SGB029: Armed Conflicts

The last Cold War conflict

Korea for change!

Hendrik-Jan Postma

Dr. José Angel Ruiz Jimenez

Castellon, March 30

Abstract

The ongoing conflict between North-Korea and South-Korea

This paper facilitates an analysis of the ongoing conflict between North-Korea and South-

Korea. The analysis in this paper is based upon investigating politics, social sentiment, and

the relation between the two conflict countries and the foreign powers. This paper includes

personal opinions as well as statistics. A dualistic approach from both countries is necessary

to outline and get to the core of the problem, possible solutions given in this paper are solely

based upon the authors opinion and peer-evaluation with other people and readings or articles.

The introduction will give a short overview of the beginning of the conflict between North

and South-Korea and the conflicts in the past few years. After presenting the events in

previous years both a national and international perspective will be given on the conflict and

whether solutions are reachable between the two countries.

Keywords: DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), ROK (Republic of Korea), NLL

(Northern Limit Line), DML (Demarcation Line), Six Party Talks, Armistice,

Introduction The armistice between North and South-Korea has been a source of conflict in the past

decennia. Officially there is no peace treaty between the DPRK and ROK. The conflict

between the two countries has been raging on for more than 50 years. The armistice between

the two countries was signed in 1953 and designed to insure a complete cessation of hostilities

and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved. Ironic in

my opinion, clearly even after 50 years the purpose of the armistice has not been successful in

creating a final peaceful settlement. During the signing of the armistice the two countries

agreed upon creating the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) on the 38th

parallel to ensure a

cease-fire line (The Korean War Armistice Agreement, 1953).

In the afternoon of the 23th of November South and North Korea found themselves in

a dire situation again. This time North-Korea decided to respond to the military training of

South-Korea on Yeonpyeon Island by firing numerous artillery shells on the island. In

responds of the North-Korean attack, the South-Koreans consequently responded with firing

artillery shells on North-Korea (BBC asia, 2012). Prior to this North-Korean provocation the

DPRK warned the ROK twice, not to continue with the military training on the South-Korea

Island (Kim, 2011). The reason for this particular incident is the dispute of the territorial

waters near North and South Korea. The NLL and the MDL are different geographical

measures of the borders between the DPRK and ROK. Whereas South-Korea together with

the international community recognizes the Northern Limit Line, the North-Koreans only

recognize the Demarcation Line. The everlasting dispute is about territorial water only, the

Islands in the yellow sea are not claimed by the North-Koreans. Therefore, the military

training of the South- Koreans would violate the DML according to the North-Koreans, and

vice-versa according to the South-Koreans they would be training in their own territory

(Terence, 2010). After the attack the international media immediately reacted to the news by

running headlines to the effect of the Korean peninsula being ‘on the edge of war’ (BBC asia,

2012). In my opinion this boosts sales and increases advertisements sales for the newspaper,

however war between North and South-Korea is highly unlikely. I will elaborate on this in the

main body of this paper. Even though the news agencies may exaggerate, the Yeonpyong

Island incident was the most serious armed conflict since the singing of the armistice.

Two weeks prior to the critical incident two professors from Stanford University were

allowed to visit one of the newest nuclear enrichment facilities in North-Korea, previously

they visited North-Korea annually, however they were never allowed to get this close and

give such a detailed report on the North-Korean advancement (Hecker, 2010). In my personal

opinion the two situations quite noticeable, and therefore could be linked. On the one hand no

serious violent conflict has occurred between North and South Korea after the armistice was

signed, and then prior to this incident all in the sudden two United States professors are

allowed into a nuclear enrichment facility and make an elaborate report on it. Essentially this

means that the North Korean government delivered two important diplomatic messages. First

it was sent to Washington and the sent to Seoul. The message for Washington was we have

nuclear enrichment capabilities and currently producing nuclear rods. Two weeks later the

message to Seoul was artillery shells. The similarities of these messages are that essentially

North-Korea is existing, and claiming to be dangerous and continue to become even more

dangerous with their nuclear ambition. Furthermore, North-Korea is not willing to keep quiet

even though the international community denounces them, even if that would mean creating

more tension and further diplomatic escalation.

The November incident is a follow up of previous events in the past. In March of the

same year a South-Korean ‘corvette’ naval vessel was sunk, after the United Nations finished

their inspection and research to what caused the incident the research proved that the evidence

points overwhelmingly to the North Koreans (United Nations Security Council, 2010).

