hankyoreh

By Lee Jong-won, professor at the Waseda University Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies

North Korea recently announced a “two-track” approach of concurrently building its economy and nuclear capabilities. The “strategic course” for the Kim Jong-un era was reportedly adopted officially at a Mar. 31 plenary session of the Central Commission of the Workers’ Party of (North) Korea (WPK). A number of commentaries were printed in support of it, and the Rodong Sinmun, the WPK newspaper, even published a song aimed at popularizing the “two-track” slogan.

Why is the North Korean economy is now receiving new emphasis at a time when Pyongyang is threatening preemptive nuclear strikes and war? No clear explanation has been given, but it does at least seem like a possible sign that the new Kim regime is not completely under the thumb of military hardliners, as many had feared it might be. Adding to this analysis is the fact that former Premier Pak Pong-ju was brought back on board after previously being demoted for being a “reformist.”

More interesting still is the argument that nuclear capabilities will somehow help economic growth. A report for Kim carried out by the Central Commission is particular interesting. It criticizes the “US and its lackeys” for “attempting to drag us into an arms race and impede our struggle to build an economic power and improve the people’s lives.” The two-track approach, it says, will “allow us to dedicate major resources to building the economy and improving the people’s lives as we strengthen the country’s defensive capabilities at a low cost, without increased defense spending.” This is, of course, a rationalization for nuclear development, but the more important part is where it emphasizes “avoiding an arms race” and “keeping defense spending in check” to its domestic and international readers.

This is definitely not the first time someone has made an “argument” for nuclear arms cutting defense costs and helping to build an economy. The same strategy lay behind the arms race between the Soviet Union and the US back in the 1950s, when the Cold War was at its zenith. Acutely aware of the country’s economic disadvantage compared to the US, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev turned his focus to rebuilding the economy - with a focus on light industry - while reducing military manpower by one million positions. He famously said that the “days of gauging military strength by the number of soldiers’ coats are gone.” Instead, he turned to nuclear weapons and ballistic missile development, having concluded that it was more “economical” to maintain a minimal nuclear deterrent than conventional forces. And as weapons of mass destruction, nuclear bombs were more “effective” when there was a greater threat that they might actually be used. Khrushchev’s famously provocative and aggressive tactics were far more strategic calculation than temperament.

Interestingly enough, the Dwight Eisenhower administration in Washington pursued much the same strategy. A moderate conservative, Eisenhower slashed military spending, which had ballooned after the Korean War. And, like Khrushchev, he sought to plug the gap with a nuclear-based strategy of massive retaliation.

But from there, things went in a direction that neither intended. The arms race and bandying of threats led straight to the Cuba Missile Crisis, an incident that could have triggered World War III. Nuclear weapons weren’t nearly as “economical” as hoped, either. Eisenhower raised the alarm about the “military-industrial complex” in a speech when he left office - the ones with a vested interest in a nuclear arms race. Meanwhile, Khrushchev was forced out by military conservatives for his “feeble” stance against Washington.

In a world where nuclear non-proliferation is the global norm, nuclear arms are no longer economical. They are not a panacea. Rather, they create massive political and diplomatic burdens and losses. It is folly to believe that you can build stable foreign relations on a nuclear footing.

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