By Col R Hariharan
North Korea’s deployment of two additional
short-range scud ballistic missile launchers in its eastern coast has
strengthened speculations in the South that Pyongyang might launch a missile
on April 25, the anniversary of North Korean army. According to South Korean
media, the latest deployment was in
addition to the seven mobile missile launchers already in place on the coast.
Coupled with the two Musudan intermediate
range missiles already deployed at a place 180 km from the South Korean capital
Seoul, has compelled South Korea and the U.S. to take the North Korean bluster
a little more seriously. Although, South Korean’s Chief of National Security
Kim Jang-soo had recently said DPRK was not capable of conducting a full-scale
war on the Korean Peninsula he did not rule out localized ‘provocations.’
North’s National Defence Commission’s
(NDC) in strong statement on against the U.S has said if the U.S. and “the
puppet South” truly wish dialogue and negotiations, “the sanctions resolutions
by the UN Security Council that were fabricated with unjust reasons must be
withdrawn." It also wanted the U.S. to promise not to engage in ‘nuclear
war practice’ with the South, an apparent reference to the joint exercises
between the two nations.
The enhanced North Korean deployment of
missiles could be to give credibility to the NDC’s statement. Of course, a
charitable view is to consider NDC statement as a response John Kerry’s
February 12 statement rejecting any talks between Washington and Pyongyang
unless North Korea took tangible steps to abandon its nuclear weapons
programme. He subsequently strengthened it further saying the U.S. would not
return to past cycles of “Here's a little food aid, here's a little this, then
we'll talk.”
A minor sidelight in the ongoing
confrontation was the participation of a small Australian army unit of 18-men
joining a landing drill held as part of the Foal Eagle US-South Korea
joint military exercise, near the south eastern city of Pohang. The Australian
participation at their own request is minuscule it underlines the international
military ramifications of a conflict between the two Koreas. This the first
time Australia is taking part in an exercise in Korea, since the end of Korean
War in 1953. Seventeen thousand Australian troops participated in the Korean
War under the UN command in which 340 Australian soldiers lost their lives.
Military dimensions
An
analysis of terrain, army strength and weapon holdings of North and South Korea
give some indication how the two countries would conduct their operations in
war. Firstly, South Korea’s population is double that of North, while the land
mass of North is one fifth higher than the South. South Korea’s GDP is 40 times
more than that of the North, which means it can bank roll a war for a longer
duration than the North. North cannot sustain a protracted conflict due to
acute financial crunch and the adverse impact of economic sanctions. So its aim
would be to inflict high casualties in a short war inside South Korean
territory. Translated in military terms this means North Korea would target
densely populated cities of the South closer to the DMZ with massed fire to
demoralize the population. Industrial hubs which sustain South’s vibrant
economy could become targets of missile attacks.
As Korea’s
eastern coastal region is mountainous, major cities and economic activity is
along the tank country in the western half of South Korea. Focus of North
Korean missile and artillery strikes would be largely biased to these cities in
the West.
As North
holds Soviet designed weapons, its tactics would be to use massed artillery in
initial stages to take the offensive into the South. North Korea holds over 10,000 pieces of
artillery - double the number of 5000 pieces held by the South would facilitate
this. North Korea’s employment of over 50 percent of the forces along the DMZ
would indicate that there would be little reaction time for the opponents when
it launches the offensive.
On the
other hand, South has near parity in combat aircraft held by North.
Qualitatively, strategic analysts rate South Korean air force as superior in
air combat. In the sea, North Korea
enjoys a five-fold superiority in submarine holdings, three fold in surface war
ships.
Northern forces’ ten-fold superiority of its 200,000 strong special forces has the potential to be a game changer. These forces are likely to be inducted in depth to strike at the rear if Southern forces to destabilize them. North’s naval superiority in submarines could come in handy in achieving surprise for such operations. However, the looming question is how serviceable are North’s weaponry, aircraft and ships in comparison with the more modern weapons of its prosperous enemy.
Of course,
involvement of the U.S. in early stages of the war could cripple North Korean
plans given the U.S.’ massive superiority in sea and air power applied in
tandem with its military assets in Japan and Guam. With real time command and
control systems and target acquisition capability, the U.S. has enormous
ability to turn the tables. But the U.S. intervention will have far reaching
implications in the region as North Korea had been a steadfast ally of China.
With Sino-US suspicions over each other’s strategic role in the region already
causing enough strategic problems, will the U.S. bite the bullet in favour of
South Korea? However, the pointed use of special forces to neutralize North
Korean capability probably remains an attractive option for the U.S.
