The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), a newly “declared nuclear weapon state,” has been for decades considered a threat to international stability as well as to the international security environment. Its growing nuclear response to the outside aggression is very much evident in the international arena. It is to emphasise that the DPRK is a nuclear-ambitious state and has been in a process of acquiring nuclear weapons since after the Korean War of 1950. With time, its ambitions got stronger and it developed itself as a nuclear weapon state despite facing severe international backlash and harsh economic sanctions, which almost toppled the economic background of the state. Its behaviour is often marked as defiant and has very much been recoded throughout the decades, but the reasons behind its nuclear option are still not very much highlighted and ignorant.
The DPRK’s potential nuclear threats are reflected as harming the stability and the already existing balance of the world order. The United States of America and its non-proliferation policy towards Pyongyang almost failed to counter the nuclear ambitions of the state. But, on the other hand, its growing challenges are actually the response to “harsh US policies” and discriminatory attitudes towards fewer nuclear-aspiring states while extending support to the others. The Washington’s non-proliferation policy regarding its strategic allies, including India and Israel, calls its global non-proliferation commitments into question. It is well-known by the nation-states that India and Israel are two nuclear weapon states, but the United States nonproliferation policies and commitments depict various gaps in dealing with all the nuclear weapon states evenly.
Moreover, nuclear proliferation is dangerous to human security and might be disastrous for the global environment, and in this regard, the United States policy commitments to prevent the nuclear risks from across the world should serve better and uniformly as its theoretical non-proliferation assurances, but it has been seen completely in a position on the other side. The Washington’s overlooking the nuclear proliferation of its allied states and pinpointing the others and hitting them with economic sanctions is contributing to the international political instability and giving rise to allegations and war of words amid states.
Additionally, the United States blind support towards fewer states having nuclear weapons and not being part of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) is not being questioned by the international community and the United States of America, but similar actions by other states have been taken as bringing instability to international security. As well, the United States maintains variations in its non-proliferation policy, which are majorly creating provocations in other states. It is to focus that its threatening military exercises with allies and pressure policies often lead the nations toward strengthening their defence policies. The increasingly threatening policies of Washington have created unstable global political scenarios unhealthy for the world’s security as well as for the balance of the world order.
The Washington and Seoul’s joint military exercises on the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) are considered aggressive towards the DPRK’s state sovereignty. The security dilemma DPRK dealt with might be a major incentive giving rise to its nuclear deterrence as well; the harsh US policies in dealing with the nuclear-sensitive states like DPRK are what give threats to the international political stability. It is sufficiently great to counter the misbalances prevailing around the world and bring stability in the environment, but for that, a general agreement and a consensus are required amid states to prevent disruption of peace and stability from across the world.
In addition to this, the US focus on the “complete denuclearisation” of the DPRK through a carrot-and-stick approach has exacerbated the situation. Also, the definition of “denuclearisation” has not been clearly defined by Washington and Pyongyang. To the United States, it is characterised as the complete giving up on its nuclear weapons program despite its security issues, and for the DPRK, it is just getting the sanctions relief without giving up on its nuclear ambitions. Also, the economic sanctions and international pressure to avert nuclear designs of the DPRK had opposite effects on the state, and it went ahead with its dangerous ambitions in an intense manner. Also, the DPRK is capable of intercontinental ballistic missiles with a range to reach the United States’ mainland, which resulted in a promise to “fiercer military responses” to Washington boosting its security presence in the region.
Further, for decades, Washington’s officials have euphemistically spoken about the DPRK’s missile launches and missile defeats. The US has always believed in attacking the nuclear forces of adversaries before its missiles can fly. These threats paved the way for a more resilient attitude of the DPRK. The case with the DPRK has been found much different as compared to other states, including Iraq, Libya, etc., where the defiance and non-compliance with the global non-proliferation norms were countered with hard power. Currently, Pyongyang sets a new daily record of missile launches, and according to US officials, the state of the DPRK is all set to conduct a nuclear test. The developments made in the DPRK’s nuclear doctrine are less noticed and less proclaimed.
Besides, the DPRK back in September 2022 has revised its 2013 nuclear law and declared that it will respond to every attack against its nuclear command and control system by launching a nuclear strike “immediately and automatically.” It could lead to the DPRK initiating a nuclear war that might be based on a false warning. It also so often warns of “nuclear response” to the “US aggression.” The stronger nuclear deterrence has been created by the state of DPRK, as well as its enhanced nuclear capabilities, and aims to have the “world’s strongest nuclear force” that might not be countered by the hard power of the centralised authority of the international world but with soft power, including negotiations and mediations. Belligerent designed strategies might not work with the DPRK but provoke it.
The United States pressure policy towards the DPRK has, till today, resulted in provocations that might, in the future, end up dismantling the international structure. The uncertainty created with the potential nuclear threats of the DPRK and US policies is becoming challenging to international security. The previously existing stability seemed to be pulling apart recently due to the power politics. In addition, the disturbed global political environment has been raised due to the contributing factors arising from both states, including Washington and Pyongyang. A diplomatic engagement leading to sustainable peace is required among states in order to avoid the destabilising actions prevailing across the globe and maintain stable international political surroundings.
Comments
Post a Comment