Arrow Left Arrow Right Camera icon set icon set Ellipsis icon set Facebook Favorite Globe Hamburger List Mail Map Marker Map Microphone Minus PDF Play Print RSS Search Share Trash Twitter Video Camera Youtube
North Korea: The Risks of War in the Yellow Sea
North Korea: The Risks of War in the Yellow Sea
Table of Contents
  1. Executive Summary
North Korea: Beyond the Six-Party Talks
North Korea: Beyond the Six-Party Talks
Table of Contents
  1. Executive Summary
Report 198 / Asia

North Korea: The Risks of War in the Yellow Sea

The sinking of a South Korean naval vessel and artillery attack against a South Korean island highlight that stability on the peninsula is threatened by more than the nuclear issue. A resumption of talks to address maritime delimitation and confidence-building measures – within the context of recalibrated deterrence – are needed to avoid further deterioration towards conflict.

Executive Summary

The Yellow Sea off the Korean peninsula has become a potential flashpoint for a wider conflict. An escalating series of confrontations by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has seen the sinking of a Republic of Korea (ROK) naval vessel and the shelling of civilian settlements on an island near the boundary. The disputed nature of this maritime boundary, known as the Northern Limit Line (NLL), as well as the volatility of DPRK politics has created a serious risk that any further provocation might turn into a wider conflict. While international attention is once again focused on the North’s nuclear program, there is an urgent need to implement measures that could reduce the possibility of a clash in the Yellow Sea becoming something worse.

The Northern Limit Line, drawn up after the Armistice of 1953, has never been recognised by the DPRK. The boundary, which is not considered an international maritime boundary because both Koreas regard this dispute as domestic, crosses an area of fishing grounds that are important to the ailing Northern economy and are close to busy Southern ports. The disputed aspect of the line, the economic importance of the area, the ambiguities of the rules of engagement and the long history of violent confrontations have made it a flashpoint for conflict.

The sinking in March 2010 of the ROK vessel Ch’ŏnan and the shelling in November of Yŏnp’yŏng Island are the most recent and deadly of the confrontations in this area. Relations are at their worst point in more than a decade with much of the progress of recent years undone. The South has found itself hamstrung, unable to respond to North Korea with any force for fear of precipitating a wider confrontation. Impatience is growing and there are demands from the right in Seoul for more robust terms of military engagement in the event of future clashes.

The DPRK appears to have heightened tensions as part of a transition in power from Kim Jong-il, the sickly 68-year-old leader, to his 28-year-old son Kim Jŏng-ŭn. While almost nothing is transparent in this hereditary dictatorship, it appears that the attacks are an effort to give the inexperienced heir some appearance of military and strategic prowess. They also signal to potential rivals among North Korean elites that Kim Jong-il is willing to take on the South to promote his son and he would therefore have no problem confronting domestic opponents.

Pyongyang politics aside, the disputed boundary represents a grave risk. Negotiations on common exploitation of marine resources, particularly the crab that is fished in the area, have come to nothing and there has been little progress on various confidence building measures that could help prevent future crises, for example: the use of common radio frequencies, or better signalling of intent by vessels and a naval hotline. While in past talks the North has been willing to discuss economic cooperation, it has done little to address security issues.

The response to the attack against the Ch’ŏnan culminated in the U.S. and South Korea organising combined and joint military exercises in the area, with a U.S. aircraft carrier participating for emphasis. Military exercises and clear signalling to Pyongyang that it cannot attack its neighbours with impunity are necessary to restore deterrence and prevent escalation on the Korean peninsula. North Korea would lose an all-out war against South Korea and its ally the United States, but Seoul is constrained in retaliating forcefully because it has so much to lose. Even talk of using force rattles markets and impacts the South Korean leadership, which must take into account the mood of its electorate. Pyongyang, isolated from global markets and domestic political forces, does not face such constraints. Rather the disparity permits it to provoke the South at very little cost even while falling behind in the overall balance of conventional forces.

The Ch’ŏnan sinking and Yŏnp’yŏng Island attack are two extraordinary examples of deterrence failure where the North has exploited weaknesses in Seoul’s defence posture. In the ongoing period of succession in Pyongyang, and Seoul’s adjustment of its defence posture and rules of engagement, there is a real danger that the North will continue its asymmetric attacks in the Yellow Sea or elsewhere in the South. As the sinking of the Ch’ŏnan showed, the North is able to carry out stealthy attacks using mini-submarines and torpedoes, but it has other lethal asymmetric capabilities as well.

While the restoration of robust deterrence is the most urgent task, it alone is not sufficient to prevent conflict. Recalibrating the South’s deterrent posture will require revised rules of engagement and close alliance cooperation with the U.S. While Crisis Group recommends both Koreas cease live fire artillery drills in the area near the NLL, this does not suggest Seoul should abandon its right to self-defence and the use of retaliatory force against any attacks. Retaliation can be delivered with other weapons systems, such as ground-based precision-guided munitions or air strikes from ROK fighters. Live fire artillery drills on the five islands are not necessary for their defence, and the North is much more likely to be deterred by other weapons systems and revised rules of engagement that enable their use.

In addition to deterrence, the DPRK’s interlocutors must prioritise the potential flashpoint that is the NLL because of its critical security implications for the region. The two Koreas have failed to establish an equitable maritime boundary and should submit the issue for arbitration through the International Court of Justice or a tribunal possibly under the framework of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

China was initially very reluctant to pressure North Korea because it believes clashes in the Yellow Sea are a natural consequence of the unsettled inter-Korean maritime boundary and did not in themselves constitute a serious regional security threat. Of greater concern to Beijing has been a stepped-up U.S. military presence in the region and large-scale U.S.-ROK and U.S.-Japan military exercises. But China’s assessment of conflict risks evolved following the live fire drills at Yŏnp’yŏng Island on 20 December, driving its shift from a very muted and cautious approach to making more bilateral and multilateral efforts to push all sides to address the issue, aside from at the Security Council where it blocked action. Given the choice between war or a heightened U.S. military presence, Beijing has made the pragmatic decision to go along with the latter in the short term. China’s approach to clashes in the disputed areas of the Yellow Sea will be a test of its willingness, capacity and credibility in addressing regional conflict risks.

Likewise, Washington should make it clear to Seoul that the NLL is not a maritime boundary, and that the two parties must seek a peaceful resolution of this dispute in accordance with international law. Furthermore, the U.S. must clarify its intention to fulfil its alliance commitments and emphasise that attacks will not be tolerated. At the same time, Washington and Seoul must be prepared to engage Pyongyang and return to the Six-Party Talks to implement all commitments to denuclearise the Korean peninsula and establish a regional peace regime.

Seoul/Brussels, 23 December 2010

North Korean soldiers look south on the north side as a U.S. soldier stands guard upon Belgium's Prince Philippe's visit in the demilitarised zone separating the two Koreas in Paju, north of Seoul, in May 2009. REUTERS/Jo Yong-Hak
Report 269 / Asia

North Korea: Beyond the Six-Party Talks

Prospects are bleak that the Six-Party Talks can lead to a denuclearised Korean peninsula, notably since North Korea has made nuclear weapons an integral part of its identity. The international community must open new channels of communication and interaction, give greater roles to international organisations, the private sector and civil society.

Executive Summary

The Six-Party Talks were established in 2003 as a multilateral forum to achieve the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. However, the parties (China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea and the U.S.) have not met since December 2008, when the talks stalled over verification issues. There is a strong international consensus that North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK) should come into compliance with UN Security Council resolutions and abandon its nuclear weapons program but widespread disagreement over the strategy and policies for achieving this. Nuclear arms are now an integral part of North Korea’s national identity, however, so it is increasingly apparent that absent a sea change in ideology or leadership in Pyongyang, the Six-Party Talks will not achieve their central aim. Though governments need to keep up pressure for disarmament and maintain the dynamics of the current containment and deterrence policy, they also should establish – and encourage other international actors to establish – new channels of engagement that may further incremental change in North Korean society.