Sino-U.S.
relations
The North
Korean crisis thrust upon China and the U.S. comes at a time when both the
countries are trying to strengthen their relationship after the new leadership
took over in China. US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, acting as President Obama's special
envoy, visited China in March, followed by the maiden visit of John Kerry to Beijing
after becoming Secretary of State in the same month. Tom Donilon, the US
National Security Advisor, is scheduled to visit China in May. So both countries have a convergence
of interest in defusing the Korean situation. This has become more urgent than
ever as North Korea is expected launch its rocket on April 25.
During the
two-day visit, John Kerry met with the Chinese
President Xi Jinping, Premier Li Keqiang, and State Councillor Yang Jiechi and
discussed a whole range of issues, well beyond the Korean crisis. Agency reports said President Xi called upon both sides to promote dialogue, respect
each other's core interests and properly handle differences. China and the US
must pave the way for the development of a new type of relationship between the
two countries.
According
to agency reports, after meeting with the Chinese leaders, Kerry in a press
briefing on February 14 said the U.S. wanted "strong, normal and special"
relationship with China because it was a great power with the great ability to
advance the world. Speaking at the Tokyo Institute of Technology Kerry said he
had "constructive and productive" talks with Chinese leaders.
Underlining the U.S. desire to build a win-win relationship, he added,"We
all have a stake in China's success, just as China has a stake in ours."
Terming the North Korean nuclear issues as a short term issue, Kerry emphasized
the “long term relationship between China and the U.S. is more important.”
A joint statement issued after Kerry’s
meeting with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang announced the two countries would set
up a climate change workforce under the framework of the China-US Strategic and
Economic Dialogue. China and the US would be holding the fifth China-US
Strategic and Economic Dialogue in July 2013.
The
Chinese Premier had called for closer economic ties,
and a "shared responsibility" for maintaining peace and stability
apparently referring to the U.S. strategic moves relating to China’s power
assertion in South China Sea. Li’s request to the US to take “substantial
actions to lift the ban on the export of high-tech products to China” referred
to yet another contentious issue between the two countries.
Foreign Minister Wang Yi said China and
the US should also engage in calm and objective dialogue about cyberspace
referring to a sensitive issue on which they have been trading accusations.
State Councilor Yang Jiechi said China was committed to "advancing the
denuclearization process on the Korean Peninsula" and "will work with
the parties concerned, including the US, to play a constructive role".
During
John Kerry’s visit, China could have given some hope to the U.S. expectations
from China in reining in North Korea from taking precipitate action. But due to
strategic reasons, China would find difficult to do so as North Korea has been
its client state for the last six decades.
So far
China does not seem to have not made up its mind on how to defuse North Korean
crisis. Its dilemma is evident from the topics relating to Sino-North Korean
relationship listed in the CCP’s Global Times website. They included “NK
albatross around China’s neck,” “Outrage won’t make China abandon NK,” “Is
China-NK friendship still alive today?”, “China living in denial of NK’s status
as an ally,” “Pyongyang seeking real sense of safety”, “China’s choice is to
unleash or reel in a nuclear North Korea,” and “Will the China-NK alliance
remain stable?”.
Perhaps it
would like to buy time to ease the situation from building up to the crisis
point. The planned visit of Beijing’s special representative on Korean affairs,
Wu Dawei to the U.S. next week to exchange views on the maintenance of peace
and stability on the Korean Peninsula as well as the denuclearization of the
Peninsula si part of this exercise.
According to the media already some 10,000
US troops and 200,000 South Korean soldiers in the peninsula are primed for
war. The US has deployed its B-2 stealth bombers, F-2 fifth-generation fighter
jets, the destroyer USS Fitzgerald, equipped with an Aegis counter-ballistic
missile system in South Korea. With forces deployed eye-ball to eye-ball, the
key question is how serious is the North Korean threat? Is it going to be
bluster or bomb?
Both China and the U.S. need to work
together in the larger interest of their enlarging relations which are stymied
by territorial disputes in the South China Sea and East China Sea, Internet
security, climate change and many other international issues, besides
attracting Chinese investments to the U.S. So probably China would try and
delay North Korea’s rocket launch to reinforce China’s increasing desire to be
recognized as a responsible international power. At least this is what probably
China, the U.S. and South Korea would be hoping.
Written on
April 22, 2013
This article includes comments shared
with the press on the looming Korean crisis
Courtesy:South Asia Analysis Group Paper No 5468 dated 23 April 2013
Courtesy:South Asia Analysis Group Paper No 5468 dated 23 April 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment