Home >> East Asia >> North & South Korea

     Email   Print 

Tensions in the Korean Peninsula

Preeti Nalwa, Ph.D. - 6/8/2010

Trepidation of a skirmish which could escalate has been ignited on the divided Korean Peninsula and the inter-Korean relations have sunk to the lowest level of distrust since the sinking of the South Korean naval ship “Cheonan”. The 1,200 ton Patrol Combat Corvette (PCC-772) sank on March 26, 2010 in the Yellow Sea, south of the disputed Northern Limit Line near Baengnyeong Island. An international investigation has concluded that a strike by a North Korean CHT-02D torpedo from a ‘midget’ submarine was the cause of an external underwater explosion which broke the ship into two. North Korea has denied its responsibility for the sinking in which 46 South Korean sailors lost their lives. North Korean naval spokesman Col. Pak In Ho has called the report by the five-nation, 130 strong Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group (JIG), released on May 20, 2010 as “fabrication”. Both Russia and China were not part of the JIG evidence finding mission and neither have formally endorsed the findings of the report.

War of Words

South Korea aggrieved and stung by the action which evidently shows critical weakness in its naval defenses, is stressing “punishment” and “retaliation” in the form of additional UN sanctions against North Korea. In this effort, the South Korean President Lee Myung-bak is being unequivocally supported by the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for an international response to condemn the “unacceptable provocation” by North Korea. During her week-long Asia trip, on May 20, 2010 while in Japan, Secretary Clinton said that “I think it's important to send a clear message to North Korea that provocative actions have consequences”. In a briefing, in Beijing, for the travelling press corps on May 24, 2010 she said that “we support President Lee's call to bring this issue to the United Nations Security Council. I will be working with Ambassador Rice and our Korean counterparts, as well as Japan, China, and other UN Security Council member states to reach agreement on a way forward in the Council.” Speaking about North Korea she expressed her opinion about the state as “one that every country that neighbors or is in proximity to North Korea understands must be contained”. North Korea has warned that any retaliation or punitive action over the sinking of a South Korean ship will trigger an “all-out war of justice” and has ordered his armed forces to “combat readiness’.

U.S. and China: Diametrically Opposed Diplomacy

Leon V. Sigal, commenting on the U.S. response says that it is “raising the stakes by supporting South Korea’s efforts to punish North Korea with more sanctions and to adopt “proactive deterrence”. Both the South and North Korea’s armies are on high alert. The major concern in the Cheonan crisis is that heightened military readiness could lead to a clash that could quickly escalate and lead to war. Though neither side wants war, citing the situation on the Korean Peninsula, Hazel Smith opines that “Wars sometimes happen by accident, or because you have escalation and no one can control it. It's a very dangerous position that everyone is in”. Secretary Clinton called stability on the Korean peninsula a “shared responsibility” of China and the U.S. But their respective interpretation of responsibility stand at two opposite poles of diplomacy. Understanding the gravity of the problem in this deteriorating security environment, China has demonstrated a measured response. Unlike the U.S., it has refrained from ratcheting up the standoff between South and North Korea by calling for both sides to act calmly and to exercise restraint.

China has desisted from outrightly rebuking North Korea for the Cheonan sinking because before holding it fully accountable; it wishes to conduct its own independent appraisal and “impartial judgment” of the incident. At the Third Trilateral Meeting held on May 29, 2010 hosted by South Korea in Jeju, the Chinese PM Wen Jiabao told the South Korean President, Lee Myung-bak, as quoted by his spokesman, Lee Dong-kwan that “Once we have our conclusion, we will not protect anyone”. Like China, Russia has also declared that it needs 100% proof of North Korea’s involvement. Russia sent four submarine and torpedo experts to South Korea on May 31, 2010 and they will examine the data of shipwreck debris and fragments till June 7, 2010. Both Russia and China are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and have the power to veto any proposed resolution or statement. Their restrained response is also to be understood in view of the fact the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was undertaken on the pretext of destroying the purported weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programme of Saddam Hussein. No evidence of WMD was found as declared by the 2004 Duelfer Report of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG).

