hankyoreh

North Korean Central Television shows footage of the launch of the Hwasong-15 ICBM on Nov. 29. In signing the launch order

Looking back on this year, it seems as if there was hardly a time when the Korean Peninsula was not in a state of heightened tensions. The sense of crisis became most pronounced when the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson made a show of force near the Korean Peninsula in April, when North Korea carried out its sixth nuclear test in September, and finally when North Korea launched a Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on Nov. 29.

However, the atmosphere following the ICBM launch feels considerably more foreboding than before. The tensions triggered by the appearance of the USS Carl Vinson may have been exaggerated by the particular circumstances surrounding that show of force, when the unpredictability of US President Donald Trump, who had not been in office for long, coincided with a power vacuum in the South Korean government.

In September, the unexpectedness of North Korea’s first hydrogen bomb test and the verbal onslaught between the North and the US aggravated concerns about the possibility of an unplanned clash. The “military option” that was being mentioned at the time was the “top-down” method that Trump had instructed the government to consider. But US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other aides gave Trump pause by convincing him of the danger of kinetic military options such as a preemptive strike.

Since the ICBM launch, not only Trump but his aides have reportedly been incensed by North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s refusal to reverse course. We can’t even be sure that they haven’t discussed a preemptive strike. The range of an ICBM theoretically capable of striking the US mainland, an unexpected new missile and the possibility of additional brinkmanship by North Korea has been increasing the uncertainty of the situation. These concerns are widespread not only among conservative experts in Washington but also among experts who advocate resolving the North Korean nuclear issue through negotiations.

By evoking the trauma of the 9/11 terror attacks on the US, the ICBM launch crossed a redline, at least psychologically speaking. Since the 9/11 attacks, American policymakers have been racked with guilt about their failure to protect their fellow citizens, while ordinary Americans have been seized with fear about the mainland being under possible threat from a North Korean nuclear weapon.

Just as the razing of Pyongyang by US carpet bombing during the Korean War was seared into North Korea’s perception of security threats, the 9/11 terror attacks are a historical drama that is deep-seated in the American collective consciousness. That’s why North Korea’s ICBM launch seems extremely dangerous to the American public. US National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster did not seem to be kidding when he said at an event in Washington on Dec. 12 that this “might be our last best chance to avoid military conflict.”

It is typical for a situation of such severity to be accompanied by a fierce struggle by another faction to calm the crisis. Generally speaking, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s remarks about talks with North Korea “without precondition” seem to have been a desperate attempt to prevent a military conflict. There are also reportedly efforts underway at the State Department to draw up a roadmap for negotiations with Pyongyang.

But officials in the State Department and elsewhere who favor dialogue are outnumbered, and there is no guarantee that they will be able to stop the White House from veering toward the neoconservative ideological assumption that North Korea is part of “the axis of evil.” In regard to trade and the North Korean nuclear issue, US-China relations have nearly been at a nadir since Trump took office.

Considering the powder keg on the Korean Peninsula, it is unbecoming for a three-term senator like Lindsey Graham to fan the flames by talking about pulling the families of American troops out of South Korea. And parts of the conservative South Korean press have spent several days rehashing Graham’s remarks, even after Mattis responded to those comments by sarcastically observing that it was for the freedom of the press that he and others at the Pentagon were defending the US.

When Trump meets Graham, there are reports in the South Korean media that the US’s North Korean policy will take an even harder line; when he meets US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, there are predictions that the US will reach a grand bargain with China. Such reporting treats Trump and the US as morons. Aren’t these attitudes far too facetious, given the sobering circumstances?

By Yi Yong-in, Washington correspondent

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