Report of the IPCS Seminar held at the India International Centre on 1 April 2009

Chair:
Ambassador Salman Haidar, former Foreign Secretary and member of IPCS Executive Committee

Speakers:
Mr PR Chari, Research Professor, IPCS
Dr Vyjayanti Raghavan, Associate Professor, School of Languages, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
Dr Jong-Chun Baek, National Security Advisor to former South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun
Dr Hak-Soon Paik, Director, Centre for North Korean Studies, Sejong Institute, Seoul

Salman Haidar

A shallow imagination presents no clear links between South Asia and Northeast Asia but a deeper look makes apparent just how much there is to compare and draw lessons from North Korea’s flirtation with nuclear know-how, which has reverberated through the world. India and Pakistan have crossed that threshold and are dealing with a nuclear dimension in the South Asian security dynamic. In the nuclear domain, there are anxieties shared across Asia and a serious dialogue should take place between India and both South and North Korea for greater stability and peace across the two regions.

PR Chari

As far as South Asia and Northeast Asia are concerned, comparisons are not immediately apparent, but a deeper examination shows astonishing similarities. There is a conflict between North and South Korea that defines the security dynamic between them, like the Indo-Pak equation. Both India and Pakistan have nuclearized and a new nuclear dynamic is emerging between North and South Korea. China’s role has not been benign in either region, and it offers the proliferation link between them.

It is frequently asked if the nuclearization of South Asia has added or detracted from its security. Interestingly, stability at the nuclear level can lead to instability at the conventional level. All future Indo-Pak crises, however, will have a nuclear dimension in the foreground or background and there will also, inevitably, be an American role. The use of nuclear weapons is improbable, but the Mumbai attacks prove that there is a shift to the non-conventional form of conflict, despite nuclear deterrence, making South Asia unstable. There is no clear answer, therefore, to the question whether south Asia is now more stabile or unstable, which is a clear lesson for all present and future dyads.

Vyjayanti Raghavan

In the case of South Asia and Northeast Asia, both sides suffered partition, and gained independence at roughly the same time, and got sucked into the Cold War. The motivations behind North Korea going nuclear while South Korea refraining from doing so are important. The quest for security led India, Pakistan and North Korea towards overt nuclearization. South Korea has adopted a non-nuclear posture because it has US protection. The presence of nuclear weapons in the Korean peninsula has neither stabilized nor destabilised the region; four of the six major countries in the region were already nuclear. North Korea’s motivation to seek nuclear deterrence is to counter a possible US move to effect regime change. North Korea has taken an aggressive stance and measures every time it has felt threatened, and this has inspired the persistent and increased US military presence in South Korea. Just as in South Asia, the US has played both a positive and a negative role in the region. It has helped diffuse the crisis arising out of North Korea’s nuclear capability, but it has also been the reason for North Korea seeking it. Nuclear weapons may not affect stability in the region but they do play a major role in affecting the peace in the region.

Jong-Chun Baek

The arms race between the Korean neighbours began after South Korea surpassed North Korea in economic development and began to invest in its military build-up. War between the two nations, coupled with the presence of US nuclear weapons in South Korea heightened North Korean insecurity.  Since then North Korea has continued its drive to acquire conventional and nuclear weapons while South Korea has concentrated on economic development. North Korea is highly sensitive to the inter-Korean balance of power shifting in favour of South Korea due to its economic prosperity, political and social democratization and conventional military capability.

North Korea recognizes that it cannot solve its security and economic issues without US help and is willing to negotiate directly with the US. The new Obama administration might bring a change into US-North Korea relations, which may lead to North Korea denuclearising if it is guaranteed its survival and offered a comprehensive deal like Iran. Economic aid and improving Japanese-North Korea relations, especially on the security and economic front, are key factors for North Korea and any strategy to deal with it will have to include these factors. If North Korea’s nuclear weapons lead to more US nuclear weapons in South Korea, a heavily nuclearized Korean peninsula will create a deteriorating security situation for China and lead to a cascading effect. A nuclear North Korea also makes South Korea extremely uncomfortable, given the fact that this will make reunification of the Korean peninsula very difficult.

Hak-Soon Paik

Both Koreas are essentially one nation, but “nation building” has placed the two against each other. North Korea is the weaker state and suffers from paranoia that they will be overwhelmed by South Korea and the West instigating it to adopt protectionist measures. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions have many motives; by obtaining nuclear capability North Korea aims to construct a militarily strong and prosperous state, add to its power status, give the public a reason to celebrate and nation-build and use these weapons for international posturing. 

