AS the hysterical threats from Pyongyang are echoed and amplified by the White House, media outlets around the world are busy predicting nuclear Armageddon. Trump and Kim Jong-Un resemble two juvenile characters threatening and cursing each other as the world looks on aghast.
But while the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) leadership — especially the Kim dynasty — has been known for its shrill rhetoric, what we are now hearing from the American president has taken on the bluster and bombast of his North Korean counterpart. “Fire and fury like the world has never seen” is hardly the language we heard from Obama. Even George W Bush, with his “Are you with us or against us?” and “Bring ‘em on”, did not quite match Trump’s strident turn of phrase. But then, few leaders anywhere could win a shouting match against the excitable American president.
At the heart of the ongoing war of words is the insecurity North Koreans feel about American intentions: decades after the Korean war ended (though no peace treaty was ever signed), they still feel threatened by a superpower whose military presence in South Korea is a constant factor in their lives. Partly, this is a result of government propaganda, but aggressive military exercises conducted by US and South Korean forces close to the border do little to soothe North Korean nerves.
In fact, China has advised both sides to de-escalate and avoid aggressive posturing. But in the current overheated environment, this sensible advice is like water off a duck’s back. Trump holds China partly responsible for not restraining North Korea from continuing on its dangerously provocative path. But China’s options are limited: although it has signed up to the recent UN Security Council resolution imposing yet another round of tough sanctions, it feels it can do little more to prevent its headstrong neighbour from developing its nuclear capability, and the long-range missiles to deliver its bombs. If Beijing pushes too hard and causes the DPRK regime to collapse, it would be faced with a flood of refugees, apart from having the South Korean armed forces and their American allies on its border.
These aggressive North Korean activities, in the face of several UN resolutions calling for a halt, have provoked the US to seriously consider a pre-emptive strike to neutralise DPRK nuclear facilities as well as its vast conventional forces. For most Americans, intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads in the hands of a seemingly unhinged leader constitute a major threat. Trump has described such a development as a ‘red line’ many times during his presidential campaign last year.
But the problem with hurling threats of “fire and fury” is that if you don’t follow up, you lose credibility in the eyes of friends and foes alike. And while Kim Jong-Un’s bellicose rhetoric has been standard fare in the international media for years, Trump’s excessive bluster has raised the ante. When bluffing at poker, you risk having your bluff called. In this case, what will be the American response if the North Koreans actually fire missiles into the waters close to the tiny island of Guam, an American territory and military base in the Pacific? Would this provocation be treated as an act of war? If so, how would Washington respond?
The Economist has built up a plausible scenario in which a rapid escalation in 2019, based on miscalculation and a misreading of signals from the other side, leads to all-out war, with casualties running into the hundreds of thousands. Four American nukes obliterate the North Korean capital, while Seoul suffers some 300,000 dead. China complains of radioactive fallout. At the end of it all, there is this tweet from Trump: “Nuke attack on Seoul by evil Kim was BAD! Had no choice but to nuke him back. But thanks to my actions, America is safe again.”
Had the South Korean capital not been so close to the border, the US would have acted long ago to take out the DPRK leadership and its nuclear facilities. As it is, Seoul has been a hostage threatened with destruction from thousands of DPRK artillery pieces concealed in tunnels and hidden under camouflage. According to CNN, the Pentagon seriously considered a plan to attack a North Korean nuclear plant in 1994 with stealth bombers. When military planners projected a million deaths in the ensuing conflict, the plan was quietly shelved.
While Kim Jong-Un is driven by nationalistic pride and a burning desire to be taken seriously on the world stage, the US is under no such pressure. It is universally acknowledged as the greatest military power the world has ever seen, and it could easily pulverise North Korean with a fraction of its assets. Thus, it has nothing to prove by engaging with Kim Jong-Un in a dangerous game of bluff and bluster.
Obama, realising the futility of treating North Korea as a serious partner in negotiations, distanced himself and deployed “strategic patience” to downplay the conflict. When he was handing over to Trump last year, he is quoted as saying that North Korea was the trickiest of the unresolved problems he was leaving behind for his successor.
Inevitably, Pakistan’s role in helping the DPRK’s nuclear programme has often been mentioned by commentators. Musharraf has added fuel to the fire by boasting that Pakistan sent equipment used to enrich uranium to Pyongyang. This admission has made our diplomats’ task of damage control that much harder, and AQ Khan’s nuclear proliferation network is in the news again.
Mercifully, even Kim Jong-Un must realise his forces are no match for the alliance they face: ultimately, like all dictators, he wants to cling to power, and he can’t do that if his country is vaporised. There are times even a bad poker player must throw his hand in and wait for a better one.
Published in Dawn, August 14th, 2017
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.