China's Nuclear-Armed Proxy—North Korea: Hostile Surrogacies and Rational Security
Adjustments
Author(s): Shepherd Iverson
Source: North Korean Review , SPRING 2016, Vol. 12, No. 1 (SPRING 2016), pp. 66-81
Published by: McFarland & Company
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44525736
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to North Korean Review
This content downloaded from
147.251.68.36 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:01:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
China's Nuclear- Armed
Proxy - North Korea:
Hostile Surrogacies and
Rational Security Adjustments
Shepherd Iverson
Structured Abstract
Article Type: Research Paper
Purpose - The purpose of this article is to anticipate the policy options of great
and middle powers in East Asia, and to pressure China to support Korean reunification
and stop economically supporting the Kim regime.
Design/methodology/approach - I review historical and contemporary scholarship,
journalist reports, and unclassified government documents to argue for an
alternative interpretation of current affairs.
Findings- On the basis of my analysis, I found convincing evidence that China's
overt and covert atavistic Cold War foreign policy includes a surrogate client-proxy
relationship with North Korea that extends its reach into the Middle East as well as
indirectly threatening the United States and its allies.
Practical implications - My analysis of rational security adjustments by Japan,
South Korea, and the United States to the North Korean nuclear missile program
suggests a growing security threat may convince China to change policy.
Originality/value - This research challenges the consensus view that China has
distanced itself from North Korea because of its nuclear missile program. We may
glean intentions from scripted narratives and symbolic gestures, but if one looks at
China's behavior, a different view comes into perspective. From this more inductive
Institute for Korean Studies , Inha University, Bldg 5S-#138, 100 Inha-ro,
Nam-gu, Incheon, 402-751, Republic of Korea, tel: + 82-10-6207-5311 . FAX:
032-860-8474 ; email: iver7777@mac.com
North Korean Review / Volume 12, Number 1 / Spring 2016 / pp. 66-81 /
[bUj-J ISSN 1551-2789 (Print) / © 2016 McFarland & Company, Inc.
McF
66 North Korean Review, Spring 2016
This content downloaded from
147.251.68.36 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:01:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
view of the geopolitical situation, China's in-kind aid to North Korea helps underwrite
Pyongyang's nuclear missile progress. It is time the international community
observes behavior and recognizes rhetoric.
Keywords: deterrence, East Asia, hostile surrogate, Middle East,
nuclear-armed proxy, proliferation, security adjustments,
strategic acquiescence
Introduction
For more than twenty years diplomats have failed to reverse nuclear prolif
tion in North Korea. It is unrealistic to expect renewed diplomacy - Six- Party Talk
will convince the Kim regime to agree to relinquish what it perceives is its pri
means of security and international respect. If history is our guide, Pyongyang
agree to resume talks and temporarily accede to non-onerous concessions in or
to calm concerns while it quietly continues to miniaturize a nuclear warhead
attach to an intercontinental ballistic missile. It seems the only reason the K
regime might consider changing course is if China threatened the drastic redu
or elimination of economic support. However, it is unlikely China would aban
North Korea unless it became clear this alliance posed a security threat.
There are at least two ways this could occur: through international pressur
as the result of concerns over rational security adjustments. First, the internat
community could sanction China as an accomplice for underwriting the existe
of a regime whose illegal missile exports and technology transfers destabilize
Middle East, and whose illicit nuclear missile program threatens its East Asian neigh
bors and the United States. Second, as this nuclear threat grows more acute, p
opinion or political leadership may compel Seoul and Tokyo to seek their
nuclear deterrent. Although the U.S. opposes nuclear proliferation in principl
may be obliged to acquiesce.
China's continued support for North Korea is not a benign legacy of the C
War. Evidence suggests it is part of a larger geopolitical strategy. Analysts are
to point out the apparent acrimony between Beijing and Pyongyang after the
nuclear test, but neglect to identify the surrogate role - a substitute who acts in p
of another - North Korea plays in China's foreign policy. Analysts would be
advised to stop gleaning intentions from scripted narratives and symbolic gest
and instead, follow the money- over $1 billion in-kind aid per annum. Leade
surrogate states need not like their overseers in order to do as expected when mone
or its equivalent, is involved, and especially if these activities are consistent w
their own geopolitical designs. The level of animus or friendship between Be
and the Kim regime is immaterial to the economic based proxy relationship, w
surely would dissolve if North Korea's missile exports and technology transfe
the Middle East were unacceptable to China's larger strategic objectives. Indeed,
jing would surely withhold support if Pyongyang started selling missile techn
to Xinjiang rebels or the Dali Lama.
Chinas Nuclear-Armed Proxy- North Korea 67
This content downloaded from
147.251.68.36 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:01:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
However, North Korea's violations of United Nations Security Council Resolutions
1718 (2006), 1874 (2009) and 2094 (2013) on arms control, its January 2016
nuclear test, and its growing nuclear missile threat are changing the geopolitical
risks of the alliance. I contend that Beijing may rescind support for the Kim regime
if the exposition of this hostile surrogacy brought international opprobrium or if it
seemed likely Japan and South Korea might obtain their own nuclear deterrent, thus
endangering China's security.
This paper is divided into two parts with several subsections. In part one I argue
that North Korea is a proxy for China's geopolitical objectives. I support this assertion
with evidence uncovering China's overt and covert foreign policy agenda and
its proxy-use of North Korea to destabilize the Middle East. If the details of this
connection were widely known, the international community might denounce Beijing's
blatant use of a hostile surrogacy. And if sanctions were extended to include
China it might be less willing to underwrite the existence of North Korea.
In part two, I argue that the Kim regime's nuclear program is immune to diplomatic
pressure because it believes its survival depends on retaining a nuclear threat.
