Text Fwd: 'A butterfly effect' of Libya and North Korea

Peace Network
'A butterfly effect' of Libya and North Korea
March 11, 2011.
Written by Wooksik Cheong(Representative of Peace Network)

“When the North collapses _ and one day it will, of course _ we’re going to face a problem that we’ve been spared in Libya. You have to bet that the (North Korean) leadership is going to threaten to use its weapons to stay in power. Even if they are bluffing, it’s going to change the entire strategy.”

This is a remark made by a high-ranking official of the Lee Myung-bak administration during an interview with the New York Times on March, 1. “While South Korea is dropping leaflets in North Korea alerting its population to the uprisings in the Middle East, senior South Korean officials acknowledged in interviews last week that should North Korea face a similar uprising, it could use the threat to unleash its arsenal _ which includes six to a dozen nuclear weapons by most estimates _ in an effort to keep neighboring countries from encouraging the government’s ouster” said the official on the condition of anonymity.

This analysis carries a significant implication about current and future situation of the Korean peninsula. Those who have been hawkish toward the North around the Lee Myung-bak administration seem to hope that “butterfly effect of Libya” spreads over North Korea, regarding “North Korea’s sudden change” such as, they classify, death of Kim Jong-il or a large-scale civil uprising as a great opportunity for “Absorbing Unification” (Unification through absorbing North Korea). In the same vein lies the reason why even military authorities and some members of the Grand National Party (the ruling party of the South) all are eager to distribute the leaflets. Moreover, Joint South Korea and the U.S. Military Exercise which began last 28th February is also focusing on making provision for this sudden change of the North.

As emerges this preparation for sudden change of the North in Seoul and Washington, an opposition of Pyongyang is also escalating. It reacted against the discourse by mentioning “a deluge of fire of Seoul” and “a nuclear disaster”. In particular, there increases the possibility that Pyongyang will cling to its nuclear as it faces the turmoil in Libya and Seoul and Washington’s preparation for North Korea’s sudden change. This is because the North Korean authorities, witnessing Qaddafi’s exposure to external military intervention especially by the U.S. and the U.K. after Qaddafi gave up nuclear weapons and missiles, will be convinced of its faith that “they need one decisive blow”.

A Libyan Model and North Korea

December, 2003, the Qaddafi’s administration, with arbitration of the U.K., signed up an agreement with the U.S. Under the terms of the agreement, Qaddafi contributed himself to abandoning weapons of massive destruction (WMD) and the U.S also has lifted economic sanctions and normalized relation with Libya. Believing that so called “Iraq Effect” (an effect that one must meet the U.S.’ attack if it does not voluntarily abandon WMD) brought Libya’s abandonment of WMD, the Bush administration was so encouraged by the agreement and insisted that North Korea and Iran need to follow the “Libyan Model”. However, North Korea and Iran, who were pointed as an axis of evil by Bush, interpreted this as a U.S.’ gesture for “regime change” and rather accelerated development of nuclear capabilities.

Now, the United States, who once referred to the Qaddafi’s administration as the epitome of non-proliferation, struggles to dethrone Qaddafi by all means available. Following economic sanctions such as freezing assets of family of Qaddafi’s, the U.S. is even considering military intervention including No-flight zone and forward deployment of Navy and Air force. While doing so, it sighed with relief given that it successfully had a deal to remove WMD with Qaddafi in 2003. Affirming that there is no question Qaddafi would have used whatever he felt necessary to stay in power including WMD had it failed to remove them, the U.S. believes that the worst nightmare possible had been prevented through the 2003 agreement.

At this point, we can figure out why the U.S. is so enthusiastic in hindering its adversary countries from possessing nuclear weapons and missiles. When the U.S. feels necessity of military intervention, the prime strategic consideration is whether or not the countries have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. On the other hand, it also explains why Pyongyang and Tehran, who are being first targeted even by the Obama administration, keep attempting to possess them.

Reinforcing this analysis, New York Times reported that “the message of the Libyan experience to other countries under pressure to give up their arsenals may not be the one Washington intends” and also reported that “Iran and North Korea, who have often been urged by the West to follow Libya’s example, may conclude that Colonel Qaddafi made a fatal error.” The “fatal error” in this context refers to Qaddafi’s abandonment of WMD.

Policy toward North Korea should not lose prime goal

As most North Korea experts pointed, there is very little likelihood that a large-scale civil uprising will occur in the North as did in the Middle East. Thus, being focused are sudden political changes such as death of Kim Jong-il and social unrest caused by consecutive power succession through three generations. However, a civil uprising for democratization and instability of regime are totally different. For international society, humanitarian interventions are relatively easy in the case of Libya where massive citizens rise for democracy under the threat of massacre by Qaddafi regime. However, should external military forces intervene due to potential political unrest caused by such a thing as death of Kim Jong-il, it is clearly violation of international law and able to trigger another disaster like a total war.

What is the most worrisome situation on the Korean peninsula is a meet of the two sides; first, conservative camps of South Korea and the U.S. which seem to regard democracy wave in the Middle East as an opportunity to overthrow “Dictator Kim Jong-il regime” and second, “Nuclear Deification” of North Korean leaderships wishing to dispel the suspicion and to prevent external military intervention by reinforcing “nuclear deterrent.” When these two movements converges, forming vicious circle, chances are there will be decadence of South Korean democracy and increased probability of the second Korean War, not a democratization of the North or Absorbing Unification.

In short, what is significant at this point is to clear up the principal goals in North Korean policies which have been missing since the Lee Myung-Bak administration. Prevention of Korean War is the priority of the priorities. Thus, not only deterrence of Pyongyang’s provocation but also restraint of behaviors provoking Pyongyang are now necessity. Denuclearization of the Korean peninsula also became more important. In order to achieve this denuclearization, required is not a unilateral nuclear abandonment of the North, but corresponding measures such as lifting economic sanctions and building peace system. In addition, what is also needed for stabilization of the peninsula is a special effort for restoration of the relationship of the two Koreas.

It is obvious that these principal goals in policies toward North Korea are incompatible with the current effort to trigger sudden change of the North. Therefore, the Lee Myung-bak administration’s idle and incompetent North Korean policies assuming that “the North will collapse someday” and doing nothing other than promoting the collapse need to be changed urgently.