Tensions rose to new levels on the Korean Peninsula as North Korea fired multiple missiles demonstrating markedly enhanced capabilities and crowned the Labor Day weekend with a sixth nuclear test with a significantly larger yield than previous tests. The United States tackled its most significant global security challenge by reinforcing its deterrent capabilities, tightening the financial noose on the North, President Trump tweeting stern warnings, and military and diplomatic leaders calling for dialogue. South Korea responded by reiterating its military readiness, expanding its own missile capabilities, and reeling from Trump’s rhetoric that likened President Moon Jae-in’s push for talks to “appeasement”  and his threat to scrap the KORUS trade agreement. Despite joint military exercises, live fire drills, B-1 dispatches, and shared statements condemning Pyongyang to signal alliance strength, the relationship between the United States and South Korea appears frayed in dramatic new ways.

No more maybes

In 11 years, North Korea has developed dangerous nuclear and delivery capabilities. The premier national security concern conveyed from the Obama to Trump administration has seen fruition with the July 4 and July 28 Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) launches that directly challenge Washington, and the late August missile launch over Hokkaido an affront to Tokyo, and by extension the US as its treaty ally.

North Korea’s contention after its fourth nuclear test on Jan. 6, 2016 that it had tested a hydrogen bomb was met with skepticism from analysts, who suggested that at best Pyongyang had employed boosted technology. Last year’s spate of failed tests led some observers to doubt the pace and efficacy of North Korea’s missile development program, though others noted that failed tests could be teachable moments.

The DPRK soundly removed doubts in summer 2017 with a barrage of missile tests that demonstrate enhanced thrust and trajectories with a range that included most of the United States. The latest nuclear test on Sept. 3 produced a quake estimated to be between 5.7 and 6.3 on the Richter scale (the seismic reads by South Korea and the US respectively), indicating yields in excess of 100 kilotons – at least 10 times the strength of the Sept. 9, 2016 fifth nuclear test, with a yield likened to that of Hiroshima.

The Trump administration has sought to signal certainty in its response to North Korea, reiterating repeatedly that “all options remain on the table.” Trump showed his growing impatience and preference for military solutions with tweets that elicited concern among Seoul and other allies: the United States was “locked and loaded,” (John Wayne, 1949), the US would meet North Korean provocations with “fire and fury,” and “talking is not the answer!” The latter came after the North’s missile launch over Japan and muted his earlier assertion that North Korea was beginning to “respect” the US. Defense Secretary James Mattis sought to stem confusion by asserting that dialogue remained in the US response kit.

Facetime

President Trump’s tweets and late summer musings about dumping the Korea-US (KORUS) free trade agreement (FTA) were a slap in the face of the new Seoul administration. South Korean President Moon Jae-in met Trump on June 30, and the Washington summit seemed to go well. South Korea put great preparation into the meeting and looked to Trump’s meetings with Japan’s Prime Minister Abe Shinzo and China’s President Xi Jinping for lessons learned. Trump, who had earlier lambasted the trade agreement with Korea as a “disaster,” somewhat checked his concerns, and the two leaders projected themselves as being in lockstep over their concern about DPRK provocations. In the aftermath and given the North’s missile launches in July and August, Moon deployed the remainder of the THAAD anti-missile system, which had drawn criticism from China and domestic opponents.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in and US President Donald Trump shake hands after a joint press conference that followed their bilateral summit at the White House on June 30, 2017. (Yonhap)

Seoul, however, has looked at Washington with growing concern. US presidential missives appeared confusing to the Blue House and Seoul analysts. They and Korean editorial writers raised questions about US reliability, especially if the US mainland appeared to be a target, and whether the US was willing to trade Seoul for Los Angeles or Seattle in the event of a nuclear strike. The predominant concern expressed by Korean media was the danger of a US military strike against the DPRK leading to a conflagration in South Korea, given the likely artillery barrage to follow. Some senior analysts and more conservative elements among the general public raised the specter of a perceived need to grow more autonomous capabilities, to include a South Korean nuclear option, or reintroduce US tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea.

Several factors signal growing fissures in ROK-US relations. Foremost is the mixed political messaging on North Korea, which appears to allow little room for Moon Jae-in’s pursuit of a peace initiative. Second, and another issue about “face,” is the proclivity of President Trump to call Japanese Prime Minister Abe on North Korean concerns more often and ahead of President Moon. South Korean sentiments range from irritation to insult, especially as South Korean relations with Japan are in flux and questions of history and popular memory linger. Trump’s dismissiveness of the KORUS FTA was met with confusion from Seoul, which had not fully considered the possibility of it being scrapped and led the leading Washington-based trade group supportive of KORUS to urge members to contact lawmakers to support its retention. Whether the US president is revealing his true leanings or posturing is unknown, but the result is disquiet nonetheless.

Particularly galling to some South Koreans was Trump’s scolding by tweet of Seoul’s mistaken “appeasement” of the North. Though this message may have delighted conservatives in Tokyo and the president’s base, many found the remark paternalistic and pejorative.

Reinforcements

The US and Korea joined in shoring up preparedness against North Korea and enhancing South Korea’s military capabilities. After a summer of DPRK test launches, the US agreed in principle to increase the range of South Korea’s  missiles, and South Korea reportedly agreed to purchase new US weapons. The US also deployed B-1 bombers alongside ROK aircraft to signal resolve in the face of the North Korean launches.

