• US, Japan, South Korea kick

By Emma Emeozor

The United Nations Security Council will, today afternoon, hold consultations on an “urgent basis” to discuss how to react to North Korea’s missile launch on Sunday, February 12, 2017. The Council would be sitting at the request of the United States, Japan and South Korea.

The three nations had, last week, petitioned the Security Council over what was described as the “absolutely intolerable” action of North Korea after Pyongyang launched Pukguksong-2, an upgraded, extended-range version of a submarine-launched ballistic missile, which reports say was first tested successfully last year.

The missile, which was fired in the north Pyongan province of the country traveled 300 miles (500 kilometers) before “splashing down the Sea of Japan.” North Korea’s Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) described Pukguksong-2 as “a medium long-ranged ballistic missile.” It is part of a previously unpublicised part of North Korea’s arsenal.

According to KCNA, the exercise was supervised by President Kim on the capability of the missile. It is “capable of carrying a nuclear warhead” and “evading interception.” KCNA said after the successful launch of the missile, President Kim “expressed great satisfaction over the possession of another powerful nuclear attack means which adds to the tremendous might of the country.” The President has justified the exercise, saying it is for self-defence.

What Kim failed to acknowledge was that the launch was in violation of the UN resolution that prohibited the country from testing missiles and nuclear weapons. Expectedly, the US and its allies, Japan and South Korea, have threatened to take action against North Korea. Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary, Yoshihide Suga, was quick to say it was “a clear provocation to Japan and the region.”

Curiously, allies of North Korea, China and Russia, joined in the condemnation of the exercise. North Korea has remained defiant, insisting it has the right to develop its nuclear weapons technology like others. Isolation and sanctions seem to have failed to halt its missiles drive. The worry of the UN is that Pyongyang could one day launch attacks on perceived enemies, particularly its sister country, South Korea.

Kim is not pretending over his intentions. He has said he wants to build the ability to threaten US Pacific territories like Guam with a nuclear strike. Beyond that threat, Pyongyang has repeatedly threatened to wipe out the US, Japan and South Korea, warning that it could turn US cities into “seas of fire.” This even as it has been using the threat of ballistic missile technology to negotiate aid with the US and South Korea.

Why panic over Pukguksong-2

Until the successful launch of Pukguksong-2, North Korea had desperately “carried out the programme of missile capability through five unsuccessful tests of the Hwasong-10 intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) on April 15, 28 (two on the same day), May 31, June 22, 2016, before a successful sixth test on the same day as the fifth failure.”

The success of Pukguksong-2 confirms the fear of South Korea and its allies that Pyongyang could target their territories with ease and at any moment. The US is concerned about the safety and security of the Korean Peninsula. Already, South Korea’s National Intelligence Agency (KNIA) had warned that Pyongyang could deploy an operational submarine-launched ballistic missile by 2019. Reports have quoted experts as saying “it could be much earlier, following the success of Hwasong-10.” In the thinking of the US, South Korea and Japan, Pukguksong-2 is a clear indication that North Korea is fast-tracking its efforts at developing long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles.

KCNA has described Pukguksong-2 as “nuclear-capable” and “can travel from 3,000 to 5,500 kilometres (1,864 to 3,417 miles).  Reports, however, quoted an unnamed US official as saying “the missile tested travelled 500 kilometres (310 miles) before landing in the Sea of Japan.”

Similarly the spokesman for the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff was quoted as saying the missile “used a solid fuel-propelled engine, which enables faster launch and increases the mobility of the launch process.”

Related News

Other reports quoted retired US Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling as saying that the latest missile launch “would help the North Koreans improve their missile technology” and “could help in their development of an ICBM. That’s the goal of North Korean politicians.”

Hertling further highlighted the intrinsic danger in Pyongyang’s action: “This intermediate ballistic missile is certainly dangerous. It has a greater range than some of the Musudam missiles that they have been testing prior to that. And it’s not only a concern for the United States to hit the mainland, but it is also has concerns for all of our Asia partners.”

Kim dares Trump

Many theories have been postulated on the timing of the launch of Pukguksong-2. Some analysts believe it is one of those coercive strategies North Korea uses to obtain aid from the US and South Korea. Others say it wants to tell the international community that it is progressing even in the face of isolation and sanctions. What is not in doubt is that Pyongyang carried out the test to coincide with the visit of Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to the US. Analysts have termed it the US President’s first major foreign policy challenge because “direct military response to such provocations risks larger regional conflict.” The launch of Pukguksong-2 took place while President Donald Trump was hosting Abe and Kim may have decided to embarrass Trump and Abe. It is characteristic of Pyongyang to choose auspicious occasions to make ‘big scary noise’ that jolts the international community, particularly its enemies. It is without doubt that Kim has gotten attention as Trump, Abe and South Korea’s Acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn fumed over the missile launch.

Reacting, Abe said the test was “absolutely intolerable.” He told reporters that “North Korea must fully comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.” Trump reaffirmed US support for Japan, declaring that the US “stands behind Japan, its great ally, 100 per cent.”

Kyo-ahn said: “The South Korean government and the international community are working together to take punitive actions appropriate for this launch.” Then US National Security, Michael Flynn, before he resigned, and his South Korean counterpart Kim Kwan Jin condemned the launch and agreed “to seek all possible options” to stop Pyongyang’s missile drive.

Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

Efforts to cage North Korea have been on over the years without success. In 1994, under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), it agreed to freeze its “illicit plutonium weapons programme in exchange for aid. North Korea announced withdrawal from the treaty in 2003 after the agreement collapsed in 2002, and it began operating its nuclear facilities. However, there was renewed effort in August 2003, following the six-party talks, involving China, the US, Japan, South Korea, North Korea and Russia. In 2005, North Korea pledged to abandon “all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes and return to the NPT.” In 2007, the parties agreed on a series of steps to implement the 2005 agreement.

But by 2009, talks again broke down following disagreements over verification and an internationally-condemned North Korea rocket launch. In the heat of the disagreement, Pyongyang insisted on the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from South Korea. Thus, North Korea has been playing hide-and-seek in its quest for missiles and nuclear weapons. As it is, there are no indications that the isolated Island will submit fully to the order of the UN and observe the terms of the NPT.  It should be noted that North Korea acceded to the NPT on December 12, 1985, “but did not complete a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. This is the dilemma of those who want ‘kill’ the nuclear ambition of Pyongyang.

Why it’s difficult to ‘cage’ Pyongyang

  The barking of the UN, US, South Korea and Japan may only yield ephemeral results against the backdrop of the far-reaching, adverse implications any direct strike on North Korea would have on the region and the globe at large. Put differently, a direct strike on North Korea would immediately result in regional conflict and arms struggle. Pyongyang knows this too well, hence it has remained dogged in its drive for weapons of mass destruction.  Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterrey in California, Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, highlighted the difficulties when he said: “The hardest thing to get the North Koreans to trade away were always the capabilities they already had.

“They were often willing to not do things. But getting them to give something up that they’ve already done tends to be much harder. These things went from potential bargaining chips to real capabilities that they don’t want to give up.”

Meanwhile, plans by the US to deploy Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-missile system to counter the increasing threat from North Korea’s missile and nuclear programmes have always been opposed by China. Beijing is apprehensive of the ‘harm’ it could do to its secret arsenals. Precisely, China is afraid that US could use THAAD to spy on its weapons cache and study its weapons technology. Meanwhile, China’s relations with North Korea have provided succour for the embattled country as it continues to face sanctions from within and outside the peninsular. As the UN Security Council meets today, the coming days will tell what becomes of North Korea’s missile drive.