However, its survival also depends on China's financial support. Beijing is concerned
about a U.S. military response and the possibility Japan and South Korea might
develop their own nuclear deterrent. Although the U.S. opposes nuclear proliferation
in principle, it may strategically acquiesce to these rational security adjustments. I
submit that as inertial forces and geopolitical trajectories increasingly threaten the
security of East Asia, Beijing may be compelled to rethink its strategy and play a
prominent role in suing for peace and reunification in Korea.
Hostile Surrogacy
China's only formal military ally is North Korea. It has long been assumed that
in spite of a contentious relationship, China is willing to go to considerable lengths
to protect North Korea and guarantee its stability.1 Former CIA analyst, Bruce
Klingner cites lax sanctions currently imposed on North Korea and asserts that Beijing
has been "reluctant both to allow more comprehensive sanctions and to fully
implement those already imposed."2 Nevertheless, the current consensus among
western analysts is that Beijing has distanced itself from Pyongyang since the February
2013 nuclear test, while deepening ties with Seoul.
However, Beijing's rapprochement with Seoul need not impugn its relationship
with Pyongyang. Analysts cite circumstantial evidence for this estrangement that,
although convincing, does not discredit an alternative hypothesis that China is feigning
displeasure and manipulating foreign policy to disguise its real intent.3 Both
views are plausible but unsubstantiated. The bottom-line however, is that Beijing
has not withdrawn financial support and continues to underwrite North Korea's
illegal missile exports and technology transfers to the Middle East and its nuclear
missile program. This hostile surrogacy stands today as the greatest threat to nuclear
nonproliferation and peace in East Asia.
68 North Korean Review, Spring 2016
This content downloaded from
147.251.68.36 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:01:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Indeed, a very uncomfortable conclusion can be reached by the artificial solvency
of North Korea, as it tries to develop nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic
missiles (ICBM's) it threatens to launch at the U.S. and its regional allies, that is
exclusively supported by and owes its very existence and survival to China. Beijing
purchases 75 percent of North Korea's commercial exports and provides the Kim
regime with 45 percent of its food supply, 80 percent of its consumer goods, 90 percent
of its energy, and over $100 million in U.N. banned luxury goods as part of its
billion-dollar annual aid package.4 This gives China existential leverage over the
Kim regime.
According to the highest ranking defector and former senior member of the
Korean Workers Party: "Without Chinese capital goods, it would be impossible for
the North Korean government to operate, and ordinary people would not be able
to carry on with their daily lives."5 Financial dependency and its cooperative behavior
(described below) suggest North Korea is a nuclear-armed proxy for China's strategic
objectives. In nuclear proxy relationships, North Korea is to Japan (and the U.S.) in
East Asia, what Pakistan is to India in South Asia, and what a nuclear-Iran would
be to U.S. interests in the Middle East; each proxy state threatens China's perceived
geopolitical rival.
Pyongyang's missile technology transfers to Tehran and Damascus and the flow
of missile components and conventional weapons exports through Iran to Hamas
and Hezbollah destabilize the Middle East.6 While challenging U.S. hegemony in
the Persian Gulf, China foreign policy expert Denny Roy points out that an increasingly
dangerous "anti-U.S. Iran diverts U.S. resources away from East Asia and
attention away from China."7 This Sino-North Korean link is part of a chain of
strategic relationships developed during and after the Cold War that connect the
present with the past.
Overt Chinese Foreign Policy
It is well known in intelligence circles that after Beijing helped Islamabad
develop a nuclear bomb in the 1990s, North Korea and Iran obtained essential designs
and materials for uranium enrichment from a clandestine Pakistani procurement
network.8 According to newly released records obtained under the U.S. Freedom of
Information Act, "China was exporting nuclear materials to Third World countries
without safeguards beginning in the early 1980s."9 According to Pakistan nuclear
scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, in 1982 a Pakistani military C-130 left the western Chinese
city of Urumqi with enough weapons-grade uranium for two atomic bombs.10
However, these overt Chinese operations soon subsided as Beijing prioritized economic
growth over anti-imperialist adventures. China policy expert Bates Gill asserts
that Beijing's gradual acceptance of global arms control and nonproliferation
norms - beginning in the 1980s and accelerating in the 1990s - was motivated by its
desire to integrate with the international community.11
Indeed, deferring to U.S. pressure, China cancelled delivery of a 20-megawatt
research reactor to Iran in 1992 and three years later aborted sale of two 300Chinas
Nuclear-Armed Proxy- North Korea 69
This content downloaded from
147.251.68.36 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:01:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
megawatt nuclear reactors. In 1997 - again under U.S. pressure - China reluctantly
agreed to stop providing anti-ship cruise missiles and end involvement in Iran's
nuclear and missile development programs. At this time it also committed to the
Missile Technology Control Regime- an international agreement restricting the
transfer of missile expertise and technology.12 To explain this policy shift China foreign
relations expert John Garver submits, "It may well have been the evidence of
the ultimate weapons orientation of Iran's nuclear program was accumulating and
becoming increasingly apparent. China's leaders must have asked themselves the
political costs of being associated with Iran's nuclear program as its large and covert
and military dimensions came into public view."13 However, these forced promises
now appear disingenuous, as North Korea has become China's proxy and picked up
where it left off by expanding missile and conventional arms-trade to Iran and other
states.
