North Korea’s risky game

The North Korean shelling of the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong last Tuesday is the latest outrage perpetrated by Pyongyang against its neighbour.

It is also yet another act of defiance against the international community by a rogue state which over the years has oppressed its citizens with appalling cruelty, supported international terrorism, conducted acts of aggression against its neighbouring states and developed the capacity to build nuclear weapons.

North and South Korea never signed a peace treaty after the 1950-1953 Korean war, and only agreed to a truce, so the two countries remain technically at war. North Korea has a long history of unprovoked attacks against the South over the past 60 years – last March a North Korean torpedo sank a South Korean warship, killing 46 sailors – and last week’s shelling was the most serious incident in the region since 1953.

Tuesday’s attack also marked the first civilian deaths in an assault since the North Korean bombing of a South Korean airliner in 1987, which killed 115 people. This latest act of aggression by Pyongyang occurred just days after North Korea revealed – in yet another act of defiance – the existence of a modern and extensive uranium enrichment plant which can produce both nuclear fuel and fissile material to produce a nuclear bomb.

It is difficult to explain just why the North Koreans decided to bombard a South Korean island, as the isolated super-secretive Communist regime is certainly not a rational player on the global stage.

However, analysts have put forward a number of theories regarding Pyongyang’s behaviour including that this latest strike is simply business as usual for North Korea which has a long history of aggression against its southern neighbour.

Another theory is that the attack is part of a succession plan in which the ailing North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il is beefing up support among military circles for his son and recently appointed heir Kim Jong-Un.

Coupled with the recent announcement about the uranium enrichment plant, the shelling of a South Korean island could boost the hardline credentials of Kim Kong-Il and his appointed successor.

Korean observers also believe this latest act of war is an attempt to draw the US back to the negotiating table with Pyongyang over its nuclear programme, and thus strengthen North Korea’s bargaining power. If such talks were to resume, North Korea’s probable aim would be to make minor concessions in return for much needed international aid, a tactic it has employed in the past.

What type of response is needed for such a blatant act of aggression? South Korea immediately responded with artillery fire, suspended all aid to North Korea and scrapped talks to organise reunions of families separated since the war. Such a reaction, however, is hardly expected to bring about a change in Pyongyang’s behaviour.

In fact, South Korea’s Minister of Defence, Kim Tae-Young, resigned after being criticised for not going further in his military response, such as by staging an air strike on the North’s artillery batteries. Kim, whose resignation was immediately accepted by President Lee Myung-Bak, said air power could have sparked a “full-blown war”.

In reality, the South has few cards to play in dealing with the unpredictable North, which claims to have nuclear weapons. It is the international community – in particular China, but also the US, that needs to adopt a new strategy in dealing with North Korea. International pressure must be exerted on China to convince Pyongyang to change course over both its nuclear programme and its outrageous behaviour.

China does have clout over North Korea and keeps the regime alive by providing it with much needed fuel and food supplies. After the North Korean shelling, Chinese government spokesman Hong Lei said simply: “China takes this incident very seriously, and expresses pain and regret at the loss of life and property, and we feel anxious about developments.”

Beijing, did not, however, criticise Pyongyang’s act of aggression, just as it never condemned the sinking of a South Korean vessel in March or North Korea’s recent announcement about its uranium enrichment plant. China’s main concern is that a collapse of the North Korean regime would lead to an exodus of refugees into China, while a stable independent North Korea acts as a buffer between it and a US-allied South Korea.

However, China’s desire to be internationally respected and a major player on the world stage means it has to take its global responsibilities seriously. It should understand that an erratic neighbour with the capacity to produce nuclear weapons which regularly attacks its southern neighbour is hardly a recipe for stability.

Certain circles within China are in fact starting to question Beijing’s embarrassing alliance with North Korea. Xie Tao from the Beijing Foreign Studies University said recently: “If we cannot ensure predictable behaviour by North Korea, then the alliance is not worth it.”

The US severely criticised North Korea’s latest behaviour and promptly sent an aircraft carrier and other warships to the Yellow Sea to deter Pyongyang from carrying out any further attacks. President Barack Obama now needs to rally international support – especially China – against North Korea’s actions.

Considering UN sanctions have had little effect on Pyongyang’s behaviour, the US will also have to re-assess its military strategy and pass on the message that North Korea’s existence is at stake if it continues to act in such a provocative manner.