{"id":25636,"date":"2016-03-31T11:00:07","date_gmt":"2016-03-31T00:00:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=25636"},"modified":"2016-03-31T15:31:38","modified_gmt":"2016-03-31T04:31:38","slug":"the-dawn-of-justice-in-north-east-asia-china-the-us-and-the-dprk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/the-dawn-of-justice-in-north-east-asia-china-the-us-and-the-dprk\/","title":{"rendered":"The \u2018Dawn of Justice\u2019 in Northeast Asia: China, the US and the DPRK"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
While watching the new<\/span> Batman v Superman<\/span><\/a> movie, I couldn\u2019t help but draw parallels between the plot and current dynamics between the US, China and North Korea. No really, hear me out. The gist of the movie (without spoilers) is that while Batman and Superman wrestle for power between themselves, a third actor creates \u2018Doomsday\u2019 which will destroy the world unless the two superheroes put their differences aside and work together to defeat it. What happens in the end? Well, you\u2019ll have to watch the movie to find out.<\/span><\/p>\n True, the parallel\u2019s not perfect. North Korea\u2019s too weak to threaten an actual Doomsday, even if it lashes out with everything it has. But if you put the US and China into Batman and Superman\u2019s spandex costumes\u2014and consider North Korea the self-motivated third party threatening peace and stability\u2014it helps explain the urgent need for cooperative action between Washington and Beijing.<\/span><\/p>\n Washington and Beijing aren\u2019t actual adversaries, but the two countries are engaged in<\/span> strategic competition<\/span><\/a> and rivalry. In the meantime, Pyongyang has made clear its intention to become a nuclear-armed state with multiple tests of its own \u2018Doomsday\u2019-type device every few years (<\/span>2006<\/span><\/a>,<\/span> 2009<\/span><\/a>,<\/span> 2013<\/span><\/a>,<\/span> 2016<\/span><\/a>). But the most recent test suggests a nuclear program that\u2019s becoming much more blatant and that will challenge the US and China\u2019s ability to find common ground to address a common issue.<\/span><\/p>\n North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test on 6 January\u2014the<\/span> claimed<\/span><\/a> detonation of a hydrogen bomb\u2014and then<\/span> launched a satellite<\/span><\/a> on 8 February using ballistic missile technology. In response, the UN Security Council unanimously agreed to impose particularly harsh<\/span> sanctions<\/span><\/a> on North Korea in early March. They introduce inspections of cargo originating from or destined to North Korea and prohibitions on aviation fuel and rare minerals.<\/span><\/p>\n While we\u2019re reflexively inclined to think of China as North Korea\u2019s patron and the US as South Korea\u2019s ally, the two have proven themselves able to cooperate on the North Korean issue. Officials in the US<\/span> recognised<\/span><\/a> China\u2019s willingness to cooperate on the implementation of the new sanctions and to consult on a range of related issues and the two countries have coordinated policy in the past: both were central to the September 2005<\/span> agreement<\/span><\/a> of the Six Party Talks in which North Korea committed to abandon its nuclear weapons, return to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and IAEA safeguards in exchange for economic exchanges and fuel.<\/span><\/p>\n But China often drags its feet on implementing sanctions because it has a fundamentally<\/span> different view<\/span><\/a> of how to deal with the North Korean issue. While both countries want to see the denuclearisation of the peninsula, when push comes to shove, Beijing doesn\u2019t want to pressure the North Korean regime to the point of instability. It\u2019d prefer to have North Korea as a vassal state on its border\u2014even an increasingly disobedient one\u2014than risk a unified Korea aligned to the US.<\/span><\/p>\n So what makes this latest round of provocations by the hermit kingdom any different to previous ones? Why should these two great powers find a way to put their differences aside and take-on the \u2018Doomsday\u2019 headfirst? Because the North Korean nuclear program has shown signs of growing rapidly\u2014and that quickening brings to a head the longer-term question of where a nuclear-armed North Korea fits in Asia.<\/span><\/p>\n The week after the announcement of UNSC sanctions, North Korean news agencies<\/span> announced<\/span><\/a> that the country\u2019s nuclear warheads had been \u2018standardised to be fit for ballistic missiles by miniaturising them\u2019. Successful miniaturisation of a nuclear device for mating with intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is<\/span> an important milestone<\/span><\/a> for the country, as it more credibly raises the prospect of North Korean nuclear warheads reaching continental US. The release of images showing the apparent miniaturised nuclear device and ICBMs was clearly<\/span> intended to bolster North Korea\u2019s deterrent<\/span><\/a> by demonstrating the full range of capabilities needed to strike the US.<\/span><\/p>\n The issues that arise from a credible ability to launch a nuclear strike on the US are consequential and would have flow-on effects for the strategic calculations of other Northeast Asian nations. South Korea, for example, currently sits under the US nuclear umbrella and has been<\/span> deterred in the past<\/span><\/a> from pursuing its own indigenous nuclear force by pressure and assurances from Washington. But talks on acquiring a nuclear capability are becoming less taboo in the ROK, especially as the question of whether or not the US would hold out its nuclear umbrella to protect Seoul instead of, say, California becomes more relevant. An<\/span> editorial<\/span><\/a> published in the South Korean newspaper <\/span>Chosun Ilbo <\/span><\/i>raised the need for frank consideration of a South Korean nuclear force and cited America\u2019s failure to act in Ukraine and Syria as reasons to doubt the efficacy of US extended nuclear deterrence.<\/span><\/p>\n So although China usually drags its feet, the prospect of Seoul\u2014or even Tokyo\u2014reconsidering their reliance on US extended nuclear deterrence and the possible deployment of a Terminal\u00a0High Altitude Area Defence system in South Korea\u2014which has recently been<\/span> discussed<\/span><\/a> here on <\/span>The Strategist<\/span><\/i>\u2014would threaten to shift the strategic landscape of Northeast Asia to its disadvantage. The potential fallouts from an escalating North Korean nuclear program should, in theory, affect Beijing\u2019s calculus about its neighbour and offer more reasons to act decisively. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The recent developments on the northern side of the 38th parallel suggest we\u2019re approaching a \u2018now-or-never\u2019 point. The two superheroes in this plot need to find a way to slow, cap and\u2014eventually\u2014reverse the North Korean nuclear program. If they don\u2019t, this film isn\u2019t going to have a happy ending. <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" While watching the new Batman v Superman movie, I couldn\u2019t help but draw parallels between the plot and current dynamics between the US, China and North Korea. No really, hear me out. The gist of …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":469,"featured_media":25646,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[52,86,27,935,172],"class_list":["post-25636","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-china","tag-north-korea","tag-northeast-asia","tag-nuclear-policy","tag-nuclear-security"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n