Covert Chinese Foreign Policy
Although sensitive nuclear related transfers have been curtailed, this has
stopped China's transport of missile technology and components to Iran or its cov
involvement in such transfers with North Korea. In November 2007, the U.S
concerns with China that an Iranian Air plane was flying from North Korea v
jing's airport to Iran with a shipment of missile jet vanes for Iran's missile progra
In August 2009, the United Arab Emirates seized a ship transporting North K
weapons to Iran. After originating in North Korea, the cargo was first transf
in June to a Chinese ship that docked in Dalian and Shanghai.15 Recently declassif
intelligence reports to the U.S. Congress reveal Chinese entities have been key
pliers of nuclear and missile-related technology to Pakistan and missile-related
nology to Iran: "Since 2009, the Obama Administration has imposed sanction
16 occasions on multiple entities in China for weapons proliferation."16 Increa
however, China is allowing North Korea to implement its designs and has pro
Pyongyang from U.N. sanctions. For example, in May 2011 a report from th
Panel of Experts was blocked at the U.N. Security Council by China because i
tained incriminating details that Iran and North Korea exchanged missile tech
using Air Koryo and Iran Air, transiting through China.17
North Korea originally received missile development assistance from Rus
Chinese and Pakistani scientists, but now it is working with Iran to design m
range, road-mobile, liquid propellant ballistic missiles. Massachusetts Institu
Technology missile expert Theodore Postoi notes there is almost no differe
design between the North Korean No-dong missile and Iran's Shahab missile.18
ian scientists and officials have been on scene to observe every Taepo Dong (U
missile launch in an effort to improve the range and accuracy of its three-stage S
hab missile; the Taepo Dong and Shahab use the No-dong missile for their f
stage. Postal contends the 2012 launch of a Taepo Dong missile was jointly e
neered: "While the North Koreans were working on the first stage, these guy
working on the third stage."19 Former U.S. intelligence analyst Bruce Bechtol
70 North Korean Review, Spring 2016
This content downloaded from
f:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
mated this successful launch (with Iranian technical observers present) resulted in
hundreds of millions of dollars in sales for North Korea.20 Financial incentives may
also motivate more politically risky transfers of nuclear technology and materials.
Recognizing its advanced stage of nuclear technology and its foreign currency
needs, Joshua Pollack warns there is "considerable potential for North Korean sales
of uranium conversion and enrichment equipment, along with uranium supplies."21
It is suspected unchecked North Korean munitions transiting through Chinese ports
end up in the Middle East.22 Although there is no hard evidence of the transfer of
nuclear material yet, improved denial-and-deception techniques by North Korean
arms exporters increase this possibility. There is also the danger that private arms
dealers of duel-use technology may initiate trade with or without Beijing's consent.
Interdiction has proven ineffective. Even with satellite observation, the scale of Chinese
exports around the world makes it impossible to know where and when to
intervene. It is assumed the few successful interdictions represent only a fraction of
the munitions that get through.23 These illegal weapon exports enfiarne civil war,
kill innocent civilians, create humanitarian crises, and arm dangerous U.N. designated
terrorist organizations in the Middle East.24
Weapons Supply Chain
China financially supports North Korea, who supplies Syria and Iran with
weapons, which in turn arm Hezbollah and Hamas. A flow chart of interlinking
proxy relationships (including Russian and Pakistani roles) and weapon transfers is
represented below.
Russia I - ♦ Syria^// I Hezbollah
/ North Korea' y
' / Î '' /
China
^Pakistan
Chart 1: Weapons Supply Chain
This Beijing initiated arms supply chain of surrogate relationships is an effective
covert tool of China's foreign policy in the Middle East. The relationships between
North Korea, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas became public in 2009 when 35 tons of
weapons originating in North Korea, including Katyusha surface-to-surface rockets
and rocket-propelled grenades, were seized from a cargo plane in Bangkok. It was
determined the arms cache was destined for Iran to be smuggled to Hezbollah in
Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.25 Between 2008-2009 there were four confirmed
seizures of North Korean cargo en route to Iran or Syria, where Hamas or Hezbolla
China's Nuclear-Armed Proxy - North Korea 71
This content downloaded from
147.251.68.36 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:01:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
could have been the end-users.26 According to Western security sources Hamas militants
asked North Korea to resupply them with missiles since much of their arsenal
was expended during the Israeli action of July/ August 2014. 27
A July 2014 decision in United States Federal District Court found North Korea
guilty of proliferating weapons and providing training to Hezbollah. Judge Royce
Lamberth concluded: "there can be no doubt that North Korea and Iran provided
material support to Hezbollah. In particular, North Korea provided Hezbollah with
advanced weapons, expert advice and construction assistance in hiding these
weapons in underground bunkers, and training in utilizing these weapons and
bunkers to cause terrorist rocket attacks on Israel's civilian population; and Iran
financed North Korea's assistance and helped transport weapons to Hezbollah. These
terrorist rocket attacks that North Korea and Iran facilitated directly caused plaintiffs'
injuries."28 Joshua Pollack has documented North Korea's selling of whole missiles
and missile parts to multiple nations in the Middle East, which has evolved to the
export of missile production equipment and direct collaboration, primarily with
Iran and Syria.29
The first North Korean missile deliveries reached Syria in March 1991 and collaboration
on missile development started around the same time.30 More recently,
in April 2012 France reported to the sanctions committee of the U.N. Security Council
that it had "inspected and seized in November 2010 an illicit shipment of armsrelated
material originating from the DPRK and destined for Syria."31 Then in May
2012 South Korea port authorities seized 445 North Korean-made graphite cylinders
used in ballistic missiles from a Chinese cargo ship bound for Syria. In February
2014 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Director Michael Flynn testified before the
Senate Armed Services Committee that Syria's liquid-propellant missile program
depends on equipment and assistance primarily from North Korea.32 In addition to
missile proliferation, according to senior U.S. intelligence officials and a high-level
Iranian informant, North Korea helped Syria build a secret nuclear reactor designed
to produce plutonium. Israeli jets bombed this structure in a remote region of the
Syrian Desert in 2007.33
Thomas Plant and Ben Rhode argue that the United States did not hold North
Korea accountable in 2007 for its nuclear exports to Libya and Syria in order to keep
Six-Party Talks on track, and this had an impact on its future behavior: "The uncomfortable
truth is that international responses to North Korean nuclear proliferation
have encouraged, not deterred, additional such acts."34 Indeed, in 2008 Israel
reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency that Syria was again "actively
involved in plutonium production" and that Damascus had renewed its nuclear collaboration
with North Korea."35
China is prosecuting its offensive in the Middle East on two fronts, through its
proxy North Korea, and diplomatically through the United Nations. As permanent
members of the U.N. Security Council, both China and Russia have repeatedly vetoed
sanctions against the Bashar al- Assad regime and stymied U.N. action in Syria. Beijing
has opposed U.N. sanctions against Tehran, and when pressured by the P5+1
to comply, has sought with Russia to dilute their extent.36 As the international com-
72 North Korean Review, Spring 2016
This content downloaded from
147.251.68.36 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:01:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
munity connects the dots between Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, through
Pyongyang to Beijing, there may be growing resolve to hold China responsible for
North Korea's actions.
