North Korea’s nuclear lure
Dailytimes
Signals of a North Korean underground nuclear test were picked up by various seismic stations around the world on September 9, 2016. The magnitude on the Richter scale was registered from 5.1 to 5.3, which indicates the explosion yield to be around 12 to 16 kilotons — almost equivalent to the explosion of the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki. It was the fifth and most powerful nuclear test so far in the nuclear history of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the second one this year. The first test of 2016 was conducted in the first weak of January.
Immediately after the test, the Korean Central News Agency reported the claim made by North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Institute that the standardisation of the nuclear warhead will enable the DPRK to produce a variety of smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear warheads of a higher strike power. It will also enable North Korea to have a firm hold on the modern technology for the production and use of several fissile materials. This has definitely put the DPRK’s technology of mounting nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles on a higher level.
Whether this claim was credible or not, and whether the DPRK has the capacity to do that or not, the question arises: why is North Korea following the path that leads to global sanctions imposed by the US and the UN? Why does this state invite a series of condemnation by other states? Despite the fact that another nuclear test will make matters worse in international landscape given UN Security Council’s resolution condemning the earlier nuclear detonations, the DPRK conducted this test. There might be several reasons that are keeping North Korea sticking to this path, and those reasons should be brought under the light of analysis for a better understanding of the DPRK’s pursuit for nuclear weapons.
One of the reasons might be that North Korea yearns to engage in bilateral talks with the United State of America; if bilateral negotiations are secured, then have leverage in negotiations. These tests might be merely an attempt to gain significance in the region, and become the substantial party in probable negotiations. The DPRK may eliminate its nuclear stockpiles in return of economic and diplomatic incentives by the US. Selig Harrison, an expert of Asian affairs, and is said to have exceptional access to the higher authorities of North Korea, also argues that the DPRK is willing to have a denuclearisation agreement on certain conditions. However, the US seems to be reluctant to manifest a lenient attitude toward this country and meet its demands.
There can be another reason on part of North Korea, and that is to ensure the security of the regime. Fear that was evolved from the Korean War decades ago may have consumed the country that the US may attack it again. President George W Bush in 2002 also labelled North Korea as the “axis of evil.”
The US boldly invaded Iraq, and one pretext was that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. Before Iraq could succeed in its alleged mission, the US invaded Iraq and turned it into one of the most dangerous and devastated places on earth. Therefore, DPRK officials may have decided to develop and demonstrate a nuclear capability, deeming it the only recourse to deter the US from planning any attack on the country. They may have drawn this strategy from the Iraq episode. North Korea may believe that after a series of condemnations and imposition of sanctions, ultimately they will have the most effective weapon to utilise it by a nuclear-deterrence posture.
Domestic political factors could be another reason that led this country to manufacture nuclear weapons. ‘Policy of appeasement’ for hardliners is very common in every state, and the test conducted by the DPRK might have been envisioned to appease the hardliners of the regime. After the Korean War, South Korea, the US’s ally and neighbour of the DPRK, was gaining extensive recognition because of the explicit support of the US. This factor may have intensified hatred against the US, and a sense of loss against South Korea among the people of the DPRK.
These factors may have framed the public opinion raising internal pressure for the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Keeping in view all the possible reasons that led the DPRK to development, stockpiling and conducting of nuclear tests, the US seem, more or less, responsible for the nuclearised picture of the Korean Peninsula. The US, in its self-avowed role as the guardian of the current world order, should take appropriate steps to denuclearise North Korea. Unlike Iraq, North Korea has gained the status of a nuclear power whether the international community accepts that fact or not. Therefore, the US must meticulously deal with this country through means of negotiations. Any violent move on the part of the US may prove to be catastrophic for the entire region.
The writer can be reached at live.baber@gmail.com, and on Twitter @alibaber
