The US, South Korea, and Japan conducted missile warning drills to enhance their capability to detect North Korean ballistic missiles, says Rajaram Panda
Even when there is a leadership transition in the United States, the foreign policy challenge that North Korea’s nuclear weapon and missile development programmes pose to President Donald Trump is going to remain hot. None of the stakeholders committed to work for peace and stability in the Asian theatre are prepared to take lightly the announcement that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un made in his New Year missive that his country is at an advanced stage to test an intercontinental ballistic missile, which can take place at an arbitrary time.
Against the continuous bellicose statements by Kim, it is interesting to note that South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff observed that there are no signs of provocation from North Korea as it was earlier feared that Pyongyang would try to draw attention to its nuclear weapons programmes to coincide with the critical transition period in the US. Adding to statement that “no unusual trends” were detected in the movement of the North Korean military, the official observation went further by adding that there is “no indication that an intercontinental ballistic missile test is imminent”.
A week earlier, South Korea had observed that North Korea could still shoot a missile “whenever Kim Jong-un makes a final decision”, which is why it keeps its military on high alert. The North Korean leadership might be looking for the appropriate time to surprise the world to test a missile. A likely missile test could coincide with Kim’s fifth anniversary as the Workers’ Party first secretary on April 11 and the 105th birthday of North Korea founder Kim Il-Sung on April 15. The joint US-South Korea military exercises are also scheduled to be held in March. Pyongyang has always reacted to such drills as preparation for invasion and therefore sees as a provocative act. This could be also an appropriate time for the North to launch the missile test.
Given Pyongyang’s unpredictable behaviour, Trump administration’s choice to deal with North Korea could remain limited. Even during the transition period, the US, South Korea and Japan conducted missile-warning drills for two days, to prepare to detect and track North Korean missiles in waters. The drill started on January 20 and concluded on January 22. The exercise included the deployment of South Korea’s King Sejong, a 7,000-tonne KDX-III destroyer, the 8,900-tonne USS Curtis Wilbur and Japan’s Aegis destroyer, the Kirishima. Both the US and Japanese destroyers were equipped with SM-3 anti-aircraft missiles capable of intercepting ballistic missiles at altitudes of over 300 miles.
The missile warning exercise in waters near the three nations was conducted to enhance their capability to detect and track North Korean ballistic missiles. No missiles were fired during the drills as the Aegis-equipped warships faced simulated targets in waters within the 7th Fleet area of operations. The joint exercise to detect and trail was the third of its kind since the first was held in June 2015 near the US island of Hawaii. The second was staged in November the same year. The next logical step could be to strengthen missile defence cooperation between the three countries.
It may be remembered that in July 2016, the US and South Korea agreed to deploy a US missile shield, called Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD), in the latter’s south-eastern region by the end of 2017. The THAAD deployment indicated that South Korea in effect has become a part of the US missile defence system. Understandably, both China and Russia strongly opposed the installation as its X-band radar can peer into territories of the two countries. During the three-nation maritime drills, the three countries shared simulated intelligence on missile detection and trail.
A trilateral military pact was signed by the three allies in December 2014 to share North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats and the latest maritime drill was conducted as per this pact. The allies believe that Pyongyang has already produced a new type of two intercontinental ballistic missiles that were being mounted on mobile launchers. The fear was that Pyongyang could test-launch its ICBM at any time of the choosing of its leader Kim Jong-un. South Korea inked the similar military intelligence pact with Japan in November 2016 despite oppositions from the general public and the parliament.
Notwithstanding Trump’s demand from its allies — Japan and South Korea — to pay more for protecting their security, the US Navy has so far been seeking every occasion to strengthen relationships and interoperability with participating allies and partners, while further developing maritime capabilities and capacity.
Though both Japan and South Korea face common threat from North Korea, they still suffer from historical experiences which sour ties, the latest being the spat over a statue put up in front of the Japanese consulate in the port city of Pusan commemorating wartime sex slaves called “comfort women”. The tensions were heightened to such an extent that Japan temporarily recalled its Ambassador and consulate general in Busan. However, differences over historical issues have not come in the way of boosting diplomatic and military cooperation against North Korea, whose alarming progress in nuclear weapons programmes is a common worry.
Following the two underground nuclear tests and a series of ballistic missile tests that it conducted in 2016 despite ban by the UN Security Council resolutions, Pyongyang faced further and severe economic sanctions, but it remains undeterred. The countries concerned about their security are now more worried when the North Korean leader made remarks on the “final stages” of development of an ICBM, a key step towards its stated goal of targeting the US mainland with a nuclear-tipped missile. The trilateral maritime drill is a result of such fear so that pre-emptive measures can be put in place.
Though President Trump responded to Kim’s claim, saying “it won’t happen”, it remains unclear what his policy towards North Korea would be. Though experts are divided over Pyongyang’s claims, the opinion that it would be able to miniaturise nuclear warheads to be able to fit in a missile by 2020 is a matter of real concern. North Korea’s Foreign Ministry said that “the ICBM will be launched anytime and anywhere” as ordered by Kim and this injects a sense of uncertainty that Trump cannot afford to take lightly. As for South Korea, its military believes that Pyongyang’s claim to test-launch its ICBM at any time when the leadership decides cannot be dismissed easily either.
It is too early to understand what response Trump has in mind to deal with North Korea. Within hours of taking power, he introduced radical policy change in domestic matters. He has articulated his views on trade and foreign policy issues, which are at variance with current global norms. By voicing his opinion on the ‘One China’ policy and reaching out to Taiwan, and questioning China’s currency policy, he has initiated the US relations with China into an uncertain course. Trump has said that his administration would kill the much touted Trans-Pacific Partnership.
He is going to ask Japan and South Korea, the two allies in Northeast Asia, to pay more for the US forces stationed in the bases for their security and has even suggested the allies to have their own nuclear weapons. How all such radical changes when put in place are going to impact his North Korea policy and how other stakeholders are going to respond are issues that remain unknown at the moment. As it appears, Trump shall be constrained to bring in radical changes in the US security policy, though he might take the risk to bring in changes on economic issues.
Pyongyang strongly feels that possessing nuclear weapons is the only insurance for its security and is therefore unwilling to even talk with anyone about denuclearisation. The only serious effort — the Six Party Talks — that started with China’s initiative is virtually dead after Pyongyang walked out of it in 2008. Past US leaders as well as leaders of other stakeholder countries tried different strategies to draw the North Korean leader to the negotiating table. All such efforts have failed. Can Trump be differentIJ Only time will tell. As things stand now, world politics seems to be headed towards turbulent times.
The author is ICCR India Chair Visiting Professor at Reitaku University, Japan. Views expressed are personal and do not represent either of the ICCR or the Government of India