However this only represents the armed conflicts on 2010 between the Koreans. Previously

and also post 2010 the conflict has not been violent in a way that it would cost loss of lives. In

the following years until today the conflict between North and South-Korea has been marked

with threats and further diplomatic difficulties between the two countries. To comprehend the

extent and the complexity of the problem further crucial conflicts in the years post 2010 are

listed.

On the first of January 2013 North-Korea presented a surprising and at the same time a

contradicting message to South-Korea and their allies. North-Korea called for increased

diplomatic relationship between the two countries and strives for unification, and at the same

time they told the United States to target them in its missile and nuclear programs. The only

message given here is that basically they would like to work with South-Korea, however the

United States is proclaimed a sworn enemy and thus not included in any negotiations (KCNA,

2013). Shortly after the South-Koreans and the United States conducted a military exercise,

simultaneously North-Korea threatened to abandon the Korean Armistice Agreement,

justifying it because the United States was threatening with nuclear weapons and that the

United States was unwilling to negotiate a peace treaty to replace the armistice (DPRK,

2013). The pentagon publicly confirmed the use of B-52 bombers with nuclear capabilities to

protect their nuclear umbrella (Yong-Soo, 2013). In the following months tension kept rising

with the military move of the North-Koreans to move an intermediate-range missile along the

east coast, furthermore North-Korea launched a cyber attack against South-Korea creating

more tension. On April 9th

North-Korea launched its latest dispatch of diplomatic rhetoric by

urging foreigners to leave South-Korea for an imminent attack, the message came from the

state-run media. Pyongyang claimed to could no longer protect the lives of foreigners if war

would break out between North and South-Korea (Starr, 2013). Noticeable is the incident in

the beginning of 2014, when North-Korean warships crossed into South Korean territorial

water. Again this conflict is because of the difference in recognition between the territorial

waters with the NLL and the DML (North Korean News, 2014). From my point of view this

incursion of territorial waters is like the previous ‘Yeonpyong Island incident’ a source for

provocation. However, the underlying problem different recognition of territorial waters, but

the military exercises conducted by the United States and South Koreans in those waters.

International tension and securing interests The Six Party Talks is a result of the North Korean withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-

Proliferation Treaty in 2003 (Bojaria, 2013). The purpose of the Six party talks is to guarantee

security in the region, peaceful use of nuclear energy, diplomatic relations, trade

normalization, and verifiable and irreversible disarmament. The countries included in the Six

Party Talks are South Korea, North Korea, United States of America, China, Japan, and

Russia. Before 2007 the Six Party Talks little progress. After 2009 North Korea pulled out of

the six party talks (DPRK, 2009), after North Korea agreed on shutting down some of their

nuclear facilities (Scanlon, 2007), while at the same time the United Nations Security Council

condemned the North Korean failed satellite launch (The Guardian, 2009). Ever since the

discontinuation of talks in 2009 conflict has risen again, as written in the introduction.

However, on the 29th

of 2014 the Chinese news agency announced that the DPRK would be

willing to continue the talk, China called the United States to fulfill its related obligation to

the Six Party Talks. Personally, I doubt the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Six Party

Talks. The international theater is not surrounded by the Six Party Talks, the rivalry between

China and the United States becomes more intense every month. Recent claims of the Chinese

sea and basically claiming trade-routes and economically prosperity over international

sovereignty. Noticeably more important is the Chinese broadcast after the ‘South Korean

Corvette incident’ in March of 2010, in which China actually claimed that the South Korean

Corvette exploded because of an American sea-mine and not as a result of a North-Korean

torpedo attack, note that the statement was made by a government controlled media station.

This clearly indicates that China is backing North-Korea and intensifies the rivalry between

the major Powers. Furthermore from my point of view China has no interest in a unified

Korea, especially if South-Korea would assume control over North-Korea. The strategic

position of the United States in the Pacific and continental Asia already is a considerable

threat to China’s interests. The backyard of China on the eastern side is completely controlled

by the United States and their allies; Japan, South Korea, Philippines and in the South,

Australia. Similar to the European situation in Ukraine and more specifically the Crimea,

securing the backyard of a country is priority in order to protect against foreign nations and

their influence. The United States managed to completely control the Pacific after the Second

World War, military bases in the pacific and on islands next to China is the pacific

fortification against foreign threats. The Chinese economic growth and one-party rule require

a great deal of stability, Chinese sovereignty and domestic stability are more important than

global ambition (Sutter, 2014). Similar to China, The United States economic growth and

prosperity are heavily depended on each other so creating conflict would result in economic

backlashes. Furthermore, The United States has no interest in Unifying Korea, because it

would consequently lead to hardened diplomatic tension between China and the United States.