More telling, the United States and South Korea conducted the scheduled Ulchi Freedom Guardian (UFG) exercises with an increase in media focus and live-fire drills in response to DPRK tests. The large-scale exercises reportedly employed 7,500 fewer US troops than in the past, a possible effort to give US diplomats leverage with the North at the negotiating table, although Defense Secretary Mattis dismissed such suggestions.

Consistent with past objections to the joint US-ROK exercises, North Korea responded with heated rhetoric – the latest acceleration in the war of words between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and President Trump. North Korea’s Aug. 28 missile launch over Hokkaido was the most forthright of Pyongyang’s objections to the exercises and came ahead of its Sept. 9 Foundation Day celebration. Another ICBM launch may be in the offing.

US warns time of ‘strategic patience’ for North Korea is over, conducts joint military drills in South Korea

Though North Korea signaled its disdain for US-ROK exercises, it also aimed to drive a wedge between the United States and negotiation-minded South Korea, South Korea and Japan, and Japan and the US (over US diplomatic efforts). Some perceived benefit in the DPRK’s launch away from Guam – where tensions flared after Kim Jong Un’s reported consideration of a missile launch – but Japanese residents awoke to calls to take cover.

As Japanese had prepared its civil defense this summer, so too the threat by North Korea to land four missiles in its waters off Guam caused concern among that island’s residents. For a first time, the US weighed the very real possibility of a North Korean provocation in US territorial waters. Along with concerns about North Korea’s increasing use of mobile launches and nighttime testing, the threat to Guam also suggested the complexity of the US and ROK responding to multiple DPRK attacks against Guam, Japan, and South Korea.

Sad passing

While the July 4 and July 28 ICBM tests signaled new strides by the DPRK and directly challenged Washington, the death of US student Otto Warmbier, held by North Korea for more than 17 months, registered viscerally among US policy makers, legislators, and the public. At a meeting between US Special Representative Joseph Yun and the North Koreans in Oslo and via the DPRK New York Mission on June 6, North Korea advised the US that Warmbier had been in a coma for over a year and was in rapidly declining health. Yun traveled to Pyongyang and returned with Warmbier, who died a week after arriving in the US in an unresponsive condition.

President Trump appeared angry and saddened, reached out to Warmbier’s parents, and vowed accountability for DPRK actions. President Moon, a former human rights lawyer, expressed sorrow and extended sentiments from Seoul  as well. Warmbier had been sentenced by the DPRK to 15 years for stealing a propaganda banner venerating late leader Kim Jong Il. Questions remain about the circumstances surrounding Warmbier detention.

As a sign of the profound miscommunication, DPRK representatives quietly questioned why the United States was not more appreciative of the return of Wambier. For the US, securing the release of the three known US citizens in custody remains a priority. North Korea released detained Canadian pastor Hyeon Soo Lim in late July.

Travel ban and sanctions

The US State Department responded to Warmbier’s passing with a show of strength and by imposing a travel ban on US citizens visiting North Korea. Proponents of the ban call it a visible signal to Pyongyang that denies the regime tourist revenues, however limited. Opponents of the ban, which was effective Sept. 1, argue that it denies people-to-people contact, eliminating the only exchanges most North Koreans have with Americans and thereby playing to Pyongyang’s propaganda.

The ban was accompanied by a greater US push to hurt the DPRK regime financially. In early May, the US House of Representatives passed legislation aimed at tightened sanctions targeting shipping and companies doing business with Pyongyang. In August, the US Treasury announced measures aimed at Russian and Chinese facilitating DPRK weapons development. UN Security Council Resolution 2371 passed with unanimous support, signaling international condemnation of North Korea’s July ICBM tests. The measures aim to curtail one-third of North Korea’s $3 billion export economy, by banning imports of North Korean coal, iron, lead, iron and lead ore, and seafood. Following North Korea’s Sept. 3 nuclear test, suggestions arose of a cut-off in petroleum as well, a measure China and Russia have rebuffed.

Wedges and realignments

Russia and China have urged the US to open a dialogue with North Korea, seemingly in line with Moon’s proclivities. But Russia has couched its suggestion in terms of great power conflict, and in an unusual display of force sent Tu-95s into Korean airspace. South Korean and Japanese fighters escorted the Russian aircraft away, but Putin sent a political message that the US should de-escalate the crisis or see the Peninsula through the lens of greater rivalries.

China continued to push for North Korea and the US to enter negotiations and reiterated its suggestion of a trade of US-ROK exercises for a moratorium on DPRK missile tests. Beijing, which holds its 19th Party Congress beginning Oct. 18, does not want a foreign policy crisis on its doorstep at a sensitive time for domestic politics. Though displeased with DPRK missile and nuclear developments (shock waves from the latest nuclear test could be felt by Chinese across the border), Beijing values stability on the Peninsula above all else. Some see a potential shift in Seoul’s policy to one more in line with Beijing. Both Seoul and Beijing seem more intent on talks than either Washington or Tokyo. Growing South Korean concerns over Trump’s tweets, his North Korea policy, and the threats to terminate the KORUS FTA could accelerate that drift. By driving wedges into the US-Korea alliance, North Korea appears to be advancing its cause.