Countering North Korea: Isolating or military option is no solution

The US Secretary of State Rex W Tillerson paid a visit to Japan on 16th of this month. After meeting with his Japanese counterparts, he expressed that the United States needed a “different approach” to the North Korea’s escalating nuclear threat; although he did not specify further anything about the nature of the approach.  As the New York Times quoted from the joint press briefing of Tillerson and Japan’s foreign minister Fumio Kishida, the US secretary of the state said, “The diplomatic and other efforts of the past 20 years to bring North Korea (DPRK) to a point of denuclearization have failed.” According to him, the US had spent $1.3 billion to assist DPRK for abandoning its nuclear programme. 
 After that brief visit in Japan, Tillerson met the Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing. Western media reported that besides several bilateral issues, the tension of Korean peninsula was also discussed. While Tillerson was in Japan, the US President tweeted, “North Korea is behaving very badly. They have been ‘playing’ the United States for years. China has done little to help!” It is apparent that Tillerson will seek Chinese consent regarding the ‘different approach’. On the other hand, China has proposed dual suspension formula to reduce the tension and solve the Korean crisis gradually. At a media conference, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi explained the formula by saying,  “As a first step, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) may suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale US-Republic of Korea (South Korea) military exercises”. Since the US has not given any further details of the ‘different approach’ and expressing war rhetoric, one can assume that the country is seeking the Chinese consent for a military assault inside North Korea to topple Kim Jong Un regime. 
From a historical perspective the modern day Korean crisis erupted from the outcome of the Second World War. Japanese forces occupied the Korean peninsula and Russian and the US forces snatched the land from the defeated Japan and divided the Korean land into two parts on the basis of 38 parallel lines and two political ideologies, North and South, communism and capitalism, the Asian ‘Berlin wall’.  One is pro-Soviet and other is pro-US. Later in early fifties they engaged themselves in an unavoidable warfare with direct supports from the Soviet Russia, China and the US-led west. 
The consequence of the war was 1.2 million deaths, an armistice treaty and return to the 38 parallel lines. In last 60 years of truce between DPRK and South Korea, we saw how an ethnic Korean population was divided by two different ideologies and socio-political economic systems. By adjusting with the oddity of the division line- which was drawn by the superpowers, North Korea and South Korea both have developed their respective ways of lives although there is a diversity of perspectives to see the region. One can also argue that the region was highly militarized with sophisticated modern weapons as well during the period of 60 years of truce. 
The latest US president Donald Trump was very vocal against China and its policies from his early election campaign days. Under the Trump administration, the US will seek to enhance and continue several geopolitical pressures on China to contain her proposed globalization of promoting the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and maritime silk-Route.  On the other hand, China enhanced her development diplomacy with the Asian countries by funding infrastructural projects with billions of dollars. 
The US-China tension in South China Sea is also increasing. Both the US and China have been deploying military hardware for potential confrontation on maritime boundary disputes. To add more tension into the Sino-US tension in the region, recently, the South Korean president is ousted by both the parliament and the court.  
Now, it is apparent that the US has been losing its grip on South Korean political establishment. But, who will fill the leadership gap of South Korea? The main opposition party, the Democratic Party which is an alliance of Germany based Progressive Alliance, can play a crucial role in forming the future government. But the party doesn’t enjoy full support from the US yet since the Progressive Alliance rejected several Trumps’ policy, such as, the wall between the US-Mexico border and travel ban for six Muslim countries. So, many analysts believe that the US has been seeking to keep the China containment policy active in the region by instilling Korean War again since Japan, one of the key regional players, shows consent in favour of the US. 
According to media reports, the US-led west and regional allies- Japan and South Korea are very worried about North Korean nuclear war capacity and missile developments. As we had seen in second US invasion in Iraq under the false pretext to save the world from Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, again the western media has been creating another false pretext from the same playbook to make ground for toppling DPRK regime. 
