When Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signed a pact last month to revive a Cold War-era mutual defense pledge between two of the world’s nuclear powers, it also had the implicit support a third nuclear power standing in the shadows: China.
The new nuclear alliance, which has triggered fears in Japan and South Korea, ensures the possible sharing of Russia’s knowledge of satellites and missile technologies with North Korea.
The new pact, has also resulted in a sharp divide between Russia, China and North Korea on the one hand and the US, Japan and South Korea on the other.
But one lingering question remains: Will these new developments force—at least in the not-too-distant future—South Korea to go nuclear, joining the world’s nine nuclear powers: the U.S., UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.
The New York Times quoted Cheong Seong-chang, the director of the Center for Korean Peninsula Strategy at the Sejong Institute, as saying: “It is time for South Korea to have a fundamental review of its current security policy, which depends almost totally on the US nuclear umbrella to counter the North Korean nuclear threat.”
And quoting North Korea’s official Central News Agency, the Times said Putin and Kim agreed that if one country found itself in a state of war, then the other would provide “military and other assistance with all means in its possession without delay.”
Alice Slater, who serves on the boards of World BEYOND War and the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, told IPS the fact that Russia is allying with North Korea and China at this time is a result of the failure of U.S. diplomacy, and the drive by the U.S. military-industrial-congressional-media-academic-think tank complex (MICIMATT) to expand the U.S. empire beyond its 800 U.S. military bases in 87 nations.
The U.S., she said, is now surrounding China with new bases recently established in the Pacific and forming AUKUS, a new military alliance with Australia, the UK and the U.S.
“The U.S. has been breaking its agreement made with China in 1972, as we now are arming Taiwan despite promises made by Nixon and Kissinger to recognize China and remain neutral on the question of the future of Taiwan, to where the anti-communist forces retreated after the Chinese Revolution,” said Slater, who is also a UN NGO Representative for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
According to a report in the Associated Press (AP) wire on July 12, the U.S. and South Korea have signed joint nuclear deterrence guidelines for the first time, “a basic yet important step in their efforts to improve their ability to respond to North Korea’s evolving nuclear threats.”
Meeting on the sidelines of a NATO summit in Washington, U.S. President Joe Biden and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol commended what they called “the tremendous progress” that their countries’ alliance has made a year after creating a joint Nuclear Consultative Group.
Last year, the U.S. and South Korea launched the consultative body to strengthen communication on nuclear operations and discuss how to integrate U.S. nuclear weapons and South Korean conventional weapons in various contingencies, said the AP report.
Meanwhile, Abolition 2000, the Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons, will host a seminar in Geneva on July 30, titled “Denuclearization in North-East Asia through a 3+3 Model Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone.”
Tensions, unresolved conflicts and nuclear weapons policies of nuclear armed and allied states active in North-East Asia (China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea and the USA) increase the risks of armed conflict and nuclear war in the region, says Abolition 2000.
“Unilateral disarmament by any one of these countries is highly unlikely while other countries in the region continue with robust nuclear deterrence policies. What is required is a regional approach to nuclear disarmament which maintains the security of all.”
The 3+3 model for a North-East Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone envisages an agreement where-by the three territorial countries in the zone (Japan, North Korea and South Korea) would mutually relinquish their reliance on nuclear weapons in return for credible and enforceable security guarantees from China, Russia and the US that they would not be threatened with nuclear weapons.
This agreement would provide part of a more comprehensive peace agreement to formally end the Korean War.
The proposal is being seriously discussed amongst academics, legislators and civil society organizations in Japan, South Korea and the USA. The upcoming event aims to broaden the discussion to include delegations to the NPT Prep Com.
Denuclearization in North-East Asia through a 3+3 Model Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. Credit: Abolition 2000
Asked about the rising nuclear threats from North Korea, State Department Spokesman Matthew Miller said July 22: “We have made clear on a number of occasions that we prefer diplomacy to deal with this situation, and the North Koreans have shown that they are not in any way interested in that.”
Responding to a question on the consequences of Russia being driven closer to North Korea and China, Antony Blinken, US Secretary of State said: “I think we’ve seen two things. We have seen that, although that was something that was in the works for a long time, and maybe some of it’s accelerated as a result of the war in Ukraine, but we’ve also seen something else that’s been quite remarkable.”
During a Fireside Chat at the Aspen Security Forum, moderated by Mary Louise Kelly of National Public Radio (NPR) on July 19, Blinken said: “I’ve been doing this for more than 30 years. I have not seen a time when there’s been greater convergence between the United States and our European partners and our partners in Asia in terms of the approach to Russia, but also in terms of the approach to China, than we’re seeing right now.”
“We’ve built convergence across the Atlantic, we’ve built it across the Pacific, and we’ve built it between the Atlantic and the Pacific. So, I would take our team and the countries that we’re working with than anything that Russia’s been able to put together.
“Beyond that, I think there are going to be – and we’ve already seen a lot of strains in these groupings. It’s not particularly good for your reputation to be working closely with Russia and helping it perpetuate its war in Ukraine.
“So, I think China is very uncomfortable in the position it’s in, but for now we do have a challenge, which is China is providing not weapons, unlike North Korea and Iran, but it’s providing the inputs for Russia’s defense industrial base.”
Seventy percent of the machine tools that Russia is importing come from China, he pointed out. And ninety percent of the microelectronics come from China. And that’s going into the defense industrial base and turning into missiles, tanks and other weapons.
“We’ve called out China on that. We have sanctioned Chinese companies. But more to the point, so have many others. And we just saw that in Europe a couple of weeks ago. And China can’t have it both ways. It can’t all at once be saying that it’s for peace in Ukraine when it is helping to fuel the ongoing pursuit of the war by Russia.
“I can’t say that it wants better relations with Europe when it is actually helping to fuel the greatest threat to Europe’s security since the end of the Cold War,” Blinken declared.
Thalif Deen is a former Director, Foreign Military Markets at Defense Marketing Services; Senior Defense Analyst at Forecast International; and military editor Middle East/Africa at Jane’s Information.