Time to Act
As these proxy relationships come to light, Beijing should be held accountable
for its measured actions and inactions with regard to the Kim regime. That Beijing
officially condemns North Korea missile launches and nuclear tests but does not
use its financial leverage to penalize the Kim regime suggests a revisionist hypothesis
best explains its foreign policy objectives. There is growing evidence for the international
community to sanction China for underwriting Pyongyang's illegal nuclear,
missile and conventional arms transfers, and for supporting a regime that is developing
nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them.
Fortunately, even without international pressure, there may soon be an opening
for change. Chinese leaders are growing uneasy about having an unruly rogue state
on their border that may provoke a U.S. military response or lead to regional nuclear
proliferation, to which I now turn.
Rational Security Adjustments
North Korea is the geopolitical Ukraine of East Asia. It sits ideologically and
economically impoverished in the middle of the strongest militaries and wealthiest
economies in the world, and between authoritarian and democratic systems of political
control. However, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine has relinquished
its nuclear capability while North Korea has developed its own. Now that
North Korea appreciates the security benefits of its nuclear status, conventional
diplomatic efforts to reverse this will be futile. After witnessing recent events in
Ukraine and what happened in Libya to Colonel Gaddafi after he relinquished his
nuclear weapons, the Kim regime considers its nuclear threat vital to national and
personal security.
North Korea expert Don Oberdörfer asserts this nuclear threat is the regimes"
only internationally respected "bargaining chip for trade recognition, security assurances,
and economic benefits."37 Indeed, Pyongyang has used nuclear extortion to
convince foreign governments to feed its military and political base for over two
decades.38 Citing the asymmetric military advantage of South Korea, Peter Hayes
and Scott Bruce of the Nautilus Institute submit that North Korea's "nuclear weapons
program is now the only dimension in which it can match the ROK [Republic of
Korea] in the never-ending battle between the two Koreas over who will dictate the
terms of eventual reunification."39
With China's support North Korea has little to lose and much to gain by developing
nuclear weapons and therefore has been unwilling to take part in negotiations
that are aimed at reigning in its weapons program. Although this nuclear threat
Chinas Nuclear-Armed Proxy- North Korea 73
This content downloaded from
147.251.68.36 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:01:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
advances its' bargaining position and provides a measure of defensive security, North
Korea's strategic behavior must be understood as an extension of China's foreign
policy and a relevant factor in Sino-Japan and Sino-U.S. security competition.
Indeed, North Korea's current efforts to improve its nuclear missile capabilities
would not be possible without China's financial assistance. These efforts are now
reaching a critical stage.
Satellite imagery indicates North Korea is nearing completion of a three-year
upgrade of the Sohae long-range missile launching station.40 This structure supports
a rocket up to 55 meters in height, 25 meters taller than the 30-meter Unha-3
launched in 2012. There is scorched-ground evidence of a new test series of the first
stage engine for a road mobile ICBM - full-scale missile flight tests may be next.41
Nothing seems likely to deter North Korea from its objective of obtaining a nucleartipped
ICBM.42 Washington has warned Pyongyang it will not let it become a nuclear
state, as a sense of danger galvanizes public opinion in democratic South Korea and
Japan to make rational security adjustments.
The United States
A Gallup poll taken in February 2013 - before Pyongyang conducted its third
nuclear test - revealed that 83 percent of Americans believe North Korea's nuclear
weapons are a "critical threat" to the "vital interests" of their nation.43 In another
poll Americans rated only AI Qaeda as a greater threat to its national security.44 As
witnessed before the Iraq invasion, public fears- real or imagined- can legitimize
military action and increase the possibility of a preemptive strike. In March 2013 the
U.S. dispatched two B-2 stealth bombers over Korean airspace and dropped inert
munitions to emphasize this threat. After the fourth nuclear test in January 2016 the
United States Air Force flew a B-52 roundtrip from Guam over Korean airspace,
escorted by South Korean F-15Ks and U.S. F-16s. It is unknown how a future U.S.
President or Congress will respond once it appears North Korea is about to achieve
the capability to destroy U.S. military assets in the Asia-Pacific or endanger U.S. citizens
in their homeland with a nuclear payload.
South Korea
In spite of the promise of a nuclear umbrella, a 2012 poll found only about half
of South Koreans believe the U.S. would respond with nuclear weapons if Seoul suffered
a North Korean nuclear attack. Not surprisingly, in February 2013 polls Gallup
Korea and Asan Institute - two-thirds of South Koreans supported possession
of a nuclear deterrent, and there has been talk in the Korean National Assembly of
redeploying U.S. nonstrategic nuclear weapons.45 Responding to public concerns,
in May 2014 South Korean President Park Geun-hye warned that a fourth nuclear
test could have a nuclear domino effect, giving its neighbors a pretext to arm themselves
with nuclear weapons.
