US, CHINA, AND THE KOREAN PENINSULA: IMPLICATIONS FOR ARGENTINA

US, CHINA, AND THE KOREAN PENINSULA: IMPLICATIONS FOR

ARGENTINA Tim Beal

Victoria University of Wellington

New Zealand

KS Congress La Plata August 2006 2

OVERVIEW

• Security Council condemnation of NK

• Six Party Talks– Background, Breakthrough, Breakdown

• Characteristics of the contestation

• Positions of the contestants– Russia, Japan, China, ROK, DPRK,– US


Security Council condemnation

• Argentina non-permanent member of UNSC

• Unanimous condemnation of DPRK missile tests 4 July

• Portrayed as straightforward action of ‘international community’ against ‘rogue state’

• Reality?


Reality

• DPRK test not wise, but– Not illegal– Not unusual

• UNSC resolution violation of UN charter

• Result of compromise between China/Russia/ROK and US/Japan


Legal position

• Missile tests by sovereign states not illegal

• DPRK not party to any treaty restraining missile development

• Had self-imposed moratorium since 1999 with US– Only valid if US negotiating


Context of missile tests

• Other long-range missile tests in the period:– US – 2– Russia – 1– India – 1– NZ – 0– Argentina?


ROK

• To launch military communications satellite

• Has conducted 10 tests of cruise missiles in last 3 years


UNSC

• Why condemn DPRK and not other countries testing missiles?

• Why so slow to take action over Israel’s invasion of Lebanon– Nuclear pressure on Iran, not Israel

• Answer not law but power of US– And limitations of that power

• Need to survey Six Party talks


Six Party Talks - background

• Where does it begin?– Japanese period, Liberation and Division,

Korean War…Agreed Framework

• Agreed Framework– Origins, course and collapse


Agreed Framework

• Clinton 1994• DPRK

– Mothball and then decommission nuclear reactors

• US– Arrange provision of 2 light water reactors– Provide heavy fuel oil– Lift sanctions, move to diplomatic relations


Collapse of Agreed Framework

• Clinton never fully implemented AF, Bush effectively destroyed it late 2002– Charged DPRK having enriched uranium programme

for weapons

• No evidence, China, ROK don’t believe accusation, DPRK denies it

• Republicans had opposed AF, Japan-DPRK 2002 summit triggered action


SIX PARTY TALKS

• Brokered by China– 3 Party April 2003– 1: 27-29 August 2003– 2: 25-28 Feb 2004– 3: June 2004– 4: July- August and September 2005


Six Party Talks

• Centrality of the US– Dominates East Asia and for ALL countries the

relationship with US is most important– They do things against their own interests – eg

send troops to Iraq – to keep US happy– China plays a waiting game

• Their policy options are limited; US is more complex


Six Party Talks 2005>>

• Breakthrough– Joint Statement 19 September 2005

• Breakdown– 19/20 September 2005


BREAKTHROUGH

• Joint Statement took everyone by surprise

• No indication earlier of any shifting of positions

• JS– Very ambiguous– Provided a face-saving way for US to return to

Agreed Framework– Two interesting omissions


Omissions

• Heavy enriched uranium– Had been the alleged reasons for US tearing up

Agreed Framework

• Cheney– Architect of US Korea policy– Had personally intervened at previous rounds


NY Times account

• U.S.-Korean Deal on Arms Leaves Key Points Open – September 20, 2005– By JOSEPH KAHN and DAVID E. SANGER

• Chinese applied pressure on DPRK, but more on US


Chinese pressure

• As this unfolded over the weekend, the Chinese increased pressure on the United States to sign - or take responsibility for a breakdown in the talks.

• "At one point they told us that we were totally isolated on this and that they would go to the press," and explain that the United States sank the accord, the senior administration official said.


Why did US sign?

