The US Should Learn to Co-exist with the Nuclear-armed DPRK?

The nuclear confrontation between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the US has emerged as an urgent problem in the international political arena. The DPRK is developing various and diversified means of nuclear delivery one after another, and the US is trying its best to prevent the former from developing them. Describing the nuclear possession by the DPRK and its strengthening of its nuclear forces as illegal, the US is bringing international pressure to bear upon the country. The world is carefully watching the “nuclear tug of war” between them.

Is Nuclear Possession by the DPRK Illegal?

Is nuclear development by the DPRK an “outrageous” violation of the rules of the nuclear world?

The US and the DPRK have been hostile to each other for over half a century.

After Second World War, the US occupied the southern half of Korea, and unleashed a war (1950-1953) against the 2-year-old DPRK, threatening that it would use atomic bomb. After ceasefire, the US shipped into south Korea many nuclear weapons, and continued to threaten the DPRK with these weapons.

The DPRK, a non-nuclear state, acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to remove the US nuclear threat. The treaty, adopted in 1968, stipulates that no country, except the then five nuclear powers, could develop nuclear weapons and the nuclear powers would not threaten non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons. However, in violation of this treaty, the US threatened and blackmailed the DPRK with its military capabilities, including nuclear weapons. Its attempt to isolate and stifle the country became more undisguised in the 1990s, when socialism collapsed in the east European countries; it put the DPRK on the list of countries for nuclear preemptive strike and branded it as part of the “Axis of Evil” and a “rogue state,” attempting to stifle it militarily.

Unable to leave its destiny at the mercy of the vulnerable treaty any longer, the DPRK made the final decision in 2003 on withdrawing from the treaty. Determined to cope with the increasing US nuclear blackmail, it developed nuclear weapons and declared in February 2005 that it possessed nuclear weapons. It succeeded in the first nuclear test in October 2006, and became a nuclear state.

After all, its nuclear possession was a measure it took to defend itself against the US high-handedness and violence, and the very one that made the DPRK do so is none other than the US.

The point is whether it was legal that the US, a nuclear state, threatened and blackmailed the then non-nuclear DPRK and whether it is unlawful that the DPRK has developed nuclear weapons for defending itself, for defending its right to existence. This unfairness and double standards are only driving the DPRK to further strengthen its nuclear forces.

Russian President Putin said at an international forum: Abuse of power in world politics is causing such a problem as the situation surrounding the DPRK, which is defending itself against outside pressure.

The standpoint of the DPRK is clear: As long as the US policy hostile towards it and its nuclear threat exist, it will never abandon its nuclear weapons but confront the US to the end to settle accounts.

The US Should Co-exist with a Strong Country

The US has now found itself in dilemma in the face of the DPRK’s lightning speed of nuclear possession and strengthening of its nuclear forces; the country is too strong to punish, and if it leaves the country at its own devices, it may make a breach in its nuclear ambition. It is clamouring for the outdated “sanctions” and “pressure” as the final resort, but “new sanctions” or “maximum pressure” cuts no ice with the DPRK, which has remained unperturbed in the decades of sanctions. And the DPRK is not a country, which would accept the unlawful sanction meekly.

What could be a way out for the US now?

When organizing the United Nations after the Second World War, some countries attempted to reject China in selecting the permanent member states of its Security Council. After much discussion, it was agreed it would be more reasonable to embrace the country with the largest population in the world than to reject it. So China, which at the time was weak in national strength and had little influence in the world, became a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Likewise, wouldn’t it be more sensible for the US to regard the DPRK, which is rapidly emerging as a nuclear power that cannot be slighted, not as its enemy, but as a partner suitable for co-existence?

In other words, it would be more practical for the US to recognize nuclear possession by the DPRK in special circumstances, conclude a peace treaty with it and establish friendly relationships with it. Then, the nuclear weapons in the hands of the DPRK would not pose any threat or danger against the US. And it would not shake the foundations of the NPT system, for the DPRK, though not a member state of the NPT, declared that it would fully perform its responsibility as a nuclear state.

The US should be pragmatic in approaching this problem.

It has become a fait accompli that the DPRK has possessed nuclear weapons whether the US recognizes it or not. The more intensified the US moves for sanctions are, the harder line the DPRK will take and the more solidly it will strengthen its nuclear forces. The DPRK has already proved that it possesses all the equipment and means related with nuclear weapons and has actual capability with which to strike the US proper.

Now, the US is on the crossroads, whether it would tighten the noose on its neck by itself by continuing to put pressure to bear upon the DPRK or it establish peaceful relations with the strong country and co-exist with it.

The US will have to be prudent in selecting its option.