Gathering storm?
Before Trump, the policy makers in the White House relied on sanctions and threats which were perceived as “rational” to knock some sense into the dictatorial regime in Pyongyang
The Korean peninsula remains one of the most dangerous flashpoints globally. For the last few weeks, tensions have been mounting in the region with North Korea vowing to respond with a nuclear strike to any of the United States military action which the latter has promised if Pyongyang continued to carry out nuclear tests.
Despite Washington’s threats, North Korea remain undeterred: days ago, when the US vice president was flying over the Korean region’s airspace, Pyongyang attempted to launch another missile. Responding to the action that Washington termed provocative, the US vice president in a statement said that the era of “strategic restraint was over.”
The US has warned Pyongyang of a mighty preemptive strike if the country didn’t fold back its plans related to further missile launches and tests. Threats and counter threats aside, if one is to explore the conflict in the realm of an anarchic international world, both countries, including the regional states can neither afford nor desire any form of military confrontation.
There are valid reasons for that.
Since World War Two, the US has remained committed to the security of South Korea and Japan against any military threats particularly from North Korea or China. For the last one decade particularly, the rise of China as a major navel power has forced Washington into expanding its role and commitment beyond the security of Japan and South Korea in the region. The US sees China’s navel expansion around the region’s navel routes as a threat to its own expansion. Therefore, regardless of economic or other costs, Washington is not likely to make space for Beijing by escorting itself out of the region.
Before Trump, the policy makers in the White House relied on sanctions and threats which were perceived as “rational” to knock some sense into the dictatorial regime in Pyongyang. However, Trump’s hard line attitude and willingness to use military force – we have seen it in Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan – has injected an element of irrationally, if not practically then in perception where the new government in Washington is being seen as erratic and unpredictable.
The North has responded to coercion from the US in the only way the country’s isolated leader understands international politics best: by getting deeper into military buildups and matching a threat with a threat. Now in this entire situation, the new government in Washington is the only party that remains under diplomatic pressure – more than other involved states or actors.
Consider this: Japan and South Korea have not been able to build up massive military or engage in arms race due to the US’s military cover against all regional military threats; China, while not overtly threatening South Korea and Japan, has emerged as a major challenge for smaller regional states, for which, again the US is looked at as a stabiliser or counter force; North Korea, that has remained isolated due to a range of international sanctions, led by Washington, cannot give in to any sort of pressure, for the entire narrative that circles around the legitimacy of the current regime in Pyongyang, depends on how swiftly the country responds to foreign threats.
Now the US’s tough outlook is not likely to convert into military action, for any armed action can prove disastrous as the breakout of war – or perhaps nuclear war – in such a situation appears likely. In the situation of war, military miscalculation can lead to a wider regional war involving China and other regional states.
Perhaps, arguably the realisation in Washington has been that Beijing’s diplomatic assistance, which has close commercial ties with Pyongyang, is strategic to contain North Korea. In multiple social media messages, President Trump has requested China for support to contain treats emanating from North Korea.
China on its part, has taken some action, by and large, aimed at appeasing the Trump administration. Chinese assistance in the form of putting some commercial contracts on hold is not going to topple the dictatorial regime in Pyongyang; rather the limited action is meant to isolate the escalating tensions whose peaceful resolution is in Beijing’s interests as well. While Beijing doesn’t want see a war breaking out around its borders, the country’s leadership is equally disinterested in bailing out Washington completely, for North Korea is the only country in the region that counter’s Washington’s threat, perhaps as part of China’s bidding.
Chinese assistance in the form of putting some commercial contracts on hold is not going to topple the dictatorial regime in Pyongyang; rather the limited action is meant to isolate the escalating tensions whose peaceful resolution is in Beijing’s interests as well
On the other hand, the growing economic interdependence between China and the US and among other regional states, require that Beijing adjust its North Korea policy. For any such adjustment to take place successfully, the US would not just have to scale down its rhetoric against Pyongyang but will also have to accept China’s growing role in the East Asia region. Beijing as well as Washington is aware that politicking over North Korea’s isolated regime would only undermine their own bilateral economic and military relations.
However, it’s unlikely that Beijing would assist Washington in replacing the current regime in North Korea with a more moderate and pro west leadership. In the context of highly divergent regional and global economic and military interests, any possibility of cooperation between Washington and Beijing appears unlikely.