That is exactly why a military solution in Korea is extremely unlikely for both the United

States ally of South Korea and China ally of North-Korea. Both superpowers are not willing

to risk an all out war over North and South-Korea.

Hawk Lobby approach or Dove Lobby approach According to many academics North-Korea has no economic potential at this moment. For

decades the international community has sponsored humanitarian aid for the DPRK. The

humanitarian aid has been cancelled numerous times, especially with the nuclear ambitions of

North-Korea. Typically the international community and especially the United States of

America are divided into two camps when it comes to the approach of rogue-states. The

Hawk lobby is in favor of extreme sanctions and possible military intervention when it comes

to restoring order and bringing peace and stability, whereas the Dove lobby is in favor of

diplomatic solutions. Note in this case that for both the Hawk Lobby and the Dove Lobby the

denuclearize agenda is the most important, and has been the aim of both the international

community and the United States, excluding China and Russia.

In the case of a Hawk lobby approach the international community should no longer

give any military aid and or humanitarian aid to North-Korea to bring the country down and

establish a pro-western country. The Dove lobby is in favor of supporting the country

humanitarianly and approach the country diplomatically so it will eventually become like a

Chinese-style reform. In this case North-Korea opens up for more freedom and stability for

the region and make it a normal-state. From the 2014 point of view the Hawk lobby is

prevailing from both the international community and South-Korea. The provocations from

both North-Korea and South-Korea only result in more instability at this moment. Clearly, in

my opinion this approach does not work. North-Korea is continuing with their nuclear

ambitions and military expansion and is calling for unification trough either diplomatic or

military action. If the Hawk Lobby would work towards intervention in the case of North-

Korea, would prove to be ineffective in my opinion. Even though the North-Korean army is

larger and stronger at first glance, the South-Korean army is superior when it comes to

technology. Study shows that South-Korea would win the war but the implications would be

disastrous (Laurence, 2012). The geographical position of Seoul is in range of imminent

destruction by North-Korean artillery fire. The economic power depends on the capital and

therefore destruction in case of war would be an immense blow against South-Korean

economy not even to speak about the huge civilian casualties. Secondly, in case South-Korea

and the United States would manage to utterly destroy the North-Koreans, South-Korea would

have to assume responsibility for a destitute North. The economical difference is huge in

terms of GDP and distribution of labor and technical advancement. South-Korean economy

would collapse if they had to take care of what the DPRK left. Basically, the Hawk Lobby

approach will not work out for the South-Koreans, nor for the North-Koreans, the price for

unification through war is too high and not worth the instability.

On the other hand the Dove lobby would rest on the Chinese example of change, which is

also in my opinion a false hope. China was not divided during the economic and political

reforms in the 70s and 80s. Furthermore, opening up markets in North-Korea would sound

like a good idea from a Western point of view, the reality is that in that case more influence

from South-Korea would enter North-Korea in terms of prosperity. For the North-Korean

government this would be completely against ‘Juche’ principles and communist ideals. North-

Korea would destabilize if North-Koreans would find out the truth about the differences,

furthermore, the DPRK would lose it legitimacy of being a successful government towards for

their people. At this moment the legitimacy of the DPRK is based upon controlling

information in the country and enforcing harsh propaganda. The second reason why the Dove

Lobby is not working is because North-Korea cannot in any circumstance give away their

nuclear ambitions and denuclearizes completely because if you look at the world the nuclear

weapons proved to be a military deterrent and a tested tool of extortion (Council on Foreign

Affairs, 2009). Diplomatic proceedings between North and South-Korea always break down

because of North-Korean nuclear ambitions. In 2007 South-Korean Dove Lobby approach the

North-Koreans with the ‘Vision 3000’ plan which would raise the income per capita for all

North-Korean to $3000,- USD if North-Korea would agree upon giving up their nuclear

ambitions. In this case the South-Korean Dove lobby tried to buy-off North-Koreans nuclear

ambitions with a very generous aid plan, however it proved to be ineffective. Shortly after the

South-Koreans suggested this deal, the North Koreans replied by utterly rejecting the plan and

calling the South-Korean president a traitor and blaming him for escalation on a ideological

level (Lankov, 2009). Clearly the Dove Lobby approach has not been successful with North-

Korea in recent years. This basically leads to the question ‘What would be a solution for this

ongoing conflict?

