The North Korean Nuclear and Missile Tests: Implications for India
Chair: Prof. PR Chari, Research Professor, IPCS
Panelist: Amb. Arundhati Ghose, Former Permanent Representative of India to the UN Conference on Disarmament
Amb. Arundhati Ghose
Two of the most prominent issues which came up in the recently held PrepCom and are sure to be raised in the coming RevCon are related to: first, withdrawal from the NPT under Article X of the treaty and second, on nuclear proliferation. Both are very much relevant in case of North Korea. In the light of the recent tests by the DPRK regime, the Security Council is debating on a resolution to punish North Korea. This resolution may include significant ratcheting up of the financial sanctions and ban on arms exports. But there seems to be an inability on part of the international community to deal with the facts. The fact is that DPRK is a nuclear weapon state. It has the relevant technology and arsenal.
DPRK has not only carried its second nuclear test but a number of missile tests. Earlier North Korea walked out of six-party talks and did not allow the IAEA inspections to undertake investigations of the North Korean nuclear programme. It also dissociated itself from the Armistice Treaty vital in keeping the fragile peace of the region intact since 1953. Of late, it has also threatened to use nuclear weapons not in self-defence but offensively in case the UNSC provokes it too far. DPRK has also kept the option of export of sensitive nuclear technology open.
China has acted as a facilitator in the six-party talks in order to bring pressure on DPRK regime although it remains unsuccessful in its efforts. There appears to be a strong drive for re-unification in the Korean Peninsula. If such a situation unfolds, would China like to have a denuclearized US ally under the US umbrella on its borders. A nuclear North Korea under Chinese control would be much preferred. This may provide strategic depth for China but a nuclear and belligerent North Korea might drive Japan, South Korea and Taiwan towards nuclear weapons. Since they are under the US umbrella already and the US would not like any new nuclear weapon states to emerge in the Far East, this is more or less a diplomatic gamble on the part of the Chinese state. There might be a similarity in China’s perceptions of the DPRK and the US perception of Pakistan, where both are tolerating these nuclear weapon states to serve their own interests.
What are the options available to the US? Live with a nuclear DPRK, seek to co-opt it into a closer relationship as advocated by some Americans or as proposed by Henry Kissinger, eliminate DPRK’s nuclear capabilities through a concert of powers. These options solve less of the problem but instead raise many other questions and the question here is that how it is possible that the arsenal will be eliminated without the voluntary support of the party involved? The option of military strikes is ruled out by the Security Council at this moment. Also missile defence is not an option in the face of the North Korean threats. Any punitive resolutions of the UNSC may result in dangerous reactions from North Korea.
If the DPRK carries out its threat of exporting its nuclear technology and material, it will not be hard to find many putative buyers. Although Iran is under watch, Pakistan appears to be increasing its arsenal and may be the past connections still exist. Middle East can also be a potential customer. There are still doubts on whether the AQ Khan network has been completely shut out. Under these circumstances the importance of actions such as Proliferation Security Initiative becomes heightened.
Traditionally, India has not been overtly concerned about the situation in the Northeast Asia. India still looks at its interests only from a national point of view rather than a global understanding as if India’s interests are not global in nature. The evolving situation in the Northeast Asia is a dangerous one and India must react more than merely calling DPRK’s actions as “unfortunate.” A statement on how the North Korean tests endanger world peace and security as well as declaration of support for PSI would be welcome.
India should consider joining the PSI, since now the UNSC resolution has called for interdiction of ships suspected to be carrying WMDs to North Korea. The North Korean issue also needs to be examined in the context of reports of Pakistan increasing its arsenal. The whole North Korean episode again highlights the inefficacy of the NPT in stopping proliferation.
Discussion
Comments and Questions
- PSI was designed to take care of the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programme. The P5 plus Japan and South Korea (P5 +2) are dancing around the question. Though others are gung ho about search and interdiction of ships in the high seas, Russia and China are advising caution.
- Supposing that North Korea can not be restrained, it will then be a very dangerous situation where there is an aberrant nation ready to supply and export sensitive technology. This kind of situation presages nuclearisation of Northeast Asia and the Middle East and therefore the situation is extremely challenging as well as potentially dangerous.
- As far as unification is concerned, unification is not on the anvil. Only in extreme cases will this be possible. The fact is that leadership is losing control and the question of succession is lingering in the air. Military has virtually taken over the leadership. If Kim Jung Il is not able to keep the military happy, then there can be serious crisis of authority in the country. Since all the luxury which the military enjoys in North Korea basically comes from China, China can upset the balance by denying the Kim Jung Il the resources to keep the military happy.
- There can be a complete change in the US policy if North Korea persists with its nuclear programme. The policy then will be to allow Japan going nuclear. The debate has already started in Japan.
- It is also to be noted that the North Korean tests have left the scientific community with many doubts. Technically many contend that explosions did not take place since there was no radioactivity discovered in the air or sea around the site of tests. Similarly the missile tests were also a failure. The point is that the situation may not be as serious as it appears to be and at the end of the day opportunity still exists.
- What can be said about the motivation of Chinese ambivalence over the North Korean issue? They do not seem to be quite enthused for curbing the North Korean nuclear programme. Do they see an advantage in the whole situation?
- How far does DPRK’s nuclear programme have to go before Japan goes nuclear?
- Given the past relationship of North Korea with Pakistan and taking in to account the recent Pakistani efforts to test plutonium devices, what can be said of the interests of Pakistan in North Korea going nuclear?
Responses
- China is facing a dilemma. Of course it is worried. China is absolutely sure that the US with its external deterrence to Japan and South Korea would not allow these countries to go nuclear. Since China does not feel threatened by a nuclear DPRK, it is advantageous for them to have DPRK under their control.
- Japan has a pacific constitution. They have three principles of nuclear abstinence. The question over Japan going nuclear depends on whether it can overcome the distaste of the entire population over nuclear weapons. The bulk of the Japanese people are against nuclear weapons.
- Pakistan and North Korea had trade linkage where North Korea bartered missile technology for Pakistan’s expertise in centrifuge technology. China was aware of this illegal trade.
Rekha Chakravarthi, Research Officer, IPCS
Yogesh Joshi, Research Intern, IPCS