74 North Korean Review, Spring 2016
This content downloaded from
147.251.68.36 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:01:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Japan
The rise of China's missile and maritime capabilities and North Korea's nuclear
capacity threatens Japan. Growing insecurity over U.S. assurances and anxiety over
China may eventually motivate Japan to arm itself.46 A September 2014 poll found
that more than half of Chinese and one-third of Japanese citizens expect their nations
to go to war before 2020, while 90 percent view each other unfavorably.47 Japan is
considered a "nuclear-ready" nation and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has plans to
revise its pacifist constitution. In September 2015 Japan passed legislation allowing
it to defend its allies even when it is not under attack, including the option of preemption,
based on the principle of collective self-defense. Japan has stockpiles of
nuclear material it could weaponize within months and plans to begin test operating
its long delayed Rokkasho Nuclear Reprocessing Plant by the end of 2016.48 This
facility will produce enough plutonium per year for 1,000 Nagasaki-sized bombs.49
Nuclear attitudes in Japan are shifting as a new generation of revisionist/reformist
politicians emerges under the China-North Korea double-threat. Pyongyang's
nuclear ambitions could eventually force the hand of deterrence in Tokyo, then
Seoul.50
Proliferation and Deterrence
Nuclear proliferation tends to spread between friends and potential adversaries,
e.g., the U.S., then Russia, then Great Britain and France; China then India then
Pakistan; Israel, and if Iran, then Saudi Arabia and perhaps Jordan and Turkey. In
East Asia it will be North Korea then either South Korea or Japan followed by the
other. Henry Kissinger has also mentioned Vietnam and Indonesia as future candidates.51
East Asian security experts Joel Wit and Sun Young Ahn estimate a medium
range scenario of North Korea with 50 nuclear-tipped missiles by 2020.52 As fears
mount, regional nuclear proliferation will become increasingly difficult to prevent.
Former senior fellow at the U.S. Council of Foreign Relations, Walter Russell
Mead notes, "The United States has intimated that although it would not aid or support
any nuclear proliferation, it would be unable to control its allies' ambitions,
just as China can't restrain North Korea's program."53 Prominent American political
scientist Kenneth Waltz observes: "Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons has had
a high priority for American governments, but clearly not the highest. In practice,
other interests have proved to be more pressing. This is evident in our relations with
every country that has developed nuclear weapons, or appeared to be on the verge
of doing so, from Britain onwards."54 It is not by accident that U.S. allies, France,
Israel and the United Kingdom have nuclear weapons. Pragmatism trumps princi-
ple.
Indeed, taking exception to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, President
Jimmy Carter did not challenge Pakistan's nuclear tests after the Soviet Union's 1979
invasion of Afghanistan. President Carter also decided to ship nuclear fuel to India
in 1980. More recently, amidst criticism of revising half-a-century of nonproliferation
China's Nuclear-Armed Proxy - North Korea 75
This content downloaded from
147.251.68.36 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:01:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
policy, in October 2008 the U.S. agreed to sell India "dual-use nuclear technology,
including materials and equipment that could be used to enrich uranium or reprocess
plutonium and potentially create material for nuclear bombs. It would also receive
imported fuel for its nuclear reactors."55 Nonproliferation analysts complained this
civilian use-restricted imported fuel would allow India to move some of its own
nuclear fuel over to military purposes. From these examples, it is clear that if
Pyongyang persists in perfecting and expanding its nuclear missile capabilities it
would not be unprecedented for the United States to strategically acquiesce to the
nuclear arming of its East Asian allies. Nevertheless, analysts have warned South
Korea about going nuclear.
Troy Stangarone at the Korean Economic Institute asserts that unless pursued
"in the face of eminent war," Seoul's development of nuclear weapons would invite
sanctions.56 He cites a blockade of nuclear materials and technology, military assistance
and bank loans against India and Pakistan. However, these limited sanctions
were temporary and ineffective.57 There is little reason to assume sanctions against
Korea or Japan would be any different. North Korea will soon have the nuclear missile
capability to annihilate the Seoul-Incheon metropolis and other major cities in
a matter of minutes. It is temporally nonsensical to submit a process that may take
a year or longer to achieve its deterrent goals would be permissible only "in the face
of eminent war."
Fearing a pro-proliferation shift in political and military attitudes among the
masses and elites in South Korea, Chung-in Moon and Peter Hayes have issued a
staunch warning against the development or deployment of nuclear weapons. They
believe such a decision would be inherently unstable and lead to "mutual probable
destruction." They argue that a South Korea deterrent would reduce the likelihood
the United States would respond to a North Korean first strike, and that it would
undermine the robustness of conventional deterrence, while damaging the Soutlťs
vital national interests: energy security, access to trade, finance, investment markets,
diplomatic reputation, and potentially rupture the U.S. alliance. Remarkably they
also suggest that Koreans who support a domestic nuclear deterrent do so in the
mistaken hope that this would be a bargaining chip to compel North Korea to abandon
its nuclear weapons.58
Although sympathetic to their anti-proliferation intent, I am not convinced by
their arguments. First, there is no reason to assume having nuclear capacity would
"probably" lead to its use. History suggests otherwise. Second, although some question
the U.S. nuclear umbrella, a credible second-strike capability guarantees consequences
and supports a no first use strategy, and there is no reason the U.S.
prerogative for a nuclear response would change. Third, Hayes and Moon postulate
a "use-them or lose-them" scenario, but this is not credible since North Korea has
mobile missile launchers. Fourth, it is doubtful the U.S. would rally the Security
Council to impose unduly harsh sanctions against a fearful nation that decided to
deter a dangerous rogue regime sitting on its doorstep with cruise and ballistic
nuclear missiles. The United States would not alienate an important ally as great
power rivalry escalates in the Asia-Pacific. Deserting Korea (or Japan) would be tan-
76 North Korean Review, Spring 2016
This content downloaded from
147.251.68.36 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:01:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
tamount to abandoning its interests in East Asia. The United States is committed to
economically supporting and militarily defending its East Asian allies under any
circumstances.
