North Korea: The New, Old Crisis

Recently, concerns about North Korea and its nuclear program have begun to reemerge in the spotlight since its being overshadowed by the “war on terrorism”. On June 20th, the US and South Korea announced that they believe that North Korea is preparing to test a long range missile called the Taepodong-2.

Although the details are still sketchy, the missile is being reported to be a two or three-stage ballistic missile, have around a 1000 kg payload, and have a range of between 3000 and 7000 km, thereby bringing Alaska, Hawaii and portions of the American west coast within the range of North Korea.

Additionally, the accuracy of the Taepodong-2 is being questioned. It is being claimed that according to intelligence reports coming out of South Korea the missile has been mounted on a launch platform and that fuel tanks have been spotted around it (although it had been admitted by both the US and South Korea that is unclear from the photos whether or not the missile is being fueled up).

In response, the US is in the process of deploying advanced interceptor missiles on American bases in Japan. According to a Japanese newspaper (Yomiuri Shimbun), the US is planning to deploy four missiles, three of which will be deployed in Okinawa. Also, according to the Guardian the Shiloh, a US destroyer equipped with a ‘standard missile-3 interceptor’ was successfully tested last week and would be deployed to Japanese waters.

However, the efficacy of the interceptor missiles themselves is in doubt, according to the Washington Post.

The last time North Korea tested a long range missile was in 1998 when it fired a two-stage Taepodong-1 missile over Japan, after which it declared a moratorium on the testing of long-range missiles. This was later rescinded.

Although an enormous amount of ink has been spilled over the capabilities and motives of both sides, (Reuters reporting three separate and escalating estimates of N. Korea’s nuclear capacity is but one instance), the US administration admitted that the situation remains deeply ambiguous. In a statement yesterday, President Bush said:

"The North Koreans should notify the world of their intentions, what they have on top of that vehicle," Bush said. "So we don't know, we don't know, that's part of the problem; it's a non-transparent society that ought to be sharing its intentions with the rest of the world.”

and

"It should make people nervous when non-transparent regimes, that have announced that they've got nuclear warheads, fire missiles… This is not the way that peaceful nations conduct their affairs."

Various statements and analyses make use of ‘’likely” and “credible” threats, ‘known unknowns’ of various magnitudes. However, currently it is the non-transparency of events that dominates the discourse in place of a known threat. Although it is reported that N. Korea has agreed to enter into talks and President Bush stressed diplomacy, that the US has also undertaken two separate deployments of interceptor missiles demonstrates how much emphasis is laid on the unknown as a risk factor.

- Cynthia Beckolay and Jessica R.