Mitigating the North Korea Crisis

This February, the threat of North Korea’s nuclear program resurfaced in the media as the nation declared it had conducted its third nuclear test. After the U.S. responded by increasing economic sanctions, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea promptly demanded their removal as a first step towards continuing peace talks.

Despite the country’s expressed interest in diplomacy, North Korea has proven time and again that it is unfazed by concessions and, most importantly, uncommitted to compromises. Therefore, the U.S. must keep all sanctions in place and must, above all, not acquiesce to North Korea’s bargaining tactics.

Concerns about the detrimental effects that strict sanctions can have on the country’s severely precarious economy are not unwarranted. With a GDP per capita of $1,800, North Korea lamentably stands at the bottom of the global economic ladder. However, this has not deterred the nation from investing a copious amount of its funds to develop its nuclear program. North Korea is reported to allocate close to a third of its government spending to defense, a large part of which was unquestionably distributed toward building nuclear arms. All the while, the North Korean public continues to be heavily repressed and subjected to widespread famine as a result of the country’s failure to distribute funds and other resources to its people.

Instead of searching for ways to contribute its own national revenue to helping combat the devastating food shortage, North Korea has chosen the alternative route of using what is effectively blackmail in order to receive humanitarian aid. Especially after North Korea violated the terms of the 1994 Agreed Framework by clandestinely developing a uranium enrichment program, the international community has witnessed a persisting pattern of bargaining behavior. The DPRK’s bargaining tactics are marked by threats against nations like the U.S. and South Korea which are then followed by the demand of concessions or compromise.  Nonetheless, any attempt at negotiating has been and will continue to be futile as long as North Korea prioritizes arms over the good of its citizens.

For example, in February 2012, the Obama administration was prepared to offer 240,000 metric tons of food assistance as a gesture toward augmenting bilateral relations. However, the DPRK opted instead to continue to push its nuclear agenda by passing U.N. resolutions and launching yet another rocket. Such actions should serve as confirmation not only that is North Korea uninterested in ceasing the buildup of nuclear arms, but also that it has no true intentions of bringing humanitarian relief to its people. If the DPRK genuinely wishes to make a turnaround, change must begin internally before any moves toward diplomacy are made, and preemptive strikes must not continue to function as North Korea’s primary source of sustenance.

Fears that the DPRK could soon become a nuclear powerhouse and destroy any region it wishes to target, while not completely irrational, are not very likely to be confirmed. Even if North Korea decided to carry out an attack against the U.S. while ignoring the possibility of devastating retaliation from America and its allies, the DPRK’s highest capability missile thus far, the Taepodong-2, would only reach a portion of Alaska. Given that North Korea seems to be overstating its stance as a nuclear power, for now, our focus should not necessarily be on the possibility of a DPRK-American nuclear war. However, it is imperative that the international community monitor North Korea’s compliance or lack thereof to UN Security Council Resolutions 1718, a mandate that instated a series of economic and commercial sanctions against the country.

Most alarmingly, the DPRK has not only failed to abide by the stipulations of the resolution, but it is now not the only nation benefiting from its perpetual buildup of nuclear arms. North Korea has been discovered exporting nuclear technology to conflict-ridden states such as Syria, Iran, and Myanmar, which in turn makes its nuclear program a greater threat to international stability. Therefore, even if North Korea should opt to use its nuclear program simply as a bargaining tool to receive foreign aid, the possibility that other states may one day build up and begin using this weaponry is an equal cause for concern.

Dealing with the North Korea nuclear crisis is trouble enough without the spreading of nuclear power to other rogue states, and the international community must under no circumstances give in to DPRK pleas to loosen sanctions. Additionally, the U.S. must put an end to monetary aid while also limiting food assistance.

Doing so will not only force the nation to become accountable for sustaining its own people, but it will also be a definitive gesture displaying the fortitude of the United States and its steadfast refusal to condone the DPRK’s bargaining ploys.

Dina M. Perez ’15, a Crimson editorial writer, is a classics concentrator in Leverett House.