Finally, it is simply implausible there is an important contingency of Sou
Koreans who believe a nuclear deterrent would somehow "compel North Korea
abandon its nuclear weapons." The point is they would not consider launching
nuclear attack knowing that South Korea and the U.S. are primed for immedi
retaliation. Many now believe a homeland nuclear deterrent combined with so
form of missile defense would more adequately provide for South Korea's long-te
security.
Nuclear Free Korea
It is doubtful the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear agreement signed
by Iran in July 2015 will influence the Korean situation; denuclearization remains
unlikely without reunification. However, Pyongyang will not consider unification
while it is financially supported by China. Beijing holds the key to a multilateral
solution. Details for a G-20 managed, corporate, and internationally financed reunification
have been published.59 This non-partisan plan would promise amnesty from
prosecution and a private sector payoff to Pyongyang political and military elites;
in return, Seoul would offer ownership and construction contracts worth trillions
of dollars in profitable assets to business enterprises - a gas pipeline, railroads, mining,
seaports, and infrastructural projects. A large portion of this reunificationinvestment
fund would be paid back through government receipts from future economic
growth, with the Bank of Korea, and perhaps the World Bank, IMF, ADB, or
the AHB acting as lenders of last resort.
As in Moscow in 1991, it is expected that, with sufficient security and financial
incentives, Pyongyang power elites would abandon their Stalinist system for the
pragmatic pursuit of material privilege and continued affluence in a unified Korea.60
This unification scenario may ultimately be the only way to peacefully stop nuclear
proliferation in East Asia. China's support for such a plan is essential. Unfortunately,
it may be difficult to assemble critical political support for this rather provocative
economic based solution.
Conclusion
Greater transparency today encourages global accountability as state behavi
is increasingly scrutinized and constrained by a deeply rooted international arc
tecture of durable institutional structures that support the growth of liberal democ
racy and global capitalism. Political scientist G. John Ikenberry notes, "China d
not just face America or the West, it faces the globalized embodiment of moder
itself."61 Despite debate over whether the China dream is revisionist or status q
the Chinese Communist Party has attached its future to the existing world ord
Chinas Nuclear-Armed Proxy- North Korea 77
This content downloaded from
147.251.68.36 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:01:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
and now depends on it for its survival.62 China is also being changed by this relationship.
Political-economist Edward Steinfeld submits "Given the kind of institutional
outsourcing that has already taken place, Chinese authoritarianism is currently
self-obsolescing in ways that roughly mirror what transpired two decades earlier in
Taiwan."63 Indeed, beyond impulses for rivalry, compelling incentives for restraint
and cooperation exist.64
Beijing's use of hostile surrogates to pursue an antiquated anti-imperialist
geopolitical strategy destabilizes the world system that has evolved since the end of
the Cold War, and in which China has greatly benefited. In order for Beijing to
modernize its foreign policy and integrate with the international community these
hostile surrogacies must end. It is time the United States and its allies in the Middle
East and East Asia respond to this growing threat and apply pressure on China to
change course.
Although rapid modernization has led to more progressive views, the policies
of hardliners still prevail over a new generation of political-economic pragmatists.
However, since the Mao era, China has exhibited an admirable faculty for pragmatic
reform in response to changing real-world circumstances.65 As the security calculus
changes in East Asia, Beijing may be compelled to rethink its current strategy and
play a prominent role in suing for peace and reunification in Korea. Such policy
modernization would require an historic change in outlook.
Fortunately, a growing number of Chinese are calling for change. After Pyongyang
conducted its third nuclear test in February 2013, there was a harsh array of
uncensored comments on the Internet and from the Chinese policy establishment
calling for Beijing to break off ties with Pyongyang.66 China policy specialist
Stephanie Kleine- Ahlbrandt suspects that Beijing has allowed scholars, citizen bloggers
and the media to publicly debate its relationship with North Korea as a signal
it may be ready to reverse policy.67
It is now clear that influential factions within the People's Liberation Army and
the Chinese Communist Party regard North Korea as a growing strategic burden
and threat to regional stability.68 Sixty-five years ago when its frontline value was
beyond reproach, North Korea was a protected pawn in the chess match of great
power rivalry. However, now that it has invited danger into the region for China it
may be sacrificed for a larger strategic vision.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Inha University research funds. I wish to extend
my thanks to my Korean and Chinese students, and several anonymous reviewers.
Notes
1. Andrew Scobell, "China and North Korea: From Comrades-in-Arms to Allies at Arm's
Length," U.S. Army War College (March 24, 2004), p. 29.
2. Bruce Klingner, "Time to Go Beyond Incremental North Korean Sanctions," 38 North ,
April 29, 2014.
78 North Korean Review, Spring 2016
This content downloaded from
147.251.68.36 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:01:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
3. Ibid.; see also Scott Snyder and See-won Byun, "China-Korea Relations: Beijing Ties
Uneven with Seoul, Stalled with Pyongyang," Comparative Connections , January 2015.
4. The $1.2 billion annual trade deficit with China in 2011 is considered foreign aid since
it is inconceivable it will never be paid back; see Mark Manyin and Mary Beth Nikitin, "Foreign
Assistance to North Korea" Congressional Research Service , March 20, 2012; see also Madhav Das
Nalapat, "North Korea: A 'Proxy' Nuclear State?" China Brief March 25, 2003.
5. Quoted in, Growing Chinese Influence Worries N. Korean Officials, The Chosunilbo ,
March 13, 2014.
6. Joshua Pollack, "Ballistic Trajectory: The Evolution of North Korea s Ballistic Missile
Market," Nonproliferation Review Vol. 18, No. 2 (July 2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10736700.2011.583120.
7. Denny Roy, Return of the Dragon: Rising China and Regional Security (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2013), p. 174. http://dx.doi.org/10.7312/columbia/9780231159005.001.0001.
8. Paul K. Kerr and Mary Beth D. Nikitin, "Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and
Security Issues," Congressional Research Service, March 19, 2013, p. 22.
