What’s driving N Korea’s nuclear programme

Jonathan Kaiman

IN North Korea, missiles and nuclear bombs are more than a means of national defence — they are, for broad segments of the public, objects of near-religious devotion. In Pyongyang, the country’s capital, missiles feature constantly in newspapers and on television. They emerge from flower pots in floral exhibitions; loom large in public mosaics; and adorn propaganda posters in factories, farms and schools. They’re often depicted in mid-flight, framed by bold militaristic slogans.
North Korea is gradually developing the capability to fit a nuclear device on an intercontinental ballistic missile, a technology that could one day enable it to launch a nuclear strike on the US, and any other nation that might threaten the survival of the Kim family dynasty. Yet a close reading of the country’s propaganda suggests that its goals may be more ambitious — and more aggressive in nature — than foreign observers often assume.
One long time analyst of the secretive country’s murky ideology says it’s become clear that North Korea’s rulers have come to consider nuclear capability not just a means of defence, but the only way of achieving their most important goal: to rid South Korea of US troops, and reunite the Korean peninsula on their own terms. “North Korea is a radical nationalist state and it’s committed to anything that anybody in North Korea’s position would be — which is the reunification of the [Korean] race, and the reunification of the homeland,” said B.R. Myers, a professor at Dongseo University in South Korea who has spent years studying North Korean propaganda and ideology.
Tensions on the Korean peninsula are at their highest point in years. North Korea has conducted five nuclear tests since 2006, and could soon conduct its sixth. Its missile tests have become routine. The US, in response to North Korean tests and threats, has diverted an aircraft carrier strike group to the Korean peninsula. North Korea, meanwhile, has responded with a massive artillery exercise and warnings of imminent nuclear war. Why is this happening? The North’s strategic calculus hasn’t changed in decades, Myers said. In 1994, President Clinton contemplated a pre-emptive strike on the North’s nuclear weapons program — yet he balked in the face of the potential fallout: North Korea has a devastating array of artillery aimed at Seoul, which sits 35 miles south of the countries’ heavily militarised border, and if a conflict were to erupt, hundreds of thousands of South Koreans could be killed within an hour. Now, Kim Jong Un, the country’s current leader, has accelerated efforts to enable a strike not just on Seoul, but on the US.
“Why is it doing the one thing that could cause the U.S. to strike North Korea, even at the risk of South Korean fatalities?” Myers said. “The only logical answer is that it’s pursuing something greater than mere security — and there’s only one logical conclusion as to what that is.” North Korea has been demanding the removal of US troops from South Korea since the Korean War, which ended with an armistice in 1953. In December 1955, Kim Il Sung, the country’s founder-president and Kim Jong Un’s grandfather, said in a speech that “peaceful unification” was the ideal option, and could come about when “we grow stronger” and the “forces of peace, democracy and socialism become more powerful.” If that fails, “the problem of reunification might also be solved by war,” he said.
Pyongyang is probably confident that it can drive a wedge between Seoul and Washington, Myers said. South Korea will elect a new president on May 9, and both front-runners advocate a relatively lenient North Korea policy. North Korea is unlikely to get its wish, at least any time soon. The US has shown no sign of withdrawing its military commitment to South Korea, and South Korea is, economically, light years ahead of its northern neighbour.
But “we need to distinguish the feasibility of the strategy from the likelihood that North Korea is pursuing it,” Myers said. “The world isn’t going to become an Islamic caliphate, but that doesn’t stop the Islamists from pursuing that as a goal. And the North Koreans are pursuing something more feasible than what Islamic State is.”
— Courtesy: Los Angeles Times

Share this post

    scroll to top