Currently, the relation between China and DPRK is not going well but they are not hostile to each other. China accompanied with the UN imposed several sanctions over North Korea on different occasions of her weapon tests. On the other hand, DPRK enhanced and diversified her trade with Russia, Mongolia, Australia and other countries. Although DPRK and China has some strategic differences, they will act as a single entity while confronting the potential America-Japan-South Korea joint threat. 
To avoid a future catastrophe that can severely harm Chinese globalization and domestic security, China will try to prevent such US action on North Korea. It is historically proven that the modern day DPRK is a very important geo-strategic place where China has fostered a hard line of defense against the western capitalism by supporting Kim Jong dynasty. 
But in 21st century, when the US is a dying hegemony and she has been losing grip in South Korea, when China is promoting its own idea of globalization, does China need such strategic defense that DPRK has been giving China for years in Korean peninsula? 
Additionally, Russia – a country that supported North Korea, also raised concern over DPRK’s nuclear tests. By studying Chinese and Russian recent reactions particularly on North Korea, one can easily come to a conclusion that those countries are not enjoying a fruitful diplomatic relation under the present leadership of Kim Jong Un and at the same time they are worried about present N. Korea’s nuclear and missile capacity. A country with nuclear weapon and ballistic missiles is hard to contain diplomatically because those weapons give a country a power status and by using it a country can push her idea and understanding about the situation on the negotiation table. 
Russia and China both know that a N. Korea can appear as threat to their respective geopolitical strategies in Korean peninsula. But N. Korea cannot be a bigger threat than the US in foreseeable future because N. Korea has not invaded any country yet. For regional security and safety and from a geo-strategic perspective China and Russia should try to incorporate N. Korea in their respective development projects like BRI, maritime silk route or Eurasian economic union. Such inclusions will boost DPRK’s confidence and force her to take responsibilities in global but collective and multi-polar development.   Isolating N. Korea from rest of the world will not serve the objective to create a secure world. 
Isolation only gives N. Korea the rationality to make more devastating weapons for self-defense.  It is suggested that China, Russia and North Korea can sign a Korean Peninsula defense pact where concerning parties will enhance trilateral defense mechanism and will draw red lines of national interests for peace and security in the region.

The writer is a contributor to The Independent 

Countering North Korea: Isolating or military option is no solution

The US Secretary of State Rex W Tillerson paid a visit to Japan on 16th of this month. After meeting with his Japanese counterparts, he expressed that the United States needed a different approach to the North Koreas escalating nuclear threat; although he did not specify further anything about the nature of the approach. As the New York Times quoted from the joint press briefing of Tillerson and Japans foreign minister Fumio Kishida, the US secretary of the state said, The diplomatic and other efforts of the past 20 years to bring North Korea (DPRK) to a point of denuclearization have failed. According to him, the US had spent $1.3 billion to assist DPRK for abandoning its nuclear programme. After that brief visit in Japan, Tillerson met the Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing. Western media reported that besides several bilateral issues, the tension of Korean peninsula was also discussed. While Tillerson was in Japan, the US President tweeted, North Korea is behaving very badly. They have been playing the United States for years. China has done little to help! It is apparent that Tillerson will seek Chinese consent regarding the different approach. On the other hand, China has proposed dual suspension formula to reduce the tension and solve the Korean crisis gradually. At a media conference, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi explained the formula by saying, As a first step, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea) may suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale US-Republic of Korea (South Korea) military exercises. Since the US has not given any further details of the different approach and expressing war rhetoric, one can assume that the country is seeking the Chinese consent for a military assault inside North Korea to topple Kim Jong Un regime. From a historical perspective the modern day Korean crisis erupted from the outcome of the Second World War. Japanese forces occupied the Korean peninsula and Russian and the US forces snatched the land from the defeated Japan and divided the Korean land into two parts on the basis of 38 parallel lines and two political ideologies, North and South, communism and capitalism, the Asian Berlin wall. One is pro-Soviet and other is pro-US. Later in early fifties they engaged themselves in an unavoidable warfare with direct supports from the Soviet Russia, China and the US-led west. The consequence of the war was 1.2 million deaths, an armistice treaty and