interviewer: Harold Thibault
translation: doxa-louise
'In practical terms, then United States have but few
options on North Korea'
According to the Korean political scientist Cheong Seong chang, only
putting a stop to its oil deliveries by Peking to Pyongyang would be strong enough
to force the regime.
The North Korean issue is the central subject of President Trump's twelve day Asia
visit, who is expected in Peking Wednesday November 8. These last few months, he
has evoked both a military option and the possibility of a dialogue with Pyongyang.
For political scientist Cheong Seong chang, a specialist on North Korea at the
Sejong Institute in Seoul, the varied stances on Mr Trump's part do little but justify
Kim Jong un's quest for nuclear deterrence.
Donald Trump likes to remind everyone that all options are on the table with respect
to North Korea, thus also a military option. Is this realistic?
It is a quite unrealistic approach. The United States enjoy a remarkable intelligence
capability. Were Trump to make the decision, the United States can eliminate Kim Jong un
and most military leaders in North Korea all at once, because they know where they are
and what their movements are. The elimination of Kim Jong un is no problem at all
for American technology. But the United States could not control the ensuing situation.
We have seen this in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein was eliminated without this ending the
war, and again in Libya after the elimination of Mouammar Kadhafi. The surviving military
leaders could attack South Korea. And no one could stop the resistance of the army or the
population.
Some researchers have suggested the option of targeting missile launch sites.
What is your opinion?
Ten years ago, the United States were already in a situation where attacking North Korea
was impossible. Under George W. Bush, the option of attacking North Korea was
studied but deemed impossible, because one doesn't know where North Korea is
hiding its weapons. There are many tunnels, underground installations, thus it is
impossible to destroy 100% capability before a counter strike. Ten years later, this
is all the more difficult.
North Koreans thus know that American grandstanding is without substance...
North Korea proceeded, in September, with a sixth nuclear test, and I believe
that Kim Jong un will continue testing long-range missiles. He will not stop
now, but absolutely wants intercontinental missiles in his arsenal. I believe the
United States will eventually shoot down North Korean missiles, but they will have
to stop at that, and North Korea well knows this. In practical terms, the United States
have few options before them.
What impact on Pyongyang does it have when, in September, at the United Nations
rostrum, Mr Trump threatens to 'totally destroy' North Korea?
President Trump's threats lend credence to Kim Jong un's policy, his quest
to pursue nuclear power, they justify proceeding with intercontinental missiles
over the Pacific (as the country is menaced). But then even if Mr Trump were
not to speak in such terms, North Korea would nonetheless launch intercontinental
missiles, at bottom nothing would change. But it can today present its actions as
legitimate given Trump's speech.
What could actually influence the choices for North Korea?
What North Korea fears the most is not the United States, but China. Up until now,
China has refused to completely halt deliveries of raw petrol to North Korea,
but if Peking were to decide on this, Pyongyang would be forced to alter its policies.
There has already been some change from China in the last months: China has
accepted to lessen the number of North Korean workers it allows in the country
and has diminished, for the first time, petrol exports to its neighbor. But China and
North Korea have long been allies and many Chinese paid with their lives in
the Korean War, so Peking cannot abandon North Korea all of a go. There has been
change but it is slow.
Many consider that, regardless of the actions of China, North Korea will not abandon
the nuclear way, because Kim Jong un sees it as life insurance not to end up like
Saddam Hussein and Mouammar Kadhafi. Do you consider, from your point of view,
that the oil question can force his hand?
Quite. The country uses coal for its energy needs, but the army runs on petrol.
Because planes won't fly and tanks advance on coal. For industries, for factories, for
the population at large, coal is dominant. But to train the army, petrol is absolutely
necessary. If one stops driving a vehicle for months, what happens then? It won't run
anymore. It is estimated that oil reserves for the army are for two or three months.
North Korea doesn't have much in reserve, and if China were to close the valves, the
army would be the hardest hit. But, it is an important source of support for Kim Jong un.
If the generals were to become discontent, their loyalty toward Kim Jong un, and thus
the leadership he can offer, would be seriously affected.
No comments:
Post a Comment