• Cheney absent

• Rice – Each country, she suggested, would issue

separate statements describing their understanding of the deal, with a specificity that is not in the agreement itself

• Did that, in Washington and Beijing, DPRK reacted, >>BREAKDOWN


CHARACTERISTICS of Six Party Framework

• 1: US is salient– US is by far the most important country for

each of the others• Not reciprocated

– All of them want good relations• Not least DPRK


Focus on US

• US is key to peace

• US could soon negotiate end to DPRK programme, and move on to peace

• Question is, why does it not?

• Focus in analysis should be on US, not DPRK


2: Asymmetry

• Six parties are very disparate– Population, wealth, military power, political

system, culture, sovereignty, etc. etc.


Sovereignty and power I

• US is the superpower– No serious threat from any other power– Question of projecting power

• Iraq shows limits

• Russia, China and Japan– Equal in military spending– But Japan not ‘normal country’

• Has US bases. large element of US military control


Sovereignty and power II

• ROK– Much bigger and richer than DPRK, much larger

military spending, advanced equipment….• But US has ‘wartime control’, and bases

• DPRK– Weakest and smallest

• Limited project of power; defense paramount

• No foreign bases, military exercises– IS DPRK-China mutual defence treaty operable?


Asymmetry: DPRK and US


DPRK

– Negotiations with US key to future– Mistakes could be fatal– Only US can attack, or allow attack– Options limited– Determined and focussed


US

– DPRK itself not important, no threat– It is implications of DPRK for global and

regional strategies which is important– Wide range of problems and issues around the

world (Iraq, Iran, Islamic nationalism…– Open society, traditionally confident in

invulnerability and mission• Partisanship (eg ABC>>LWR)

– Many options, no urgency


POSITIONS

• Russia, China, ROK fairly similar– Oppose DPRK nuclear weapons

• Facilitate Japanese remilitarisation and nuclearisation

• Could provoke US to war

– War would have horrendous consequences for Korean peninsula and region

• China fear that hawks might use opportunity to attack


Russia, China, ROK

• Want stability, peace

• Different attitudes towards unification but all want economic cooperation and growth

• All oppose collapse of DPRK


Japan

• Currently a ‘spoiler’ – bringing abductee issue to SPT

• Abductee issue good for domestic consumption

• Tension with DPRK>>remilitarisation– Aimed at China

• Worried about Korean reunification


US response to JS

• Intensified use of psychowar weapons>>financial sanctions– ‘Human rights’, allegations about counterfeiting,

drugs

• Seldom any hard evidence

• Even by US charges, scale of offences small, not proportional to effect on SPT

• Deliberate attempt to derail Six Party Talks?


DPRK response

• Boycott Six Party Talks until financial sanctions lifted

• Missile tests attempt to force US to negotiate– Return, in effect to Agreed Framework


Two strands of logic in US strategy

• Overlapping, sometimes contradictory imperatives

• Global and Regional


Global

– DPRK must be punished and destroyed as an example to others

– Peaceful coexistence would send wrong message

– Not as pressing an issue as Middle East– Destruction of DPRK desirable


Regional

• Prime objective is containment of China– US-Japan alliance (now involving Taiwan)– Overtures to India, support for nuclear (missile?)

programmes• DPRK threat and tension essential ingredient

– Keep and consolidate Japan and ROK under US hegemony

• Reunification would undercut military presence in Korea

• Survival of DPRK desirable


Convoluted contestations

• All the six parties are contesting amongst each other

• Sometimes openly, sometimes not

• China-DPRK; US-ROK – In official announcements stand should-to-

shoulder– Disagreements can be discerned with careful

reading


Implications for Argentina

• US faced with– Obdurate North Korea– Wavering South Korea– Rising China– ..problems at home and abroad

• Korean situation, Six Part Talks have to be interpreted within that context

• Important for Argentina to understand

US, CHINA, AND THE KOREAN PENINSULA: IMPLICATIONS FOR ARGENTINA

Documents

Transcript of US, CHINA, AND THE KOREAN PENINSULA: IMPLICATIONS FOR ARGENTINA