Since the end of the Cold War, the DPRK has developed a state ideology ofsŏn’gun (“military first”). Furthermore, the third generation of Kim family rule has adopted the pyŏngjin line, calling for simultaneous economic and nuclear technology development for both peaceful and military purposes, as Kim Jong-un’s contribution to “scientific socialist thought” and essential to the continuing Korean revolution. Nuclear status has been enshrined in the constitution and statutes, and state propaganda emphasises the role of nuclear weapons, satellite launchers and nuclear technology in the nation’s modernisation and prosperity. DPRK officials often have repeated that Pyongyang will denuclearise when the rest of the world does. Denuclearisation would require a transformation of that identity, in effect revolutionary change. The North has offered to return to the Six-Party Talks “without preconditions” to discuss regional security, nuclear disarmament and other issues – but not denuclearisation.

South Korea (ROK) faces an existential threat from the North’s growing nuclear arsenal. It is divided, however, over policy toward Pyongyang. After activity was detected around the nuclear test site at Punggye-ri in spring 2014, it invested considerable effort in an attempt to restart the Six-Party Talks. By late February 2015, five parties had reached a consensus on the minimum criteria to present to Pyongyang. To test intentions and sincerity on denuclearisation, Seoul has pushed for “exploratory talks” in a track two setting as a first step toward resuming the formal six-party process. If Pyongyang does not meet the criteria for resumption, which have not been disclosed publicly, the U.S., South Korea and others appear poised to take increasingly punitive measures.

There is little likelihood the U.S. would enter upon resumed talks unless there is a much greater prospect than appears to exist that they would be pursued in good faith by the North and not simply for manipulation and propaganda. Experience under the Agreed Framework in the 1990s, in addition to widespread perception that the DPRK is unreliable, make the Obama administration, and almost certainly any future president, sensitive to likely domestic blowback from another failed diplomatic effort with Pyongyang. China does not face the same domestic risks if the talks were to restart and turn out badly. It could always take credit for hosting them, and in the case of failure, blame the DPRK and/or the U.S. Its consistent position has been to restart dialogue even with low likelihood for success.

Japan also has a high threat perception regarding the North’s nuclear and missile programs and generally will support South Korea and the U.S. over the talks. Bilateral discussion of Japanese citizens kidnapped by North Korean agents in the 1970s and 1980s raised hopes for improved relations, but that process also has stalled. Without a satisfactory resolution on abductions, Tokyo will be even more inclined to take a harder line on the nuclear issue. Russia wants the talks to resume as soon as possible. Though sensitive about Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile activities, it believes Washington exaggerates the threat, and its focus is on economic cooperation, which the North welcomes as helping reduce economic dependence on Beijing.

Whether or not an intended exploratory meeting is held, the gap between positions is too broad to expect the Six-Party Talks to resume as a good-faith effort to denuclearise the peninsula. For that, either the DPRK must abandon its nuclear identity and ambitions, or the international community must accept transformation of the talks into a different type of institution that does not address denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. Neither seems possible, so deterrence and containment will remain fundamental for dealing with a nuclear North.

Deterrence is imperfect and could fail, but it will remain a pillar of security in the Korean peninsula for the foreseeable future. At the same time, it needs to be complemented by a broader engagement with North Korea on a range of issues. The self-imposed isolation of Pyongyang perpetuates a dangerous regime, in the same way the U.S. isolation of Cuba may have delayed evolutions in the Caribbean island; every opportunity should be seized to encourage an opening of society in North Korea. Three sets of actors might do so: governments and inter-governmental organisations (IGOs); private sector firms; and civil society. The roles, risks, opportunities, and costs vary, and engagement must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Only governments can sign treaties, impose and lift economic sanctions or change a military posture. Businesses can trade and invest, creating opportunities for contacts and engagement, but unconstrained trade can lead to dangerous technology transfers.

A relevant segment of civil society activities includes educational, cultural, artistic, musical, scientific and sports exchanges. There is no true North Korean civil society activity, but outside non-governmental organisations (NGOs), while they cannot substitute for governments or economic actors, could be important for transmitting ideas and information into the North, which ultimately is necessary to change its thinking, identity and policies.