9. Although significant portions of the document covering Chinese technology sharing
were excised, these reports represent the CIA [apost] s first-ever declassifications of allegations that
Beijing supported Islamabad[apost]s nuclear ambitions. See "China May Have Helped Pakistan
Nuclear Weapons Design, Newly Declassified Intelligence Indicates," National Security Archive
Electronic Briefing No. 423, April 23, 2013.
10. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, "Pakistani nuclear scientist's accounts tell of Chinese
proliferation," The Washington Post , November 13, 2009.
11. Bates Gill, "Chinese Arms Exports to Iran," Middle East Review of International Affairs
Vol. 2, No. 2 (May 1998), pp. 55-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000944559803400307.
12. Ibid., p. 67; see also Daniel L. Byman and Roger Cliff, China's Arms Sales: Motivations
and Implications (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1999), pp. 7-28.
13. John W. Garver, China and Iran: Ancient Partners in a Post-Imperial World (Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 2006), p. 154.
14. Marybeth Davis, James Lecky, Torrey Froscher, David Chen, Abel Kerevel, and Stephen
Schlaikjer, "China-Iran: A Limited Partnership," U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission,
October 2012, p. 45.
15. Ibid.
16. Shirley A. Kan, "China and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Missiles:
Policy Issues," Congressional Research Service, January 3, 2014.
17. Ibid., p. 23.
18. Theodore A. Postoi, "Technical Addendum to the Joint Threat Assessment on Iran's
Nuclear and Missile Potential," EastWest Institute (May 2009); Marcus Schiller, Characterizing
the North Korean Nuclear Missile Threat (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2012), p. 25.
19. Quoted from Tom Gjelten, "What North Korea[apost]s Rocket Launch Tells Us About
Iran [apost] s Role," National Public Radio, December 14, 2012.
20. Bruce E. Bechtol, The Last Days of Kim Jong-il : The North Korean Threat in a Changing
Era (Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, 2013), p. 28.
2 1 . See Joshua Pollack, Ballistic T rajectory: The Evolution or North Korea s Ballistic Missile
Market," Nonproliferation Review Vol. 18, No. 2 (July 2011), pp. 411-429, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10736700.2011.583120; see also Paul K. Kerr, Mary Beth D. Nikitin and Steven A. Hildreth, "IranNorth
Korea-Syria Ballistic Missile and Nuclear Cooperation," Congressional Research Service ,
April 16, 2014; and Thomas Plant and Ben Rhode, "China. North Korea and the Spread of Nuclear
Weapons," Survival Vol. 55, No. 2 (April/May 2013), pp. 61-80.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2013.784467.
22. Bates Gill, "China's North Korean Policy: Assessing Interests and Influences," United
States Institute of Peace, 2012.
23. Mark Valencia, "North Korea and the Proliferation Security Initiative," 38 North, July 31,
2010, p. 5.
24. Andrea Berger, "North Korea, Hamas, and Hezbollah: Arm in Arm?" 38 North , August 5,
2014.
25. Con Coughlin, "Hamas and North Korea in Secret Arms Deal," The Telegraph , August 7,
China's Nuclear-Armed Proxy- North Korea 79
This content downloaded from
147.251.68.36 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:01:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2014; for previous transfers see Alon Ben-David, "Iran Acquires Ballistic Missiles from DPRK,"
Jane s Defence Weekly , December 29, 2006.
26. Andrea Berger, "North Korea, Hamas, and Hezbollah: Arm in Arm?," 38 North , August 5,
2014.
27. Con Coughlin, "Hamas and North Korea in Secret Arms Deal."
28. Royce C. Lamberth, "Chaim, et al., v. Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, et
al." United States District Court for the District of Columbia, July 23, 2014, p. 17; see also, Bruce E.
Bechtol, Jr., The Last Days of Kim Jong-il : The North Korean Threat in a Changing Era (Dulles,
VA: Potomac Books, 2013), pp. 111-128.
29. Joshua Pollack, "Ballistic Trajectory."
30. Joshua Pollack, "North Korea's Nuclear Exports: On What Terms?" 38 North , October
14, 2010, p. 4.
31. Quoted from Louis Charbonneau and Michelle Nichols, "Exclusive: U.N. Probes Possible
North Korea Arms Trade with Syria, Myanmar," Reuters , May 17, 2012.
32. Michael Flynn, "Annual Threat Assessment," Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing ,
April 18, 2013, pp. 24-25.
33. High-level Iranian defector Ali Reza Asghari confirmed North Korean participation in
the reactor's construction. See Erich Follath and Holgar Stark, "The Story of 'Operation Orchard':
How Israel Destroyed Syria's Al Kibar Nuclear Reactor," Der Speigel, November 2, 2009.
34. Thomas Plant and Ben Rhode, "China. North Korea and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons,"
Survival Vol. 55, No. 2 (April/May 2013), pp. 61-80.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2013.784467.
35. Joseph Fitsanakis, "Western Intelligence Points to New Syrian Nuclear Plant: Report,"
IntelNews, January 15, 2015.
36. Willem van Kemenade, "China vs. the Western Campaign for Iran Sanctions," The Washington
Quarterly Vol. 33, No. 3 (2010), pp. 99-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2010.492344.
37. Don Oberdorfer, The Two Koreas: A Contemporary History (New York: Basic Books,
2001), p. 305.
38. See Nicholas Eberstadt, The North Korean Economy: Between Crisis and Catastrophe
(New Brunswick: Transaction, 2007), pp. 280-312.
39. Peter Hayes and Scott Bruce, "North Korean Nuclear Nationalism and the Threat of
Nuclear War in Korea," Pacific Focus Vol. 26, No. (2011), p. 66.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.3172/NKR.8.l.84.
40. Jack Liu, Sohae Satellite Launch Facility: Three Year Upgrade Program Likely Near
Completion," 38 North , December 2015.
