hankyoreh

By Shin Jin-wook, social science professor at Chung-Ang University

Tensions with North Korea are continuing. While things may appear tranquil on the surface, anxiety is spreading. The uncertainty that people face is not caused by the imminence of war, but rather by the difficulty of determining how great the threat of war is. The key to this situation is “risk.” Risk refers to a situation when it is not clear how real a threat is. It is hard to feel confident about whether to act under the assumption that there is a threat, or under the assumption that there is no threat.

We have to decide whether it is more important to act despite the threat or to act to prevent the threat. The basic formula for risk assessment is R=P×S, or in other words, the degree of risk is calculated by multiplying the probability of the threat by the severity of the threat. While the probability of war breaking out on the Korean peninsula is not very high, if it did break out, the result would be catastrophic.

The basic proposition of risk management can also be applied here. This is the paradox that, the more one acts under the assumption that there is no danger, the greater the real danger becomes.

Currently there are two overlapping interactive processes that are taking place on the Korean peninsula: the diplomatic game and the military standoff. The diagnosis of the danger varies depending on which of these two processes one is looking at.

If you only look at the diplomatic tug of war, it appears that the North, the South, the US, China, and other countries in the mix are each tossing the ball back and forth according to their own calculations. However, from the military point of view, the Korean peninsula resembles a sealed room completely filled with high-pressure gas. Even a single, unexpected spark, which could be caused by a misunderstanding, a miscalculation, or a reckless action, could lead to rapid escalation.

If the situation is viewed purely in terms of the diplomatic game, it is possible to overlook the real danger. The prediction that a war on the Korean peninsula will never occur because it would be too awful does not line up with the reality of war.

In a book about the Second World War, historian John Keegan wrote, “The real question is not why war occurred, but rather how in the world it was possible for such a devastating war to occur.” The annals of history do not record a single war that was waged because people thought it wouldn’t be awful.

Under former president Lee Myung-bak, the government took an inflexible, hard-line policy toward North Korea, threatening that they were even willing to contemplate war as a means of addressing North Korea’s bad behavior. But willingness to contemplate war is in fact the other side of the coin of insensitivity to war. It is the idea that, no matter how much you aggravate relations with the North, the North will not go to war, and will instead simply collapse. Why would peace be important to someone who believes that there is no danger? The problem is compounded by the fact that such policies that display an insensitivity to war have substantial public support.

In a survey conducted by Gallup Korea on Feb. 20, 2013, shortly after North Korea held its third nuclear test, the age group in which the highest percentage of people thought that all aid to the North should be cut off was those 60 and older (57%). Interestingly, in a survey carried out on Apr. 8-Apr. 9, it was the same age group in which the fewest respondents said they were concerned about the possibility of a North Korean provocation (18%). The reason people do not hesitate to aggravate the conflict with North Korea is because they believe that war cannot really happen.

But war is nearest when we least fear it. We must control the wild side of war and rely on the rationality of politics.

Even before Park Geun-hye has a chance to unveil her new plan about the trust-building process on the Korean peninsula, her administration faces a major challenge. The challenge is not about the ability to wage war, but rather the ability to prevent war and to resolve conflict. It demands the political acumen to push aside military confrontation and bring a diplomatic agenda to the table. After that, it will be possible to earnestly deal with major issues such as the North Korean nuclear program and peace on the Korean peninsula.

If Park Geun-hye can manage this, she will succeed in restarting the diplomatic initiative that was lost under Lee Myung-bak. It will be then, and only then, that Park’s new vision for the Korean peninsula can begin to take shape.

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]