Why 'arms control' is not the solution

By Ahn Ho-young

U.S. President Joe Biden made it clear early on that he would deal with the North Korean nuclear issue through "diplomacy and stern deterrence." The U.S. in fact is significantly strengthening extended deterrence for Korea while at the same time, it keeps on inviting North Korea for dialogue. However, North Korea is ignoring U.S. offers of dialogue and keeps on testing weapons of mass destruction. For that reason, Biden's policy is being criticized as a continuation of the failed "strategic patience" strategy of former President Barack Obama.

In my view, it is not fair to label Obama's policy as the "strategic patience" strategy, or to judge it as a failure. Even then, it is out of such frustration that we are now hearing responsible voices in the U.S. come up with the idea of engaging North Korea in "arms control" negotiations.

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and one of the most respected voices on foreign and security issues today, offered arms control as a way forward on the North Korean nuclear issue. On Oct. 19, 2022, he wrote through Project Syndicate; "Full denuclearization should remain a goal, but in the meantime, the U.S., South Korea and Japan need to consider some form of arms control proposal that would limit North Korea's nuclear arsenal and missile systems in exchange for a reduction of sanctions."

About 10 days later, Bonnie Jenkins, the U.S. State Department under secretary for arms control, was asked at a Washington nuclear conference, at which point North Korea should be treated as an arms control problem. "If they would have a conversation with us … arms control can always be an option if you have two willing countries willing to sit down at the table and talk," she replied.

These opinions in the U.S. caused deep concern for many observers in Seoul because engaging North Korea in arms control negotiations implies recognizing the North as a nuclear state. It is for that reason that the U.S. government hastened to clarify that the U.S. position has not changed.

On Oct. 31, U.S. State Department spokesperson Ned Price reiterated that it will never recognize North Korea as a nuclear state in accordance with U.S. policy. Price also said that the U.S.' North Korea policy remains the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and Washington remains open to dialogue with Pyongyang without any preconditions.

I understand the frustration that Richard Haass and Bonnie Jenkins feel at the impasse we have faced in our 30 years of efforts to stop North Korea's development of nuclear weapons. However, I do not think that arms control can be a solution.

First of all, we have to remind ourselves that North Korea is now struggling with the huge economic, social and political costs of its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. Engaging North Korea in arms control negotiations will instantly release North Korea from such difficulties, removing a potent point of leverage we have for North Korean denuclearization.

In this event, China and Russia would feel freer in violating the U.N. Security Council sanctions against North Korea and rewarding North Korea with economic and political support. Thus, arms control negotiations would be received by North Korea as a vindication of its ambitions to develop nuclear weapons and embolden it to hold on even more tightly to its nuclear program.

Second, it will deepen the security threats posed to South Korea. Condemning North Korea's WMD weapons as illegitimate under the U.N. and international law is in itself an effective pressure on North Korea. That is the reason why North Korea, with support from China and Russia, is denouncing the U.N. Security Council resolutions. Engaging North Korea in arms control talks would remove this pressure and aggravate the security threats posed to South Korea.

There are already many signs that enhanced WMD capabilities are inciting North Korea to move to an even more aggressive nuclear strategy. North Korea's adoption of a new nuclear doctrine enshrined in a law passed on Sep. 3 is a good example. North Korea used to justify its development of nuclear weapons as a means to deter aggression against it.

Through the new law, it now declares its intention to use it as a war-fighting weapon under loosely and ambiguously defined conditions. It is not a time to treat North Korea as a nuclear-armed state, legitimating its actions.

Third, treating North Korea as a nuclear state will open the floodgates for other countries in the region, including South Korea and Japan, to consider their own nuclear program. According to an opinion poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in February 2022, 71 percent of Korean citizens responded that Korea must have its own nuclear program. Such a development will have a devastating impact on the NPT regime.

Ahn Ho-young (hyahn78@mofa.or.kr) is chair professor of North Korean studies, Kyungnam University. He also served as Korean ambassador to the U.S. and vice foreign minister.