A report by Bruce Bennett and the RAND Corporation has brought attention to one of the most important issues for international politics. Ironically, despite being a region of vital interest within American foreign policy, there has been very little public
Yet beyond the critical end game for the Korean peninsula are deeper questions concerning how any international force might respond. Specifically, how can the US and South Korea effectively mobilise regional powers with their differing security and development goals?
International cooperation can alleviate geopolitical tension and inform policymakers while sharpening the tools of statecraft in preparation for engaging the uncertainties of an all but certain crisis on the horizon. The US must begin to consider the requirements of intervention – not to depose a totalitarian regime for the sake of an ideological crusade, but as pragmatic, necessary planning in the event weapons of mass destruction enter the calculus as a credible, serious danger.
Unpredictable North Korean rhetoric offers scant evidence for anticipating or understanding Pyongyang’s tightly managed system of control. Indeed, many revolutionary or transformational periods in history have been poorly anticipated by external actors whom otherwise might have played a more constructive role in their outcome. Invisible factional rivalries, natural or man-made disasters, and blurred lines of sovereign authority are only a few factors that might contribute to the collapse of the totalitarian system. Resulting anarchy involving weapons of mass destruction and the internal struggle for power should prompt the most serious concern. The event of nuclear use, or clear evidence of momentary launch, could escalate to outright conflict and plunge East Asia into a tumultuous period with unforeseen consequences. Yes, nuclear threats and open hostility follow a longstanding pattern of belligerent rhetoric from Pyongyang, but prolonged uncertainty only heightens the risk of miscalculation. A major crisis scenario that destabilises the North Korean government and its mechanisms of control, no matter how unlikely, should prompt the international community to consider a multilateral framework for intervention.
Any comprehensive framework committed to stabilisation and reconstruction must consider cross-cutting principles that can be directed toward achieving the desirable end state of a peaceful Korean peninsula. First, Seoul could lead the process of Korean unification backed by the political legitimacy of a democratic state faced with an imminent threat on its territorial border. A legitimate claim to self defence reinforces the long-term goal of Korean unification under the auspices of a self-sufficient and transparent democratic government, a favourable outcome quickly gaining traction in Beijing. Second, and most important to the international community, stability could be achieved through a unity of effort by regional security partners seeking to move the peninsula from conflict to a manageable level of development. Quelling a potentially transnational civil war involving weapons of mass destruction is a vital interest of regional neighbours and the international community alike. Finally, the incorporation of non-governmental organisations holds the potential to dramatically accelerate the process of modernisation and diminish long-term social and economic inequalities that could manifest into political grievances following unification. Toward this end game, and before major reconstruction, any intervening force must achieve minimal levels of stability in terms of physical and human geography.
The first step toward planning a credible response is to consider the absence of a totalitarian regime previously possessing rigid control over territory, weapons of mass destruction, and the civilian population. Working under the assumption that Chinese and South Korean border issues could be mitigated by their respective militaries, and WMD tracked and secured by American military forces working alongside integrated allies, the pre-eminent question becomes one of human security. Specifically, how to deal with twenty million physically and psychologically scarred individuals as an operational challenge. Regardless of the ongoing struggle for power and stability, these individuals represent a major hurdle for any external force crossing the 38th parallel and constitute the bulk of human terrain. For many, their day-to-day lives reflect a permanent wartime experience, an existence on the edge that has defined families for more than three generations. Devout loyalty to the North Korean system is arguably so ingrained within many citizens, it is difficult to project how the majority of individuals would behave after the cataclysmic event of totalitarian collapse.
There would likely be a profound absence of the overarching stability that has come to define the norm within Pyongyang’s invasive culture of oppression. Beyond fundamental necessities of food, water, shelter and physical security, what unforeseen conditions might an external group encounter among the civilian population? The disintegration, or even transformation, of this familiar norm would potentially compound dangerous social, economic and political inadequacies while pushing individuals past an already desperate state of existence. To paraphrase experts, exposure to an event involving potential death or serious injury to the self or others leads to intense states of fear, helplessness or horror. Under this scenario, an outside group would likely encounter upwards of twenty million individuals suffering from the effects of severe grief and incapacitating post-traumatic stress disorder. These reactions might appear as abnormal reactions to normal stress, but inside the reality of North Korea, it would reflect a normal reaction to abnormal stress. Whether an intervening humanitarian force, or an individual state dealing with refugees fleeing across its border, responsible powers should not overlook such a traumatic moment for geopolitics.