41. Nick Hansen, "North Korea's Sohae Satellite Launching Station: Major Upgrade Program
Completed; Facility Operational Again," 38 North, October 1, 2014.
42. For an assessment of North Korea's nuclear capabilities, see Peter Hayes and Scott Bruce,
"Unprecedented Nuclear Strikes of the Invincible Army: A Realistic Assessment of North Korea's
Operational Nuclear Capacity," North Korean Review Vol. 8, No. 1 (Spring 2012), pp. 84-92.
43. Jeffrey M. Jones, In U.S., 83% Say North Korean Nukes Are a Critical Threat," Gallup
Politics, February 2013.
44. Howard LaFranchi, "AI Qaeda? North Korea? Who Americans See as the Greatest Security
Threat," Christian Science Monitor , December 8, 2010.
45. "2/3 of S.Korean Support Nuclear Armament," The Chosunilbo, February 21, 2013.
46. See Richard J. Samuels, Securing Japan (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007),
Chapter 6.
47. "The 10th Japan-China Public Option Poll: Analysis Report on the Comparative Data,"
The Genron NPO and China Daily, September 9, 2014.
48. See Robert Windrem, "Japan Has Nuclear 'Bomb in the Basement,' and China Isn't
Happy," NBC News, March 11, 2014; see also, Kurt M. Campbell and Tsuyoshi Sunohara, "Japan:
Thinking the Unthinkable," in Kurt M Campbell, Robert J. Einhorn and Mitchell B. Reiss, eds,
Tipping Point: Why States Reconsider Their Nuclear Choices (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution
Press, 2004), pp. 218-253.
49. "Rokkasho Start Up Delayed to 2016," World Nuclear News, November 3, 2014.
50. Richard J. Samuels and James L. Schoff, "Japans's Nuclear Hedge: Beyond 'Allergy' and
80 North Korean Review, Spring 2016
This content downloaded from
147.251.68.36 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:01:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Breakout," in Ashely J. Tellis, Abraham M. Denmark and Travis Tanner, eds., Asia in the Second
Nuclear Age: Strategic Asia 2013-2014 (Seattle, WA: The National Bureau of Asian Research, 2013),
pp. 234-264.
51. Henry Kissinger, On China (New York: Penguin, 2011), p. 496.
52. Joel S. Wit and Sun Young Ahn, "North Korea's Nuclear Futures: Technology and Strategy,"
U.S.-Korea Institute at the School of Advanced International Studies , Johns Hopkins University
(2015).
53. Walter Russell Mead, "Should Nukes Bloom in Asia?" Council of Foreign Relations ,
June 19, 2005; see also Samuels and Schoff, "Japans's Nuclear Hedge," pp. 257-258.
54. See Kenneth Waltz, "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better," Adelphi Papers ,
No. 171, International Institute for Strategic Studies (1981); and "Why Iran Should Get the Bomb:
Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability," Foreign Affairs (July/ August, 2012).
55. Jayshree Bajoria and Esther Pan, The U.S. -India Nuclear Deal, Council on Foreign
Relations , November 5, 2010.
56. Troy Stangarone, "Why South Korea Won't Develop Nuclear Weapons," The Peninsula,
May 13, 2013.
57. Richard N. Haass, "Economic Sanctions: Too Much of a Bad Thing," Brookings Policy
Brief #33 y June 1998.
58. Peter Hayes and Chung-in Moon, "Should South Korea Go Nuclear?" East Asia Foundationy
July 28, 2014.
59. See Shepherd Iverson, One Korea: A Proposal for Peace (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2013).
60. For events in Russia, see David. M. Kotz and Fred Weir, Russia s Path from Gorbachev
to Putin: The Demise of the Soviet System and the New Russia (New York: Routledge, 2007), 105-125.
61. G. John Ikenberry, The Rise of China, the United States, and the Future of the Liberal
International Order," in David Shambaugh, ed., Tangled Titans: The United States and China
(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013): 71.
62. For opposing views on this seminal debate, see Walter Russell Mead, "The Return of
Geopolitics," Foreign Affairs 93, Issue 3 (May 2014): 69-79; and G. John Ikenberry, "The Illusion
of Geopolitics," Foreign Affairs 93, Issue 3 (May 2014): 80-90; see also Edward Steinfeld, Playing
Our Game: Why China's Rise Doesn't Threaten the West (New York: Oxford University Press,
2010).
63. Edward S. Steinfeld, Playing Our Game , p. 227 .
64. See Bruce Jones, Still Ours to Lead : America, Rising Powers, and the Tension between
Rivalry and Restraint (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2014).
65. See David Shambaugh, China s Communist Party: Atrophy and Adaptation (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2009).
66. See Shen Dengli, Lips and Teeth: It s Time tor China to Get Tough with North Korea,
Foreign Policy, February 13, 2013; Xie Tao, "What's Wrong with China's North Korean Policy,"
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 26, 2013; Deng Yuwen, "Should China Abandon
North Korea?" Financial Times, February 27, 2013.
67. Kleine- Ahlbrandt, Stephanie, "The Diminishing Returns of China's North Korea Policy,
38 North, November 28, 2012.
68. Bonnie Glaser, Scott Snyder and John S. Park, Keeping an Eye on an Unruly Neighbor:
Chinese Views of Economic Reform and Stability in North Korea," A Joint Report by the Center
for Strategic and International Studies & U.S. Institute of Peace (January 2008).
Biographical Statement
Shepherd Iverson is a foreign professor in the Institute for Korean Studies at
Inha University in Incheon Korea, where he has lived with his family for the past
eight years. His research focus is on denuclearizing East Asia through Korean reunification;
his last book was entitled, One Korea : A Proposal for Peace (McFarland,
2013).
China's Nuclear-Armed Proxy- North Korea 81
This content downloaded from
147.251.68.36 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:01:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms