sigal

• Pyongyang isn't asking for much. It wants to
  exchange "words for words" and "action for
  action." It wants Washington to commit now to
  normalize relations and give it written
  assurances not to attack it, impede its economic
  development, or overthrow its government. It also
  wants the United States to join Japan and South
  Korea in resuming shipments of heavy fuel oil
  promised under the 1994 Agreed Framework, take it
  off the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and
  relax related sanctions.

24
Behind US policy

• Do not believe NK will be able develop/deploy
  effective nuclear deterrent
• Even if it does, so what?
• Crisis in Northeast Asia, with no US casualties
  serves US strategic interests
• Esp. keeping Japan and China apart

25
Neither peace nor war

• US does not want peaceful resolution
• Economic rehabilitation of NK, economic
  integration with SK, normalisation with Jap, but
  remaining independent
• But no war

26
No war

• NK will not start war because it is far weaker
• Military expenditure 0.4 of US,SK, JP
• US will not attack because present government in
  Seoul will not tolerate it

27
But danger remains

• However if friction between Washington/ SK
  conservatives and Roh increases
• Eg Roh-Kim summit
• Fresh moves to oust Roh
• Unsuccessful impeachment in 2004
• If Roh goes, danger looms