Korea for change A lot of scholars claim that the conflict between North and South Korea is the only lasting

conflict of the Cold War. In that case some scholars claim that the solution is aggressive

media and humanitarian aid, which will spread the western perspective. The fall of

Communism in nowadays Russia and surrounding countries was largely because of the

influence from the West. The people living in the communist states became increasingly

aware of the difference between prosperity, consequently people tried to escape Communist

rule and defect to the Western world. If a similar approach is adopted for North-Korea the

influence of the West would cause dissent from within and after sufficient awareness is

created amongst the North-Koreans the Communist regime will collapse. Back when the Cold

War ended the use of media was quite extensive and a powerful tool to bring down the

Communist regimes. Nowadays mass media is even more powerful through the wide-spread

of news, documentaries and radio broadcasts. Approaching the North-Korean conflict with

wide spread media and smuggling in western influence could bring change, slow but

eventually it would reach a point of awareness of which the North-Korean could no longer

deny and resist the Western influence. Surely approach is quite aggressive in terms of

diplomacy but the military conflict would be avoided.

A more subtle approach would be to find diplomatic arrangements between North and

South Korea. Initiating exchange programs between universities and the agricultural/industrial

sector could greatly improve the sentiment between South and North Koreans. This would

foster public opinion from both sides and eventually lead to mutual desire for a solution.

However whatever solution is proposed for the Korean conflict the first step in my opinion is

to agree on a peace agreement. There has not been a single conflict in this world which did

not have a peace agreement first, before actually addressing other issues relating to factors

that worsen or intensify the conflict. Therefore, the United States and South Korea together

with the rest of the members of the six party talk group should work towards a peace

agreement first, before even bring up the talk for denuclearization or controlled nuclear

energy programs, for example the Stanford professor who wrote an elaborate report on North-

Koreans nuclear advancement has proposed ‘three No’s deal’, No More Nukes, No better

Nukes, No proliferation. This means a certain hold on the current nuclear ambition, but it

would surely increase the chances of diplomatic success between North and South-Korea.

The civilian populations of both North and South Korea have been living under a

constant fear of war since the armistice was signed. It is therefore almost unbelievable that

generations have not seen real peace. The conflict which the world have seen around Korea

only worsened the situation, and even though North Korea and China are willing again to

continue the Six Party Talks the question is whether the United States and South-Korea are

willing to prioritize peace instead of military stability without nuclear weapons on the North

Korean side. From my point of view the international community has failed to solve this issue

so far, which is quite extraordinary if you consider the amount of conflict that have been

settled in a certain way in the past.

Bibliography BBC asia. (2012). South Korea marks Yeonpyeong island attack. BBC , 1. Bojaria, J. (2013). The Six Party Talks on North Korea's Nuclear Program. New York: Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Affairs. (2009). Changing North Korea. Foreign Affairs , 2-3. DPRK. (2009). Foreign ministry Vehemently refutes UNSC's 'Presidential Statement'. KCNA , 1-2. DPRK. (2013, 3 7). KCNA. Retrieved 3 27, 2014, from Korean Amristice Agreement will no longer exist: http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2013/201303/news07/20130307-07ee.html Hecker, S. (2010). North Korea's Yongbyon Nuclear Complex: A report by Siegfried S Heckler. Stanford University: CISAC. KCNA. (2013, 1 1). KCNA. Retrieved 3 27, 2014, from New Year Address Made by Kim Jong Un : http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2013/201301/news01/20130101-13ee.html Kim, H.-J. (2011). Korea attacks: Yeonpyeong Island shelled by North korea . Huffingtonpost , 1-3. Lankov, A. (2009). South Korea's 'grand' smokescreen. Asia Times , 1-3. Laurence, J. (2012, 1 4). Reuters. Retrieved 3 25, 2014, from North Korea military has an edge over South, but would not win a war, study finds: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0104/North-Korea-military-has-an-edge-over-South-but-wouldn-t-win-a-war-study-finds North Korean News. (2014, 2 25). North Korean News. Retrieved 3 26, 2014, from http://www.northkoreannews.net/index.php/sid/220229236/scat/08aysdf7tga9s7f7/ht/Maritime-incursion-by-North-Korean-warship-sparks-tension Scanlon, C. (2007). The end of a long confrontation. BBC , 1-3. Starr, B. (2013, 4 10). CNN. Retrieved 3 26, 2014, from U.S. official: North Korea could test fire missiles at any time: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/09/world/asia/koreas-tensions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Terence, R. (2010). The Origins of the Northern Limit Line Dispute. The Wilson Center , 1. The Guardian. (2009). UN Security Council condemns North Korean rocket Launch. The Guardian , 1-2. (1953). The Korean War Armistice Agreement. Panmunjom: United Nations. United Nations Security Council. (2010). Letter Dated 4 June 2010 from the Permanent Represenative of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations addressed to the President of thet Security Council. Security Council. Yong-Soo, J. (2013). U.S. nukes to remain in South. Korea Joongang Daily , 1.