The US has a huge influence in South Korea and in an attempt to prevent an arms race between Northeast Asian nations from intensifying, has done everything to keep South Korea, which has enough motives to nuclearize, from going nuclear. We also have to understand the fundamentals behind the North Korean security dynamic. The Korean War has not ended yet; the US and North Korea are technically at war. As long as the US Army is present in South Korea, the confrontationist structure of war remains. Without further steps to pacify North Korea, the nuclear issues and inter Korean issues will not resolve and this has an impact on Indo-Korean relations. For denuclearizing North Korea we need a comprehensive package between North Korea and the other states with a stake in the region. The former US President George Bush’s policies and his Axis of Evil theory pushed North Korea into a corner and activated North Korea’s survival instinct; hence it began strengthening its nuclear capability. The US posture roused a fear of entrapment in North Korea and gave it more than enough reason to believe that the US was working towards a regime change in North Korea. The heightened distrust since then will take a lot to reverse by the Obama administration.

DISCUSSION

• The US policy towards North Korea has varied considerably over the last three presidencies, but is crucial for the region; it has impacted inter-Korean, Northeast Asian and South Korea-US relations. North Korea’s actions derive from insecurity. America’s foreign policy towards North Korea has oscillated from one extreme to the other between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. While a lot is expected from the new Obama administration, it is clear that America’s stance on North Korea had an impact on North Korea’s foreign policy and domestic decision making, but it also influenced relations between North and South Korea. The US was excessively intrusive during the Bush term, and projected an excess of ideology in all its postures. Countering China was on their hidden agenda. They wanted to use the North Korean missile programme as an excuse to build their nuclear presence and power in the region.
• South Korea is interested in the civilian use of nuclear energy. As on date it imports 90 per cent of its energy needs. South Korea has been building atomic energy reactors and the climate change issue is providing its civilian nuclear energy program great impetus. If South Korea goes nuclear, then the international community will vehemently oppose a nuclear and unified Korea. But North Korea needs to further democratize before unification can take place. Even though South Korea has a conservative government now, it is willing to address the reunification issue. A unified Korea will be strong and will play a significant role in Asian politics. The reunification of Germany strengthened South Korea’s belief that economic development must be the prelude to reunification, which has not worked out, but has made South Korea more wary of the nuclear tag. While some believe that if North Korea acquires nuclear weapons and reunification eventually takes place, the unified Korea will gain in international power status. However, South Korea is capable of developing its own weapons, but has not done so and become a signatory to all nuclear treaties. But if Japan reacts to North Korea’s nuclear status, South Korea will react to Japan, and this will lead to China increasing its nuclear arsenal. This will also have an impact on the South Asian nuclear scene. Its two nuclear protagonists are not NPT members. If reunification does proceed ahead the question arises whether South Korea can pursue its nuclear energy ambitions because it will then be in the indeterminate state of being a de facto, but not de jure, nuclear weapons state.
• North Korea has stated that it will go ahead with its satellite launch. Reactions so far have been negative. Japan has moved its ships aggressively forward and if the satellite is shot down it will lead to a very precarious situation. Is it legal to shoot down the satellite? The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the UN resolution 1718 speak of the peaceful use of outer space. Also, Japan has US support for developing its missile defence system with the US and South Korea being ostensibly in agreement on this issue. Keeping recent history in mind, Obama cannot afford any initial failures in his policy towards North Korea. If the satellite is shot down, it means that the new US government, even before finalizing its Korea policy, has committed an act of war against North Korea. This is unthinkable for Washington. Technically, too, this might not be possible. Obama’s stance so far has been to use effective policies. Japan has been aggressive and indulged in verbal attacks, which has to do with its own propaganda machinery and domestic politics. The Japanese government is weak and the administration seizes every opportunity to show that it has strong security policies despite knowing that what they claim might be physically, diplomatically and politically impossible.
• India is the largest country in South Asia, and wants to be a global player and become a member of the Security Council. South Korea, however, does not have such aspirations; at least not articulated thus far. Indo-Pak relations are different from those between the two Koreas. Nuclear weapons did not enter the equation till the mid 1980s but they have been a constant since then. The evidence on how strong the civil society in Pakistan is dubious. During Nawaz Sharif’s project Long March from Lahore to Islamabad, the law and order agencies had refused to cooperate. This virtual mutiny in the official machinery is as important as the civil society movements, if not more. Civil society is not strong in North Korea. South Korean films and food are popular, but it stops at that.  
• Nuclearization is a problem and not a solution for insecurity. There is a need to develop a regional security system. If North Korea’s security, economic and energy needs are addressed the nuclear issue can be put to rest. North Korea cannot solve its own problems without US help, and is aware that it needs US cooperation for getting any assistance from the IMF or World Bank.