US-Korea Nuclear Group and Deterrence-Dialogue

The US-South Korea meeting would not be complete as if it did not discuss the peninsular issue. Ultimately, the meeting declared to form a bilateral group to exchange their view on the necessity of nuclear-power deployment sponsored by the US to deter North Korea’s ongoing nuclear and missile advancement. As if the Yoon’s administration modus vivendi is deterring North Korea and its initial step is by holding a consultation group on nuclear, there is still potential for the world to lure North Korea to forgo its nuclear enhancement by pursuing the dialogue. Then, how does the prospect of this double track of deterrence and dialogue work simultaneously? 

Recent Trend and New Deterrence Track

South Korea under Yoon’s Administration recently sought to expand the deterrence since North Korea's sixth attempt of missile test was launched in October 2022 as countermeasure against the US-South Korea military exercise, followed by six short-ranged missiles plus its two additional missiles at different times during April 2023.

The April launch which landed the missile near to the northern part of Japan led its government to notify the people to seek for the shelter although the missile did not pass Japan due to unpleasant behavior towards North Korea’s intense test as Time Magazine reported 26 tests happened just in a quarter of this year. Furthermore, Pyongyang Times revealed the unmanned underwater nuclear weapon named Haeil-2 as well as claimed the weapon sets to hit the target during the test in April 2023. Indeed, North Korea's unyielding aspiration on nuclear weapons enhancement will always be South Korea’s inconvenience.

If only the deployment of THAAD back then under Park Administration counts as a deterrence act besides its actual protection goal, the Yoon Administration likely to come with similar acts rather than pursue development initiative intensely compared to his predecessor, Democratic Party’s Moon Jae-In. So far, the public has been served with the newly-formed consultative group on nuclear between the US and South Korea that is living up what he said during his early days after being elected as president which pledged to re-accelerate the involvement of the US and Japan to address the regional issue while strengthening the deterrence effect on North Korea.

The nuclear consultative group aimed to share the know-how on nuclear assets and intelligence, including the joint plan on response and its implementation in exercise. As President Yoon asserted during the declaration press, South Korea is still devout to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons while exercising its right to uphold the defense interest under joint-operation with the US as the legitimate nuclear-state. By this chance, South Korea at a certain degree has an ability to possess nuclear weapons informally as its allied sponsors.

Controversy Amidst Security

Among the support for the group, people also expressed their concern. The Korea media wrote that the group restrained the conservative thought on self-owned nuclear arsenal as President Yoon himself delivered the word in January 2023 and happened amidst growing doubt of Korea on US’ reliability to protect its allies. Moreover, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs accounted for 71% of surveyed public support for the nuclear acquisition and development while 67% of them argue that it should be independently owned by South Korea.

The Korean desperately consider the recent performance of North Korea’s missile that progressively aims to reach the US mainland territory meanwhile the US itself bears to protect the allies in the peninsula also. Thus, the dilemma led the people to the worst scenario between the US priority to deploy its resources once North Korea’s regime launched a missile targeting the US west coast and Seoul simultaneously

In a different tone of criticism, the public delivered their concern under the nuclear sharing program. Even though Graham Allison said that this achievement was a prevention to proliferation of the weapons, the public have seen similar acts where the US under certain circumstances make its nuclear and the related assets accessible for its allies under NATO deterrence strategy in Europe and AUKUS-sponsored submarines. As if it is not a proliferation, the US should consider how many nuclear arsenal have been distributed totally around the world once its rival nuclear-states like China & Russia do similar acts to their allies. What is more important is to recall the aim of the treaty to barrier the further utilization of nuclear weapons.

North Korea imperiously responded to the formed group that the effort will only put the regime to advancing its nuclear arsenal into the perfect level for the war utility. In the different articles, North Korea also described the act that led into the brink of the nuclear war as reflecting an aggressive and exclusive military axis action. This can be interpreted that just the initial announcement would consequence the unintended outcome such as the unwavering North Korea enhancement and more nuclear weapons access-holder in spite of the de-escalation of the arm-race tension goal.

Dialogue Track and ASEAN Opportunity

Deterrence actions sponsored by the US have been dealt and indeed extended. Thus, is it the only cure for the prolonged sickness in the peninsula? Dialogue track is still possible. The public was already hesitant to appraise North Korea’s solemnity on dialogue since several past summits resulted in nothing but only a word.

However, under former Moon Jae-In, the 3rd Inter-Korean Summit in 2018 was a walk the talk as the Inter-Korea liaison officer built in 2018 to bridging the further reconciliation despite having been destroyed in 2020 unilaterally by North Korea. Dialogue track also flourished yet stumbled during the Six-party Talks era. The 2007-2008 period when North Korea was willing to dismantle its Yongbyon nuclear facility caused the US to eased some financial restraint to North Korea.

Nevertheless, as the time flies so does the regime mostly, many variables will be put on the table to seek for emulating the past dialogue achievement. The awakening of China, the US global position, and the actual performance of North Korea’s nuclear weapons are amongst several strategic considerations. However, what the public can reflect from the past two dialogue tracks is a venue for consultation and hearing. Both the Inter-Korean Summit and the Six-party Talks are a sufficient place for the participants which they are confident to deliver their concern and then to harmonize their interest. As if only sanction and deterrence acts are revealed, there is no guarantee that both parties' desires will be satisfied.

What about ASEAN and its member states? ASEAN should grasp the opportunity to flourish the dialogue track by its annual ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). As if the ARF itself is not adequate to embrace mutual confidence then the member states should not be reluctant to develop their new identity or potential development program with North Korea. A nostalgic atmosphere between the past leaders of ASEAN and North Korea recently will only affect supplement considerations since the world has changed, so do the stance context.

Intensifying bilateral-style trade and official consultation would be a worthy start line since numerous works need to be observed like bilateral issues between North Korea-Malaysia, Vietnam-model economic reformation, and Indonesia middle-powership, besides to align it all with the loop within international sanction on North Korea. Development initiatives to inject the ASEAN presence in North Korea’s thought is a valuable resource to pursuing peace building while combining it with the consultative-forum ARF. ASEAN leaders should look beyond into the future to recognize their definite potential to replenish the dialogue track since under the Yoon administration it is rare to see any initiatives so far.

Pic Courtsey-Daniel Bernard at unsplash.com

(The views are those of the author and do not represent views of CESCUBE.)