by Namkyu Oh
February 12th – North Korea conducts third nuclear test, prompting a series of rejected U.N. sanction orders stipulating an end to the country’s nuclear arms program. March 7th– North Korea, in conjunction to rejecting U.N. sanctions, threatens preemptive nuclear attack on United States. March 11th – North Korean cuts off Red Cross hotline with South Korea in response to military drills, further alienating them from negotiation. March 11th – North Korea declares the 1953 armistice, created to officially end Korean War in a truce, as invalid.
One can’t help but notice a seemingly new level of escalated behavior from North Korea, with its evolving weaponry, blatant rejections from the U.N. and direct verbal attacks on both South Korea and the United States. Subsequently, one can’t help but notice a larger commitment of response and defense from the South Korean side, with the large scale military drilling, apparent discussion amongst the National Assembly for reintroduction of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons, and an explicit policy of trustpolitik announced by South Korean President, Park Geun-Hye’s, emphasizing restoration, aid, economic democratization, and welfare programs for North Korea as a means to lessen tensions.
Though Park has somewhat clearly outlined her future agenda for North Korean politics, with the recent influx of conflict-driven news, our own president has been drawn under the microscope as well. GOP legislators have vocally expressed opinion that President Obama to take a much more rigid stance. GOP legislators want Obama to, at the very minimum, make a definitive statement, ideally condemnation, against North Korea’s actions, and at the very most, order heavier amounts of preparatory military drills with undertones of retaliatory attack if necessary. Whether it is the Unites State’s place to intervene, or whether anyone has to intervene…or whether North Korea is actually as big of a threat as their louder-than-usual actions seem to be, are all up for debate. One thing I’d like to bring up though, is the recurring and ever-so cliché idea of history repeating itself.
2003, a decade ago, marked a time when North Korea expressed that they had “no option” but to stop following the terms of the armistice (the same armistice they declared invalid this Monday) and, to the backdrop of conflict all too familiar to what we’re all seeing in the media now, the United States fell back, agreeing to prompt discussion before military deployment. As the United States took a more participatory and collaborative role in the discussion, China became a mediator of trilateral talks, and due to the fact that dynamics of agreement from North Korea were more favorable to China than the U.S., a consensus was reached. Though that consensus took two years to reach a successful Joint Statement, and five years to conclude diplomatic discussions, a level of international stability was attained.
With a decade for a mirror, there seems to be much similarity to be drawn from the events of 2003 to the events happening now, and granted, the North Korean belligerency is as close as claimed, a repetition of such history seems to be something to hope for.
