Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Diplomacy

Diplomacy

Sino-North Korean relationship: a rivalry in brewing?

by

By Yiming Yu

 

The Sino-DPRK relationship has arguably gradually declined (Credit Image: 38north.org)

Interactions between China and North Korea always attract attention, particularly in the time of crisis. When Song Tao, a senior Chinese diplomat, visited the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in November 2017, to inform the outcome of Communist Party’s 19th Congress, the reports on this visit raised many observers’ eyebrows because these reports remained silent on whether the envoy had met with Kim Jong-Un, the leader of DPRK. Following the visit were the reports that China has been constructing a refugee camp next to the Sino-DPRK border. These are the latest controversial developments on the Sino-DPRK relationship amid increasing possibility of military confrontation between the US and North Korea over the latter’s nuclear programme. These tensions further fuel the speculation that the Sino-DPRK relationship, after decades of close connection, has been gradually in decline.

It is widely perceived that the friendship between China and DPRK, is ironclad, and that China is the latter’s closest ally. However, there have always existed tensions during the history of this bilateral relationship. According to Shen Zhihua, one of the most prominent Chinese Cold war historians, the Chinese military’s participation in the Korean War brought frustration instead of gratitude to Kim Il-sung’s, as he has hoped to achieve greater independence, in the fear of China’s influence. Despite a warmer relationship between 1958 and 1976, China’s efforts to forge a closer relationship with the US to both promote domestic reforms and counter the USSR resulted in isolating North Korea. After the end of the Cold War, China broke the promise of not establishing formal diplomatic relationship with South Korea and this symbolized betrayal in the eyes of DRPK. These events, as believed by Shen, while accommodating China’s needs to pursue its own strategic interests – normalisation of diplomatic relations and economic reforms – also contributed to shape North Korea’s determination to develop nuclear weapons, with the goal of being capable to defend itself.

China’s attitudes towards North Korea’s behaviours violating its interests have been extraordinarily moderate in comparison with the responses to other states’ similar acts. China has shown a relatively gentle tone when some violent incidents involving hostile behaviours by North Korean troops against Chinese civilians took place. For instance, a North Korean deserter committed, such as a robbery in 2014. The year before, the DPRK authorities had captured capture a Chinese fishing boat in 2013. China’s efforts in organizing the Six-Party meeting, which enlisted participation of the US, Russia, Japan, South Korea and DPRK, to find a peaceful solution to the nuclear crisis indeed showed China’s commitment to a denuclearized Peninsula though the most recent meeting was held in 2009 before DPRK withdrew. However, in the arena of the UN Security Council, China tried hard to ease punitive sanctions on DRPK. Beijing conditioned their support to UN resolutions imposing sanctions on North Korea to the removal of the toughest proposed measures, such as a full oil embargo, from the resolution’s draft. Also, while claiming to effortlessly push for denuclearisation, China’s economic ties with the DPRK – which have accounted for 90% of the latter’s foreign trade –had been closer before 2017 with the establishments of the Guomenwan border trade zone and of new trade routes. Only in the wake of the recent sanctions in 2017 did Sino-DPRK economic relationship start to decline. The latest figures from Chinese authorities showed that as of January 2018, China’s overall trade with DPRK has fallen to the lowest level since June 2014. After the Security Council passed the latest resolution imposing oil sanctions on North Korea in last December, an oil tanker linked with China was caught smuggling oil to a North Korean ship. The PRC was subsequently accused by US President Donald Trump of being involved in illicit oil trade. It is such self-contradictory attitude that leads to doubts regarding China’s commitments to addressing North Korea’s condemned behaviours. This also indicates the dilemma between regime stability and denuclearization now faced by China, which is shaped by a long history of relationship, geopolitics and even ideology.

It is fair to suggest that, the experiences of fighting together in the Korean War and providing countless aids to North Korea amid efforts against the “US imperialism” have laid historical and ideological foundation for the Sino-North Korean relationship. Among the Chinese population, it can be observed that pro-DPRK opinions still enjoy popularity among those who endorse socialism and those who hold anti-Western beliefs. The idea of abandoning North Korea will certainly spark resistance and criticism, not only because this may symbolize renouncing a long history of friendship and self-sacrifice, but it would also indicate subordination to the US’ request.

The geopolitical value of North Korea to China has always been cited among China’s domestic audience and even policymakers as the reason to stand behind its rogue neighbour. One of the reason why Mao Zedong was willing to concede disputed border territory to DPRK, as suggested by Shen, was that he hoped the latter would become a loyal ally to China in the Cold War. A similar trend of strategic thought has prevailed afterwards. With America’s presence in South Korea and Japan, there remains in China a prominent strand of vision that should the US successfully unifies the Peninsula into a pro-US liberal democracy, American forces would subsequently be deployed at the Sino-Korean border. Furthermore, it is believed that in the potential circumstance of a collapse of Kim’s regime, the flow of refugees, armed North Korean soldiers and fissile materials may wreak havoc at the Sino-DPRK border, threatening China’s own stability.