return to the 38 parallel lines. In last 60 years of truce between DPRK and South Korea, we saw how an ethnic Korean population was divided by two different ideologies and socio-political economic systems. By adjusting with the oddity of the division line- which was drawn by the superpowers, North Korea and South Korea both have developed their respective ways of lives although there is a diversity of perspectives to see the region. One can also argue that the region was highly militarized with sophisticated modern weapons as well during the period of 60 years of truce. The latest US president Donald Trump was very vocal against China and its policies from his early election campaign days. Under the Trump administration, the US will seek to enhance and continue several geopolitical pressures on China to contain her proposed globalization of promoting the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and maritime silk-Route. On the other hand, China enhanced her development diplomacy with the Asian countries by funding infrastructural projects with billions of dollars. The US-China tension in South China Sea is also increasing. Both the US and China have been deploying military hardware for potential confrontation on maritime boundary disputes. To add more tension into the Sino-US tension in the region, recently, the South Korean president is ousted by both the parliament and the court. Now, it is apparent that the US has been losing its grip on South Korean political establishment. But, who will fill the leadership gap of South Korea? The main opposition party, the Democratic Party which is an alliance of Germany based Progressive Alliance, can play a crucial role in forming the future government. But the party doesnt enjoy full support from the US yet since the Progressive Alliance rejected several Trumps policy, such as, the wall between the US-Mexico border and travel ban for six Muslim countries. So, many analysts believe that the US has been seeking to keep the China containment policy active in the region by instilling Korean War again since Japan, one of the key regional players, shows consent in favour of the US. According to media reports, the US-led west and regional allies- Japan and South Korea are very worried about North Korean nuclear war capacity and missile developments. As we had seen in second US invasion in Iraq under the false pretext to save the world from Saddams weapons of mass destruction, again the western media has been creating another false pretext from the same playbook to make ground for toppling DPRK regime. Currently, the relation between China and DPRK is not going well but they are not hostile to each other. China accompanied with the UN imposed several sanctions over North Korea on different occasions of her weapon tests. On the other hand, DPRK enhanced and diversified her trade with Russia, Mongolia, Australia and other countries. Although DPRK and China has some strategic differences, they will act as a single entity while confronting the potential America-Japan-South Korea joint threat. To avoid a future catastrophe that can severely harm Chinese globalization and domestic security, China will try to prevent such US action on North Korea. It is historically proven that the modern day DPRK is a very important geo-strategic place where China has fostered a hard line of defense against the western capitalism by supporting Kim Jong dynasty. But in 21st century, when the US is a dying hegemony and she has been losing grip in South Korea, when China is promoting its own idea of globalization, does China need such strategic defense that DPRK has been giving China for years in Korean peninsula? Additionally, Russia a country that supported North Korea, also raised concern over DPRKs nuclear tests. By studying Chinese and Russian recent reactions particularly on North Korea, one can easily come to a conclusion that those countries are not enjoying a fruitful diplomatic relation under the present leadership of Kim Jong Un and at the same time they are worried about present N. Koreas nuclear and missile capacity. A country with nuclear weapon and ballistic missiles is hard to contain diplomatically because those weapons give a country a power status and by using it a country can push her idea and understanding about the situation on the negotiation table. Russia and China both know that a N. Korea can appear as threat to their respective geopolitical strategies in Korean peninsula. But N. Korea cannot be a bigger threat than the US in foreseeable future because N. Korea has not invaded any country yet. For regional security and safety and from a geo-strategic perspective China and Russia should try to incorporate N. Korea in their respective development projects like BRI, maritime silk route or Eurasian economic union. Such inclusions will boost DPRKs confidence and force her to take responsibilities in global but collective and multi-polar development. Isolating N. Korea from rest of the world will not serve the objective to create a secure world. Isolation only gives N. Korea the rationality to make more devastating weapons for self-defense. It is suggested that China, Russia and North Korea can sign a Korean Peninsula defense pact where concerning parties will enhance trilateral defense mechanism and will draw red lines of national interests for peace and security in the region. The writer is a contributor to The Independent