Tetsuo Kotani/Senior Fellow at the Japan Institute of International Affairs
North Korea has leveraged the mood of conciliation at the Pyeongchang Olympics to charm South Korea through a push for dialogue. On Feb. 10, North Korea invited South Korean President Moon Jae In to visit North Korea.
How will the situation on the Korean Peninsula change going forward? Could the United States take military action against North Korea, which continues its nuclear and missile development? We spoke to security policy expert Tetsuo Kotani, who serves as senior research fellow at the Japan Institute of International Affairs.
The following is an excerpt of the interview.
Stoking division
The Yomiuri Shimbun: It was expected that Kim Jong Un, chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea, would invite South Korean President Moon Jae In to the North through his sister Kim Yo Jong.
Kotani: They skillfully executed their most-expected scheme for dividing the United States and South Korea. There is a good chance that the South will accept the invitation. South Korea is likely considering the timing of such a visit in consultation with the United States. For the time being, attention will be paid to whether the United States and South Korea postpone joint military exercises until after Moon's visit to North Korea.
Q: Why did North Korea decide to participate in the Pyeongchang Olympics earlier this year?
A: There are two reasons. First, the sanctions actually appear to be working. With this in mind, they want to charm their neighbors and stir division in the U.S.-South Korea and Japan-South Korea relationships, while creating a "double freeze" situation where the United States and South Korea put off joint military exercises and North Korea refrains from provocative actions. During that time, they would aim to continue their missile and nuclear development while opening a hole in the sanctions.
Second, there were reports at the end of last year that the United States was considering a limited strike as part of a "bloody nose strategy," (see below) which likely worried Pyongyang quite a bit.
Level of seriousness
Q: How seriously is the Trump administration considering a limited strike?
A: Though the Trump administration has denied the existence of a bloody nose strategy, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster is said to be leading discussions on a limited strike. Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Mike Pompeo and others have backed the idea. On the other hand, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis have voiced objections to such action and favor a diplomatic approach. I heard that the military is aware of the risks associated with taking action, but have already devised plans for something heavier than a limited strike.
The issue is how McMaster and others supportive of a limited strike perceive the present situation. Even before becoming national security adviser, McMaster said North Korea must absolutely be stopped from gaining the ability to strike the United States with nuclear weapons. He's also concerned that Pyongyang might sell weapons to nations and entities hostile to the United States.
Q: Could the United States launch a limited strike for that reason?
A: Victor Cha, who was dropped from consideration to be U.S. ambassador to South Korea, has publicly criticized the bloody nose strategy. This suggests the Trump administration is actually considering a limited strike. I think there's a growing possibility that the United States may respond with a limited strike at some point to show it takes North Korea's continued nuclear and missile tests seriously.
Red line
Q: If the United States attacks North Korea, when and how would they do it?
A: An attack would occur in April at earliest. The United States plans to conduct joint military exercises with South Korea at that time. If North Korea reacts to these exercises by test-firing an intercontinental ballistic missile, among other actions, it is thought the United States could launch a limited strike. However, that is premised on South Korea agreeing to holding exercises.
If the U.S.-South Korean joint exercises are postponed beyond April, the next possible date would be around the North's national foundation day on Sept. 9. Should North Korea launch a more advanced missile under the pretext of a satellite launch around that time, the United States could respond with an attack.
Q: Would the United States really launch an offensive that could result in heavy damage to Japan and South Korea?
A: The Trump administration has not clarified its red line. Conventional thinking suggests an attack on the United States or its allies to be the standard, as they could invoke their right to self-defense. To avoid such circumstances, however, North Korea is thought to be targeting areas just beyond territorial waters. There is debate over how the United States should respond in such a case, and there are moves under way to set the red line in the gray zone for invoking the right to self-defense.
Problematically, North Korea may not know this and might cross a red line drawn in the gray zone. This increases the likelihood of a U.S. strike.
Q: What would a limited strike look like?
A: It would be a strike on missile-related facilities. For example, the United States could conduct a limited strike on a North Korean launch pad immediately after a ballistic missile launch, conveying the U.S. intent to escalate its attacks should the North fire more missiles. I expect the United States to carefully avoid hitting command, control and communications facilities, which could possibly lead to a full-scale war with North Korea.
Q: What should Japan, as a U.S. ally, do now?
A: The possibility of a limited U.S. strike on North Korea was almost zero following the Agreed Framework reached between the two countries in 1994. The possibility is still low, but certainly no longer "almost zero."
It is important for Japan to convey to the United States that any military action should be firmly based on international law. The Japanese government is already developing plans to assist the United States based on the Guidelines for Japan-U.S. Defense Cooperation, protect Japanese citizens in South Korea, and handle refugees, among other matters. However, it's also necessary to hold a constructive debate in the Diet.
(From The Yomuri Shimbun, Feb. 17, 2018)
-- Kotani is a security policy expert on Japan and the Indo-Pacific region. He took up his current post in 2014 after serving as a fellow at the U.S.-Japan Center at Vanderbilt University in the United States.
--Bloody nose strategy
A limited and preemptive strike by the United States on North Korea's nuclear and missile-related facilities. Its aim is thought to be to punch North Korea and give them a bloody nose as a warning to abandon any plans to strike the United States.
Read more from The Japan News at https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/
.png?w=600)