All these factors determine China’s preference towards the stability of Kim Jong-Un’s regime. While prioritising stability of Kim’s regime, it seems China is willing to achieve this goal at the expense of denuclearization in the short term. However, China is dealing with two other actors who do not share similar visions. China understands DPRK’s security concerns and thus points finger at the US in its official stance, blaming the US for escalating tensions. According to Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the essence of tension lies in the US-DPRK relationship and Fu Ying, former Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs and currently chairing National People’s Congress Foreign Affairs Committee, claims that Washington refuses to address DPRK’s security concerns to solve the root cause of the crisis. Meanwhile, China is facing North Korea, which believes the development of nuclear weapons will independently ensure survival of the regime; and the USA which prioritises ending DPRK’s nuclear programme and which views regards DPRK’s efforts as a mean to develop offensive weapons. In other words, China, DPRK and the US fail to reach a consensus regarding the balance between regime stability and denuclearisation. With such a fundamental disagreement, it is impossible for China to achieve both a stability as well as an acceptance of DPRK as a nuclear state at the same time. If North Korea carries on developing nuclear weapons and conducting missile tests, with greater expectation from the international community and increasing possibility of US military strikes on DPRK, China will be facing greater pressure to influence Pyongyang. Even though, in reality China may not be as influential as expected. This will certainly challenge the likelihood of the Sino-DPRK relationship to remain on friendly terms. China’s strict implementation of sanctions as well as a growing displeasure over DPRK’s continuous defiance will inevitably result in deepening the latter’s resentment and insecurity.

Traditionally-prevailing opinions about the relationship with North Korea are now increasingly challenged in China. In addition to Shen, Jia Qingguo, a professor at Peking University, also surprisingly raises the point that China should prepare for the potential collapse of Kim’s regime and hence needs to cooperate with the US on a contingency plan. His opinion was harshly criticized by another Chinese scholar, Zhu Zhihua, who believes Jia’s proposals will in fact play into America and South Korea’s hands. This debate is actually a periscope of a larger argument among Chinese scholars on who should be held responsible for the current crisis and what China should do in the future, which is labelled as a left-right battle. Zhu’s opinions represent those leftists who, while supporting denuclearization, believe the US have sole responsibility in the crisis and are therefore suspicious about the US’ real intentions in solving it. In contrast, rightists in the likes of Jia believe China should reconsider or even abandon its close partnership with DPRK. While the debate does not signify any shifts in China’s policy towards DPRK, the widening room for different voices on this once-taboo subject actually echoes the ambivalence and dilemma of China’s policy towards North Korea.

The participation of North Korea in Winter Olympics held in PyeongChang, South Korea, in February and the prospect of US-DPRK talks seem to have appeased the recent tensions. However, it is too early to label these developments as a turning point. While it is certain that China and North Korea will maintain their relationship on surface, it is hard to expect whether China will continue to tolerate an increasingly out-of-control North Korea whilst the USA is still likely to maintain military pressure in the Korean Peninsula as response. With China increasingly facing the dilemmas between DPRK’s regime stability and denuclearisation process in the Peninsula, and the fact that its influence over DPRK is declining, amid outside pressure, it runs a greater risk of alienating DRPK to brew a potential rivalry.

 

Yiming Yu is currently a MA student from Conflict, Security and Development programme at King’s. His main academic interests are insurgency/counterinsurgency and peacekeeping but he has always been keeping an eye on East Asian security and China.

Image Source: https://www.38north.org/2017/09/jperson092617/

 

The Cyber Espionage Predominant Purpose Test

by

By Jessica “Zhanna” Malekos Smith

 

Credit Image: Wikimedia Commons (picture modified by the author)

While ‘spying’ may strike some as indecorous state behaviour, it is essentially akin to a bodily function, like sneezing, that is necessary to sustaining the health of the body politic.

But can international law meaningfully distinguish between cyberespionage for national security purposes and economic espionage? According to former U.S. Treasury Secretary, Henry M. Paulson, Jr. in Dealing with China, “the distinction between cyberespionage and cybertheft from a company for commercial use can become fuzzy.” This article proposes a new approach – a Cyber Espionage Predominant Purpose (CEPP) Test – to resolve international disputes concerning cyberespionage operations that involve mixed elements of national security espionage and commercial espionage.

 

But first, what exactly is the value of the CEPP Test?

In 2013 the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate announced that “France, alongside Russia and Israel, to be in a distant but respectable second place behind China in using cyberespionage for economic gain.” In comparison, according to Dr. Catherine Lotrionte, the Director of the CyberProject at Georgetown University, the U.S. does not conduct commercially motivated cyber espionage. In fact, the Obama Administration averred that a distinction exists between economic intelligence – a subset of national security espionage – and commercially motivated economic espionage.

For Drake University Law Professor Peter Yu, however, this distinction is nebulous at best: “Not only do most countries—democratic or otherwise—fail to recognize it, this line is also not always drawn in situations involving U.S. intelligence and surveillance efforts.” Yu highlights that for countries like China, the U.S.’ definitional distinction imparts little clarity here, “given the perceived “overlap between security and economic concerns” among Chinese policymakers and the continued domination of state-owned enterprises in the local business environment.”

Thus, given the distinct cultural norms embedded in distinguishing between permissible and impermissible intelligence collection, a dispute resolution framework that accounts for these disparities, as well as the complexities of attribution, is needed. The value of this test is that rather than argue for one country’s particular definition here, it enables the The International Court of Justice to holistically evaluate both parties’ views in reaching a settlement. Moreover, a bright line rule that prohibits gathering intelligence on all state-industrial entities would not be viable in China according to Yu, because it “overlook[s] the historical fact that trade secrets originated in China as a form of state secret.”

 

What is a ‘predominant purpose’ test?

In disputes over the mixed subject matter of a contract, the approach taken by U.S. courts is to analyze the overall ‘predominant purpose’ of the contract (e.g., a contract for the sale of goods or services) and apply the most fitting legal regime. The CEPP Test operates under the same principle. Here, it would require the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to evaluate the overall ‘predominant purpose’ of the alleged act of cyberespionage.

 

Wait… when and how would the ICJ apply the CEPP Test?

Pursuant to U.N. Charter Article 33: “The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.”

Drawing on this judicial settlement framework, the aggrieved state could petition the ICJ for redress and the court would examine the following three factors to determine the predominant purpose of the act of cyberespionage:

(1) The intrinsic nature of the economic information in dispute; (2) the means of acquisition and predominant application by the entity, and (3) the overall intent of the collecting entity.

If the ICJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that the act of cyberespionage was ultimately committed to confer a commercial advantage to the other state’s home industry, then an appropriate remedy would be granted to the aggrieved state.

 

Does this solve the attribution problem?

No. However, as a counter balance to the attribution problem, the test utilizes a lower evidentiary standard from civil law, a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., a showing of more than 50%), to allow the aggrieved state the opportunity to seek legal recourse from the ICJ.

The benefit of applying a lower standard of proof here, versus a heightened “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard typically applied in criminal proceedings, is that it operates as a stronger deterrent. The reason being, faced with the looming spectre of litigation and its associated costs, states that routinely engage in cyber economic espionage would face a greater cost disincentive.

But if a state believes they can remain anonymous in conducting cyber economic espionage and leverage non-attribution here, can international accords prohibiting the cyber theft of intellectual property hold any measurable deterrent effect? Indeed, a major critique of the Obama-Xi Cyber Pact of September 2015, as vocalized by the Wall Street Journal, was that it represented “a digital arms deal that is full of promises but no enforcement.”

As a result, should international law be completely jettisoned in cyberspace? To former U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine K. Albright, who described herself as an “optimist who worries a lot” at Wellesley College’s Albright Institute Symposium in January 2016, the answer would most likely be a resounding no. In Secretary Albright’s book, The Mighty and The Almighty, she reasons that while countries often do take action outside of the charter’s guidelines, “[d]espite such violations, the standards in the charter remain relevant, just as laws against murder remain relevant even though murders are still committed.”

 

Will the Trump administration reaffirm the ‘no-hack-pact’ with China?

In October 2017 the Trump administration’s Department of Justice reaffirmed the 2015 ‘no-hack-pact’ with Chinese officials.

Building off of that momentum, a pledge to uphold the “The First U.S.-China Law Enforcement and Cybersecurity Dialogue” was publicly released by the US Department of Homeland Security. Following the announcement of this pledge, however, Politico reported that the “Trump administration has not made strong public statements either way regarding the U.S.-China cyber pact despite jointly pledging with China in October to continue implementing the deal.” That aside, the cyber pact is still in effect between the two countries and has been largely positively viewed by cyber security leaders as a milestone in cyber international relations. According Dmitri Alperovitch of CrowdStrike and Christopher Porter of FireEye, this pact has been effective in reducing the amount of cyber economic espionage incidents. For Porter, ‘[i]t shows that diplomacy can be used to reduce the cyber threat to Americans” and that norm-building in cyberspace is feasible.

Building and Rebuilding International Norms in Cyberspace

Admittedly, international norms do not blossom into fully-grown gardens overnight, but diplomatic initiatives like the 2015 U.S.-China cyber pact, can help foster growth here. Thus, what the CEPP Test offers the international community is a proverbial seed, which if properly cultivated could take root in the international legal system. Ultimately, because no state is an island in cyberspace, a model that is both attentive to the attribution problem and the mixed nature of espionage operations can help promote the economic security of all.

 

This article has been updated and republished on Strife Blog with the author’s permission. It was originally published on Small Wars Journal.

Jessica “Zhanna” Malekos Smith is a M.A. candidate with King’s College London, Department of War Studies. Previously, she was a Postdoctoral Fellow with the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School. She holds a B.A. from Wellesley College, where she was a Fellow of the Madeleine Korbel Albright Institute for Global Affairs, and a J.D. from the University of California, Davis School of Law.

Image Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Party_game_with_cards.png (Wikimedia Commons)

 

 

Kim Jong-un’s Winter Charm Offensive: Another Attempt of Duping Seoul

by

By Davis Florick

 

The statues of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il in Mansu Hill, Pyongyang (Credit Image: J.A. de Roo - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia Commons)

While North Korea’s participation in the 2018 Winter Olympics and its recent government-to-government meeting with South Korean officials are both positive developments, no one should forget that Pyongyang has a long history of attempting to manipulate Seoul. On three occasions, the Kim regime pursued extensive engagement with South Korea. North Korea’s motivations for engagement meet one or more of three criteria: It feels threatened by outside events, it is in serious need of aid, or it perceives an opportunity to create tension between South Korea and the United States (US). Kim Jong-un’s efforts in the lead up to, during, and after the 2018 Olympics meet two of these three criteria. North Korea’s need for aid and sanctions relief as well as the perception that tension exists between South Korean President Moon Jae-in and US President Donald Trump explain Pyongyang’s willingness to cooperate with Seoul.

North Korea’s engagement attempts with South Korea have been motivated by extreme circumstances. First, President Nixon’s trip to China in 1972 was a dramatic moment for the Korean Peninsula. North Korea became concerned that Chinese policy shifts might cost Pyongyang a major patron. Kim Il-sung also believed the US might be retreating from East Asia, possibly leaving South Korea vulnerable. Second, the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact as well as increasing international recognition of South Korea left North Korea exceedingly vulnerable. In response, Kim Il-sung agreed to the 1992 Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, thus removing US nuclear weapons from the Peninsula and dramatically reducing the perceived threat from South Korea and its allies. Third, Kim Jong-il mainpulated Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun’s (1998-2008) Sunshine Policy to acquire needed foreign currency and aid. Kim Jong-il undoubtedly hoped that the prospect of improved relations might pull his South Korean counterparts away from the US at a time of tension between Seoul and Washington. Thus, foreign aid, regime survival, and hope that US armed forces may leave the Peninsula have motivated North Korea’s periodic, brief overtures toward the South.

Kim Jong-un has used the 2018 Winter Olympics and follow-on meetings to achieve two goals. His immediate need is food aid and sanctions relief. North Korea requires approximately five million tonnes of cereal per year. In 2017, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported rainfall during the peak growing season was at its lowest level since 2001 when cereal production was two million tonnes. The drought may be amplifying the effect of sanctions. The food distribution system, ineffective at best, is only providing three hundred grams of food per person, daily. Poor agricultural output and sanctions are likely forcing North Korea to raise quotas for its fishermen, which explains the increase in North Korean fishing vessels recovered by Japan. Since Tokyo began tracking these “ghost vessels” in 2014, the twenty-eight recovered in November is a single month record. In 2017, one hundred and four ships were recovered, nearly double the sixty-six in 2016. Like his father, Kim Jong-un is counting on the kindness of the Moon Jae-in government to feed his people and get sanction relief.

Pyongyang’s second, long-term goal is to create tension between South Korea and the US. In this context, North-South engagements since the 2018 Winter Olympics concluded are particularly worrisome. North Korea has proposed improved relations and de-nuclearization in exchange for security guarantees and direct talks with the US. The Moon Administration has eagerly embraced Kim Jong-un’s offer and is attempting to push the Trump Administration into direct talks.

There is nothing wrong with US officials talking to their North Korean counterparts, but there is serious danger in external expectations overtaking the initial purpose of bilateral dialogue. Moon Jae-in ran on a platform featuring North-South rapprochement. Improving relations with the North would likely boost his popularity in South Korea. Therefore, he will probably forcefully encourage the US to compromise with North Korea. Other parties such as China, Russia, and the Europeans may also pressure the US into accommodating North Korea.

With the international community expecting the US to compromise, Kim Jong-un probably hopes he can replicate the outcomes from the Sunshine Policy era. North Korea will limit concessions while relying on others, particularly South Korea, to pressure the US. Similar to the Sunshine Policy era, Seoul’s desire for progress toward reunification and Washington’s reluctance toward policies it perceives as appeasing the Kim’s could create US-South Korea tension. Exacerbating the possibility of US-South Korea friction is the perceived personal animosity between Moon Jae-in and Donald Trump. If taken to its extreme and to some extent based on President Trump’s own campaign rhetoric suggesting leaving the Korean Peninsula, Kim Jong-un may hope that North-South rapprochement will set events in motion creating irrevocable tension between Seoul and Washington.

While it may seem unlikely, North Korea wants tension between South Korea and the US to lead to US forces leaving the Peninsula. Pyongyang has repeatedly made this request in the past, because its leadership views the removal of US forces as the key to reunifying the peninsula. Without the US military presence, the Kim regime believes South Korea lacks conviction and, therefore, is vulnerable. Since 1953, Pyongyang has argued that US forces saved South Korea’s oppressive puppet regime in Seoul during the Korean War and that the South Korean people would rebel against that government if it were not propped up thanks to Washington’s support.

Although aid, sanctions relief, and exacerbating US-South Korea tension are likely primary factors shaping Kim Jong-un’s decision making, there are other considerations as well. Given its ability to control internal messaging and the goodwill attending the Winter Olympics engendered, North Korean participation probably had few drawbacks. Similarly, its willingness to talk with the South Koreans may demonstrate to patrons in China and Russia that Pyongyang is making an effort – thus sanctions should be eased – even if nothing comes from dialogue. Recognizing these factors is important, but only reinforces the need for approaching North Korea with caution.

Kim regime policies are always predicated upon self-interest. History has shown that North Korea only engages with South Korea and the US when it believes there is an opening that it can manipulate. Flushed with success and optimism from the 2018 Winter Olympics, Seoul’s dialogue with Pyongyang and encouraging US-North Korea bilateral talks is playing right into Kim Jong-un’s hands. North Korean overtures are intended to entice South Korean officials and create division between Seoul and Washington. Kim Jong-un is trying to replicate the conditions and outcomes of the Sunshine Policy era while hoping that perceived tension between Presidents Trump and Moon will separate the US and South Korea more than during the early 2000s. While reunification is a worthy pursuit, South Korean and US officials must recognize that Kim Jong-un will never move down this path unless it is on his terms.

 

Davis Florick is a James A. Kelly Non-resident Fellow with the Pacific Forum and a Senior Fellow with the Human Security Centre. Mr. Florick earned his master’s degree in East-West Studies from Creighton University and is completing a War Studies master’s degree at King’s College London.

Image Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=21244159

Strife Series on National Perspectives in North-East Asian Rivalries, Part I – The view from Pyongyang

by

By Ashley Ryan

 

Kim Jong-un is primarily interested in the dynasty’s survival, like his father and his grand-father before him ( Credit: CC0 Creative Commons)

 

The view from Pyongyang is fundamentally different than that of the West. Pyongyang has not only a more monolithic perspective than that of London or Washington (the natural consequence of any dictatorship), it is a culturally and qualitatively dissimilar viewpoint. In order to analyse the outlook of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), however, it is first necessary to understand the mindset of its leader, Kim Jong-un. For all the American bombast about Kim being crazy, there is widespread acknowledgement amongst senior Western officials that he is, in fact, quite sane. For instance, a high-ranking CIA representative confirmed that Kim is a ‘very rational actor’. This means that Kim’s actions are more predictable (and more influenceable by the actions or inactions of the international community) than they would otherwise seem to be. Why is this so?

The Kim dynasty is largely interested in its own survival. Beyond this, the culture of the country dictates that the concept of ‘face’ is essential, and this feeds into how the DPRK relates to other countries and how it engages in diplomacy. For example, it has been noted that during the far-right violence in America (in Charlottesville, Virginia) that took place in August 2017, the DPRK was notably quiet, despite escalating rhetoric concerning Guam in the preceding weeks. It has been suggested that this sudden de-escalation occurred, at least in part, because it enabled Kim to save face while stepping back from the brinkmanship in which he had been engaged. In all likelihood, the DPRK never intended to follow through on its bellicose statements about Guam, but after US President Donald Trump had responded aggressively to the DPRK’s threats, Kim may have felt he did not have the option to back down from ‘American intimidation’ without losing face in the eyes of his citizens. A significant loss of face could work to delegitimise the Kim family’s claim to special authority over the nation and, ultimately, it could thereby leave their dynasty open to challenge and overthrow. It would be wise for Western leaders to note this ratchet effect, which can occur during particularly tense moments, as well as the release mechanism which allowed rapid de-escalation. This phenomenon should be taken into account in future negotiations.

The DPRK sees a world in which imperialist powers loom threateningly, a narrative which has unfortunately been strengthened in the mind of Kim Jong-un over recent months, not least by Trump’s bellicose rhetoric . No doubt intended as a deterrent, Trump’s comments instead served to confirm Kim’s fears – that he is, or will soon be, an American target for regime change. For example, in May 2017, Pyongyang claimed they had foiled a CIA ‘biochemical plot’ to assassinate Kim (although commentators noted it was possible this was an internal coup attempt, expediently ascribed to America). In either case, Kim seems genuinely concerned about the possibility of an assassination, and in February he took on some ex-KGB agents to advise and train his bodyguards. The South Korean intelligence agency has described Kim as ‘extremely nervous’ about the possibility that he may be assassinated in a ‘decapitation operation’. Reinforcing his concerns, it has been reported that the US Navy’s Seal Team Six (who conducted the raid in which Osama bin Laden was killed) trained alongside South Korean special forces in March 2017 in order to practice a surgical strike on Kim in the event of war.

More importantly, Kim has taken careful note of the fates of Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. According to an ex-CIA analyst, the lesson Kim has taken from these scenarios is that, until he has significant nuclear power of his own, he will remain vulnerable to the vagaries of Western decision-making about whether or not he should remain in power. State media in the DPRK also makes reference to this idea. The annual military exercises (Foal Eagle and Key Resolve) between America and South Korea do nothing to dispel tensions, particularly as Pyongyang fears that the drills will one day be used as cover to achieve the element of surprise in an invasion. Also, Kim feels he is under significant time pressure to achieve military independence. Currently, in the event of the DPRK being attacked, China is bound to act in their defence per the terms of the Sino-DPRK Treaty of 1961, which was most recently renewed in 2001 (but is due to expire in 2021). Recent diplomatic signalling, however, has shown China may already be reluctant to defend the DPRK – and is therefore unlikely to renew the treaty beyond 2021. Also, Kim likely feels the proximity of American allies and weapons (including South Korea, Japan and the US military base on Guam) all too keenly. In all probability, he believes that if the DPRK is not a militarily independent nuclear power by the end of the next four years, the Kim dynasty – and therefore the DPRK – will be at imminent risk of an American (or American-backed) attack.

This time pressure is underpinned by the national ideology of the DPRK, juche (self-reliance), which is both political and religious in character. Juche means that Kim is understood as the embodiment of God by his people, rendering the ideas of religious and political leadership inseparable. Various commentators have argued about the extent to which North Koreans actually believe this, but it nonetheless seems clear that Kim, at least, sees himself as the rightful authority over all Koreans (reintegration of North and South Korea is essential to the idea of juche). Indeed, under this system Kim is positioned as the rightful saviour of humanity and civilisation. This concept may sound oddly familiar, and it should, because it mirrors the fundamental notions of American exceptionalism. The real danger in the war of words between Kim and Trump, then, is that both men arguably believe that they are the saviour of their people, and that their nations are the proverbial shining city upon a hill for the rest of humanity.

Juche, however, is also about practical things. At its core, juche aims to ensure the sovereign independence of the nation by ensuring it does not need economic, military or other links with other nations in order to function successfully. Another important idea in the DPRK is byungjin (parallel advance), which pursues nuclear weapons on the basis that – once an effective nuclear deterrent has been generated – the fiscal savings achieved can be used to benefit the nation. These ideas underpin Kim’s strategy of nuclear development, and can be seen in the symbolic name of one of his latest test missiles – the Juche Bird.

The so-called ‘provocation cycle’ that the DPRK go through when testing new missiles is, perhaps, a strategy designed to intentionally worry the international community – after all, domestically speaking, it legitimises Kim’s massive military spending and gives him greater political authority. Ultimately, though, the cause of this military build-up is simply that Pyongyang is wrestling with the same security dilemma that all states must confront. Kim, quite rationally, fears his own assassination or overthrow. He sees America as the primary threat, notes his geographical proximity to various American allies – and sees nuclear weapons as the only functional deterrent. In the contemporary world, and considering Trump’s hawkish stance, he may not be entirely wrong about that.

 

Ashley, an undergraduate in the War Studies BA programme at King’s College London, has research interests including military history, defence and security. She was awarded Third (Equal) Prize in RUSI’s 2016 Trench Gascoigne Essay Prize competition. She also is the founder the Shield blog, which focuses on defence and security analysis (https://shieldblog.com).

Image Source: https://pixabay.com/en/north-korea-kim-jong-un-2972195/

Libya’s civil war & the importance of strategic sequencing

by

By: Robert Andrea

Secretary_Kerry_Sits_With_Italian_Foreign_Minister_Gentiloni_and_UN_Special_Representative_for_Libya_Kobler_at_the_Italian_Foreign_Ministry_in_Rome_(23090680244)
US Secretary of State John Kerry at a 2015 meeting for the future of Libya in Rome. Source: Wikimedia

One of the most overlooked aspects in strategic deliberations is that of sequencing. It is much more common for the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of a policy to receive the lion’s share of analysis. Despite this, the order in which the segments of a strategy are implemented can often be just as important. And while this may not always be the case, the cost of not giving due consideration to sequence can be painfully high. The ongoing Libyan Civil War provides a contemporary case study into how important sequencing can end up being in the pursuit of strategic interests.

Concerning Libya

In the immediate term, Western states appear to see (based on the different types of policy approaches on the table) two broadly defined interests in Libya. One is resolving the civil war that has been ongoing since 2014. The second is counterterrorism, primarily with regard to the increasing presence in Libya of the so-called Islamic State, but also of groups like the AQ-linked Ansar al-Sharia.

In terms of the civil war, the international community (particularly the United States and European Union) is committed to a diplomatic resolution of the conflict via the UN-led peace process. Dealing with the counterterrorism issue, on the other hand, will almost definitely involve a more kinetic approach.

Without the proper sequencing of these respective policies, however, neither issue will be solved effectively. Worse still, the situation on the ground would likely deteriorate significantly if the major actors fail to appreciate this.

Civil war

Following the overthrow of Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi by NATO-backed rebels in 2011, Libya has struggled to rebuild effective state institutions, culminating in another civil war in 2014. This current conflict has essentially been fought between two rival entities - both claiming to be the legitimate government of Libya – each with their respective loyalists.

On one hand, there is the General National Congress. Often referred to as the Tripoli government or the Libya Dawn Coalition, the General National Congress (GNC) is comprised largely of Islamist militias and political blocs including the Justice and Construction party – considered by some to be the Libyan branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The GNC and its allied militias are backed by Qatar, Turkey, and Sudan.

The rival of the GNC is the Tobruk-based House of Representatives, alternatively known as the Council of Deputies or the Tobruk government. Comprised of supposedly secular-leaning opponents of the Islamist-dominated GNC, the House of Representatives (HoR) is internationally recognized as the legitimate elected government of Libya. The HoR also maintains the loyalty of General Khalifa Haftar and his loyalists in the Libyan National Army.

In an effort to end hostilities, a U.N.-led diplomatic effort has produced a roadmap towards reconciliation.

In January of this year, a Government of National Accord (GNA) was announced, which, it is hoped, will unite the warring factions. For security reasons, the GNA (led by chairman and prime minister Fayez al-Sarraj) was not able to enter Libya until 30 March of this year, when he landed in Tripoli. In a somewhat surprising move, the Tripoli-based GNC announced shortly thereafter that it would remove itself from power in favor of the U.N.-backed unity government.

As of yet, the HoR has not ratified the agreement, as certain clauses would call for Haftar to step down as their army chief.

New place. Same threat. Same policy.

Taking advantage of the chaos during the civil war, the Islamic State has managed to establish a major foothold in Libya. This presence includes, but is not limited to, control of the coastal city Sirte. Increasingly concerned about these developments, Western states have been mulling more direct military options to combat the growing jihadist threat in Libya.

Earlier this year, a U.S. airstrike against an Islamic State camp in Sabratha, western Libya, killed around 50 people, including Noureddine Chouchane. Chouchane is thought to have been a key player in the two attacks last year targeting a museum and a beach resort in Tunisia. The attacks have been claimed by the Islamic State. However, this was a fairly isolated operation and there has yet to be a sustained Western airstrike programme conducted in Libya.

In terms of ground forces, part of the agreement that led to the GNA includes plans for an Italian-led multinational force of 6,000 troops to be deployed to Libya. It is still unclear what part of that force will be specifically devoted to counterterrorist operations and, for now, it is still a theoretical force. There doesn’t appear to be any reports of conventional Western troops actually in Libya currently, though multiple reports do place U.S., U.K., and French special operations forces in the country.

