The DPRK: Clinton, Sanders, and Kim
It is hard to believe that a nation whose previous supreme leader had a penchant for binging on sushi, McDonald’s, and Hennessy could pose any serious threat to other countries. Yet the bizarre “hermit kingdom” of North Korea greatly complicates US foreign policy in East Asia, and if recent history is any guide, the next president of the United States will eventually have to grapple with problems posed by Kim Jong-Un.
The newest wave of these problems already appear to have begun. This year, North Korea has conducted three illicit ballistics tests in as many months. The first test on January 6 was most likely the detonation of an enhanced fission weapon (not a hydrogen bomb, as North Korea claimed). No one, including North Korean ally China, knew the test was coming, and neighbors Japan and South Korea reacted with outrage. A few weeks later, in February, the North Koreans launched the Kwangmyongsong-4 satellite, again drawing severe condemnation from its neighbors and the US. Both the nuclear test and the satellite launch violated limits on North Korea’s weapons program that existing international sanctions seek to enforce.
As punishment for these two tests, the United Nations unanimously approved new sanctions earlier this month. Hours later, North Korea launched six projectiles—either rockets or guided missiles—east into the Sea of Japan in an apparent show of defiance. North Korea is ready to play the lead role in yet another transnational nuclear drama.
The North Korea issue is a crystallization of numerous challenges facing the US in East Asia. Dealing with North Korea requires dealing with all the major players in the region, especially China, and it requires doing so in a manner that assures our allies that we can defend their interests. Perceived weakness in American policy towards North Korea could dangerously weaken these allies’ faith in America’s ability to protect them from an increasingly assertive Beijing. In short, how the US manages the North Korea issue reflects and determines how the US can manage East Asia as a whole.
With this dynamic in mind, after the nuclear test in January many commentators slammed the Obama administration’s so-called “strategic patience” doctrine as woefully inadequate. The strategic patience doctrine involves a hands-off approach, refusing to engage with North Korea and wagering that the US could afford to wait until Kim Jong-Un came back to the negotiating table on his own. For the Democrats running in the wake of the Obama presidency, Kim Jong-Un’s brazen missile, rocket, and satellite launches could soon turn into a thorny issue.
How, then, do Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders differ regarding North Korea? Overall, initial indicators suggest that Clinton is on much better footing than her underdog rival from Vermont.
The stakes are obviously high for Clinton, who has fastened herself to Obama’s foreign policy legacy. Clinton’s policy proposals convey several solid goals: to pressure China, to punish North Korea with sanctions, and to increase allied missile defense in East Asia. In a sign of continuity with Obama’s current policies, South Korean and US officials met in February to discuss potential South Korean imports of American missile and air defense systems. The UN Security Council’s sanctions have also just been implemented, triggering the latest round of missile launches from the North.
If Clinton intends to continue these policies, she will need to engage with China. The Chinese expressed serious reservations over the import of US weapons systems to South Korea, and South Korea bluntly admonished them to mind their own business. The next president will need to ensure South Korea will have access to the defense systems need to guarantee its security even if Beijing is opposed, while simultaneously pressuring China to actually enforce sanctions against North Korea if need be.
The powers that be in Beijing certainly know of Clinton, who was an adamant critic of the People’s Republic’s foreign policy and human rights violations even before becoming secretary of state. Past presidents who have run on strong rhetoric against China, including Reagan and even former President Clinton, have promptly yielded to other extenuating geopolitical concerns once elected. However, Chinese officials worry that Clinton may take a much harder line. Considering past presidencies’ lack of progress vis-à-vis China and North Korea, a tougher hand could be the key to breaking the status quo cycle of nuclearized tantrums emanating from the Korean Peninsula.
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has been more taciturn regarding North Korea, and while it is no secret that foreign policy is not his forte, his reluctance to confront the problems on the Korean Peninsula is worrisome. Sanders recognizes the importance of North Korea. In fact, in the debate just before the New Hampshire primary, whereas Clinton identified Russia as the biggest threat to US national security, Sanders chose North Korea. Clinton’s answer keeps with the general consensus of the Washington foreign policy intelligentsia, but Sanders’ answer was far less orthodox. Yet despite his worries, Sanders missed a vote to institute sanctions against North Korea in February and makes little mention of Asia in his foreign policy platform. The sole suggestion he has publicly made with regards to North Korea involves pressuring China to act, just as he insists the Saudis must shoulder more of the burden in the fight against ISIS.
Pressuring China, however, will only go so far; the Chinese have a long-standing interest in maintaining what they see as a vital buffer state between China and South Korea, no matter how unruly that buffer may be. In reality, either Clinton and Sanders, or any US president, will only be able to do so much to alter the status quo on the peninsula. Yet Clinton’s emphasis on sanctions and missile defense is nonetheless necessary to maintain the United States’s current influence in both Korea and East Asia, which countries from Taiwan to Japan view as preferable to Chinese hegemony. These countries’ citizens strongly prefer ties with the US over ties with China. Hillary Clinton’s stronger, concrete policy proposals and record of willingness to face China suggest that she is the candidate more likely to handle the North Korean dilemma well.
The image featured in this article was taken by the Guardian. The original image can be found here.
