The Need for a Regional Security Regime in NortheastAsia

By Dr.Tytti Er?st?

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute,Sweden

Unlike most other regions,Northeast Asia remains largely devoid of mechanisms for political and security dialogue and regional cooperation.The recent convening of summit meetings between the leaders of North and South Korea and the United States and North Korea arguably present opportunities to address this problem.

At the recent US-DPRK summit on 12 June,the leaders of the two countries committed themselves to ambitious goals that have long evaded diplomatic efforts,notably the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and US security guarantees to North Korea.This development—as well as prior steps that preceded it,such as the Panmunjom declaration in April—signals a significant increase of political will in both Koreas and the United States to tackle the conflict that has been unresolved for over half a century.

While historic,this process is not unprecedented:similar commitments were made in connection with the 1993 US-DPRK Joint Statement,which led to the 1994 Agreed Framework. The Panmunjom declaration should also be seen in the light of North-South joint declarations adopted in June 2000 and October 2007,as well as the 2005 Joint Declaration in connection with the Six-Party Talks.

While the summit has set the stage for a new attempt at diplomacy,many uncertainties remain related to practical implementation and the sustainability of political momentum over time.The personalities of the two leaders have played such a major role in the initial steps towards reconciliation further highlight the vulnerability of the process.These uncertainties stress the need to place the nascent bi-and tri-lateral conflict resolution process on a firmer,multilateral footing that would be less vulnerable to sudden political shifts.

Given the central role of the United States in North Korea’s threat perceptions,denuclearization essentially depends on assurances that neither the current nor future US governments will attack North Korea or seek a regime change in the country.The parties seem to have in principle recognized the need for this basic bargain;the letter signed by the two leaders on 12 June reportedly states that“President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong-un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula”.1This is a major achievement in its own right,but negotiating the details and time-frame can be expected to be a complex and a long process,fraught with potential obstacles.

Arguably,however,the biggest challenge is to establish trust that this bargain will be respected by both sides.In addition to the deep mutual distrust built over the years of enmity and diplomatic failures(including the fact that North Korea broke its previous denuclearization commitments),the credibility problem is currently accentuated by President Trump’s demonstrated readiness to walk away from international agreements,including the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.Recalling the dangerous rhetorical escalation and heightened risk of war that preceded the more recent diplomatic overtures,there is a constant risk of regression to that previous dynamic.

Indeed,the big question now concerns the sustainability of the recent positive developments.Could they lead to a stable political-military forum for a longer-term dialogue on critical issues related to regional security and stability?Or will they instead turn out to be a build-up to a diplomatic break-down?

Both regional and extra-regional actors should support the precarious trust-building process between North Korea and the United States,first,by stepping in when necessary to defuse any tensions that might arise in the course of US-DPRK negotiations—in a similar manner as South Korean mediation helped the parties get back to the diplomatic track after President Trump’s May decision to cancel the US-DPRK summit.

If the political momentum for dialogue lasts,there is also an important role for other countries to play in the actual negotiations.For example,the question of denuclearization is inherently linked with the process of concluding a treaty ending the Korean War,even though the sequencing of these two objectives remains a major point of controversy.As far as negotiation of a peace treaty becomes tied to denuclearization,this would require both South Korean and Chinese involvement in the negotiations(China being one of the signatories of the 1953 armistice agreement).

As for other actors,they should provide support for the denuclearization and peace-building process on the Korean peninsula,and-in the case of Japan-establish diplomatic relations with the North Korean government.The long-term goal,however,should be more ambitious,namely the creation of a regional security mechanism that would allow the countries in North-East Asia to reduce tensions and address disputes according to mutually agreed principles,or a code of conduct.The groundwork for such a mechanism could be laid in parallel with the talks on denuclearization—possibly based on the precedent set by the Six Party Talks.This might also help to include other regional actors in the process,increasing their sense of ownership and ensuring that their perspectives are taken into account.

Here it should be stressed that the nuclear issue—which now seems like the main source of tensions in Northeast Asia—is a symptom of a protracted conflict between North Korea,on the one hand,and the United States and its regional allies,on the other.This conflict has persisted over half a century in the absence of any regional security mechanisms—apart from bilateral and exclusive military alliances,which have further contributed to the problem.

The recent inter-Korean diplomacy and the US-DPRK summit thus stress the need,and simultaneously provide an opportunity for,the creation of an alternative security mechanism.While ad hoc arrangements towards that end might be the most practicable in the immediate future,the ultimate goal should be the development of a regional security regime based on inclusiveness and the principle of cooperative security.

To be sure,such a regime does not necessarily mean a cohesive community with shared institutions and strategic values—which would arguably be unrealistic in the Northeast Asian context.Rather,a regional security regime means an agreement among regional actors“that they will adhere to a set of norms regarding their relations with each other,and that they will settle their disputes in a certain way—most importantly,without recourse to or the threat of violence.”2

While the post-war European experience with the Helsinki process—including a region-wide conference leading to the endorsement of a non-binding document outlining shared principles and,subsequently,the institutionalization of the conference into an organization—provides one model,regional security regimes come in different shapes and can also be highly informal in nature.

A collective recognition among regional actors that the status quo is too precarious could create the political will needed to lay the groundwork for such a regime.In fact,its creation would not have to start from scratch;the already-existing regional processes and organizations—specifically, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF); the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO);and the Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative (NAPCI), and possibly the Ulaanbaatar Dialogue on Northeast Asia Security—provide useful elements for a security regime.

Finally,the countries in the region could also begin to explore the idea of a Northeast Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone(NWFZ),comprised of the two Koreas and Japan.A treaty establishing such a zone—which would include negative security assurances by China,Russia and the United States—could add a significant amount of credibility to US security guarantees to North Korea by tying them into a multilateral treaty framework.At the same time,the establishment of NWFZ would contribute to the development of a regional security regime by introducing shared norms and reciprocal commitments related to one of the hardest security issues.

Footnotes:

1.“Trump and Kim's joint statement”Reuters 12 June 2018

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-agreement-text/trump-and-kims-joint-statement-i dUSKBN1J80IU

2.Towards a Regional Security Regime for the Middle East:Issues and Options,SIPRI Middle East Expert Group report 2011 https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/files/misc/SIPRI2011Jones.pdf