The foregoing reveals nothing to suggest that the counterterrorism programme in Libya will consist of anything tactically different than the ones implemented (mostly by the United States) in places like Yemen, Syria, or Somalia: Drone/airstrikes as well as occasional direct action raids by special operations forces (SOF). As we have learned time and time again though, airstrikes and SOF operations alone are usually insufficient in countering jihadist insurgencies. In the absence of a sizeable deployment of conventional Western troops, partnership with local ground forces would additionally be required to make these airstrike/SOF programmes effective.

If examined purely at a tactical level, the disparate nature of the two policies (conflict resolution and counterterrorism) would theoretically allow them to be pursued concurrently. That would be a very serious mistake - doing so would essentially ignore sequencing considerations and would likely end in catastrophe.

Enter the role of sequencing

It is critical to the long term effectiveness of both the political solution to the civil war and the West’s counterterrorism programme in Libya that the diplomatic portion of the strategy be conducted first. Only after the civil war has ended and the Libyan factions reach a modicum of unity, should counterterrorist operations against the Islamic State and other groups begin.

Without reaching a settlement to the civil war first, there will not be a single unified Libyan state to serve as a local military partner to foreign-led counterterrorism efforts. Rather, the prevailing status of a martially factionalized Libya would be the environment in which these counterterrorism operations would have to take place. In such a situation, the West would probably be forced to pick a side in the domestic conflict to act as its partner. This would undoubtedly result in an even more protracted civil war. Only now, it would be a civil war in which Western forces might find themselves as a target.

In the event of such a scenario, it’s more than likely that the Western powers would choose to side with the HoR and, specifically, Haftar over the GNC. For one, the HoR and Haftar are favoured by close partners of the West in the Middle East, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. Furthermore, the Libyan National Army, under the command of Haftar, has proven to be the most capable fighting force in the country and has already shown a willingness to fight the Islamic State.

However, Haftar is also predisposed to fighting Islamists in general. This includes the Islamist-dominated GNC, which he labels (in its entirety) as terrorists. A foreign intervention siding with their chief rival would almost assuredly incense and seriously threaten the GNC.

Not only would this be a death blow to the diplomatic efforts towards national reconciliation, it would also seriously hamper counterterrorism operations. If they were to feel threatened by an HoR backed with Western military support, it is more than conceivable that some of the more hardline elements in the GNC might make common cause with the very jihadist organisations being targeted. This should not be viewed as a hypothetical. Certain GNC-aligned elements already cooperate from time to time with these jihadist groups.

Take the Benghazi Revolutionary Shura Council as an example. The Benghazi Revolutionary Shura Council (BRSC) is one of the primary elements fighting Haftar’s forces in the east and has often allied with the GNC. Comprised of multiple Islamist militias, the BRSC is led by Ansar al-Sharia in Libya (ASL). Both ASL, the group behind the 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, and the BRSC at large have periodically cooperated with the Islamic State against Haftar’s forces.

This places the GNC only one degree of separation away from the Islamic State. This is not to say that in the event of a foreign counterterrorism intervention that the GNC would swear the bay’ah to the caliphate en masse. It is entirely plausible however, that at least some of these forces decide to enhance their level of cooperation with the Islamic State if they were to perceive the West’s backing of their arch rival, Haftar, as a threat.

Such a strategic blunder would leave foreign counterterrorism forces facing an already capable enemy, but now potentially reinforced with thousands of new fighters.

If the aforementioned scenario were to occur, the chances for a political settlement to the Libyan Civil War would evaporate almost instantly and the jihadist threat that Libya already poses to the West (particularly to Europe) would increase drastically. Or, to put it succinctly: It would be an unmitigated strategic failure for the West.

To their credit, both the Western states and the U.N.-supported unity government are trying their best to properly sequence their strategies in Libya. Italy, who will be leading the eventual international troop deployment, has said it will refuse to lead the operation until the GNA is ratified by all parties and the Libyan military command structure is clarified. Even more recently, the GNA itself called on all military factions to hold off on any military operation against Sirte until a unified military structure is established.

So it would seem that, for now, the policymakers handling the Libya file in the West are aware of the importance of taking sequence into account.

Conclusion

All of this is not to say that utilising proper sequencing will guarantee success in Libya. The road ahead contains a veritable minefield of challenges to reaching some semblance of stability. In such a complicated political and security landscape, there is nothing to say that the peace process and/or counterterrorism operations in Libya might not face serious challenges in the future. That said, while sequencing might not be the most stimulating aspect of policy analysis, as we see in the case of the Libyan Civil War, failure to fully appreciate its necessity could lead to disastrous consequences.

 

 

Robert Andrea is an incoming MA student in War Studies at King’s College London. His research interests include U.S. and Iranian foreign policy, diplomatic strategy, and proxy warfare. He can be found on Twitter at @Bob__Andrea