China: Compulsions of ‘responsible’ diplomacy

For China, the Cheonan incident underscores the dilemma of fulfilling its role as a responsible rising power which joins the international community in censuring North Korea for a despicable act in violation of international law while at the same time maintain good bilateral relations with both North and South Korea. China is confronted with two irreconcilable actions, reining in North Korea by halting to extend a protective role which might lead to North Korea’s collapse, and risk U.S. intervention in its backyard and possibly, a reunited, pro-western Korea, hence weakening its strategic interest and influence in East Asia. In case of a scenario wherein North Korea manages to survive despite retrenching its supportive role of providing food, fuel and infrastructural investments, China faces the challenge of deterioration of Sino-North Korean relations and facing a nuclear armed-adversary near its borders. There are extremely grave immediate consequences of instability in North Korea. First, the fear of exodus of refugees from North Korea into China and South Korea “is not theoretical”, the cost of their absorption would affect the economic growth rates of both the countries. The recent Chinese encounter with the influx of refugees from Burma in August 2009 reiterates this fear. Second, the other problem is of insecure weapons of mass destruction facilities and materials (“loose nukes”). Third, there is also a fear of lack of coordination in military action in unstable North Korea by the U.S. and China.

The North Korean challenge does not present easy solutions to China. China fears that if North Korea remains unchecked, this might further embolden Kim Jong-Il to make more dangerous provocations. Previous sanctions had reverse effects, North Korea had carried out missile and nuclear tests in May 2009 in defiance of U.N. Security Resolution 1718 which was imposed on it for its nuclear test of October 9, 2006. There is a concern that additional sanctions might cause similar outcomes. In choosing the option of not taking a stern action against the North, China displeases South Korea with whom it instituted economic and strategic partnership in 2008, and is working towards establishing a free trade area (FTA) between the two countries. China’s trade with South Korea amounts to about $200 billion per year and with the North it is just about $3 billion. Their economies have become highly complimentary to each other since China normalized diplomatic relations with South Korea in 1992.

In the absence of having garnered any meaningful leverage over North Korea on behalf of being its ally and largest trading partner, China is faced with the option limited to ‘responsible’ diplomacy. The first principle of responsible diplomacy is the safekeeping of its national interest without jeopardizing the regional stability. The tenets of this diplomacy can be interpreted from the policy approach articulated by the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao who has suggested refraining from any kind of conflict, recourse to appropriate dialogue and coordination. At the trilateral meeting on May 30, 2010, Wen urged South Korea and Japan for the resumption of the Six-Party Talks (SPT). “We must strengthen dialogue based on the interest of our three nations, show consideration for each respective country, cope with sensitive matters appropriately and enhance political confidence.”

On the contrary, both the U.S. and South Korea have linked the resumption of the SPT to the resolution of the Cheonan affair. Without recourse to the SPT or any other dialogue framework neither aim will be achieved i.e. “peaceful unification of the Korean Peninsula” as expressed by Lee Myung-bak or the denuclearization of North Korea. The Cheonan incident needs to be addressed separately from the resumption of the SPT. In seeking solutions which ensure the regional stability, China has adequately evinced its maturity and potentiality in addressing responsible diplomacy as a global leader.

1. CNN Wire Staff (2010). “Clinton: North Korea must face consequences”. May 21, 2010.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/south.korea.sunken.ship/index.html
2. Hillary Rodham Clinton (2010). “Briefing on Republic of Korea”. U.S. Department of State, Diplomacy in Action, May 24, 2010. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/05/142135.htm
3. BBC News (2010). “'North Korean torpedo' sank South's navy ship – report”. May 20, 2010.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10129703.stm
4. Leon V. Sigal (2010). “Sinking strategy”. International Herald Tribune, Editorial Opinion, May 29-30, 2010, p. 6.
5. Tania Branigan (2010). “North Korea cuts all ties with the South”. The Guardian, May 25, 2010.
6. Ibid.
7. The Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between South and North Korea is the world’s most heavily fortified border with the deployment of approximately 2 million soldiers of both sides. South Korean armed forces are numbered between 600,000 and 700,000 and hosts 28,500 U.S. troops on its territory. About 70% of North Korea’s 1.2 million active-duty military personnel remain stationed within 60 miles of the DMZ.
8. Choe Sang-Hun (2010). “China Offers Condolences Over Ship”. The New York Times, May 29, 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/world/asia/30korea.html
9. BBC News (2004). “Report concludes no WMD in Iraq”. October 7, 2004.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm