North Korea and the World: North Korea's Strategy in Clinging to 'New Cold War' Discourse

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItkiPTCH7bs

Park Won-gon, Director of the EAI Center for North Korean Studies and Professor at Ewha Womans University, analyzes the background and reasons behind North Korea's obsession with the 'new Cold War discourse,' which centers on the confrontation between North Korea, China, and Russia versus South Korea, the United States, and Japan. Park argues that while North Korea promotes the 'new Cold War discourse' to escape diplomatic isolation and legitimize its nuclear weapons, the cooperation between North Korea, China, and Russia has a clear limitation: it is a 'union of convenience' based on opposition to a 'common enemy,' the United States, rather than a solidarity based on shared values and ideology. In response, he suggests that South Korea should contribute to strengthening the rules-based order, including free trade, the rule of law, and opposition to the alteration of the status quo by force, to prevent the world from becoming entrenched in bloc politics.

■ Park Won-gon_Director of the East Asia Institute (EAI) Center for North Korean Studies. Professor of North Korean Studies at Ewha Womans University.

■ Managed and Edited by: Park Ji-soo, EAI Researcher

    Inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 208) | jspark@eai.or.kr

Video Transcript

I believe there are clear limitations to the cooperation between North Korea, China, and Russia. From the perspective of the international political order, this is not so much a bloc politics as North Korea claims, but rather a union of convenience due to the common enemy, the United States, shared by North Korea, China, and Russia. This is because the only thing the three countries share is not the ideology of the Cold War era, but... Hello and thank you to everyone watching 'North Korea and the World.' Today, we will analyze North Korea's objectives and motivations behind its triangular cooperation with China and Russia. First, to briefly touch upon history, during the Cold War, North Korea, China, and the Soviet Union... North Korea has consistently emphasized that communism holds greater legitimacy and authenticity than the reactionary forces. However, when the conflict between China and the Soviet Union intensified in the 1960s, North Korea's concerns deepened. This is because...

North Korea had to navigate the conflict between China and the Soviet Union, two key communist states, while pursuing the global communist revolution against the reactionary forces of the United States. This situation made it difficult for North Korea to find its footing. It was during this period that the Juche ideology, as you well know, began to emerge. One could argue that the Juche ideology was initiated from North Korea's perspective to carve out its own space between China and the Soviet Union. With the end of the Cold War, North Korea perceived a challenge to its worldview.

In the 1990s, North Korea faced internal hardships, including the 'Arduous March,' and its internal situation was dire. Consequently, North Korea had to focus on survival rather than expressing its worldview. North Korea began to articulate its stance on external perceptions again in the 2000s. In the early 2000s, North Korea began to revive the ended Cold War, aiming to question the US-led unipolar system. Specifically, it criticized the US for its military buildup and for creating a US-led Cold War system. In connection with this, North Korea has also been emphasizing multipolarization since the 2000s. The emphasis on multipolarization is something we can understand intuitively. From North Korea's perspective, a unipolar system led by the US is a highly unfavorable international environment. Therefore, a shift from a unipolar system to a multipolar one is much more advantageous for them. Here, we must note the determinism and historical perspective inherent in Marxism, which is also reflected here. Documents from North Korea state that multipolarization is a process of democratization in international relations, while unipolarization leads to the fascization of international relations. They argue that it is an inevitable historical progression towards a multipolar system, reflecting a deterministic view of history. Of course, this also includes North Korea's own hopes and aspirations. North Korea began to discuss multipolarization with greater realism in 2008. As you may recall, the US-originated financial crisis began in 2008.

This crisis marked the beginning of the relative decline of the United States, a point acknowledged by many researchers. Around that time, China began its full-fledged rise, expressing its 'Chinese Dream.' Around the same period, North Korea also began to clarify its position. Starting in 2008, North Korea began to discuss the concept of a 'new Cold War' structure, reflecting its stance more explicitly. It describes the new Cold War structure as having two dual dimensions. The first dimension posits North Korea as an equal to the United States, drawing a parallel to the bipolar structure between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and now creating a US-North Korea dynamic. The second dimension, which has become more familiar to us recently, is the emergence of a South Korea-US-Japan versus North Korea-China-Russia structure. North Korea began discussing this structure around 2008. For example, articles published by the Korean Central News Agency in 2011 contain such content. It states that the US is building a trilateral military alliance with South Korea and Japan to gain strategic superiority over China and Russia. This indicates that North Korea had been developing and concretizing this structure more actively since 2008.

How is the external landscape being shaped during the Kim Jong Un era? Most recently, the war in Ukraine, which began last year, has, from North Korea's perspective, created the kind of new Cold War it desires. While North Korea publicly criticizes the new Cold War structure, arguing it is fundamentally flawed, it clearly perceives the formation of blocs within this new Cold War as advantageous. The crucial point is that, according to documents from North Korea, the new Cold War has been fully revived since the Ukraine war last year. The most significant aspect of this is the content announced at the 8th Central Committee's 6th Plenary Meeting last December. Kim Jong Un stated precisely in his speech that the international relations structure has clearly shifted to a new Cold War system, and the trend toward multipolarization is accelerating. While similar statements were made before, this was the first time such explicit mention of multipolarization and the new Cold War was made at a plenary meeting, in my judgment.

There is content stating that the US is building a trilateral military alliance with South Korea (referring to Korea) and Japan to secure strategic superiority over China and Russia. It is assessed that North Korea has been intensifying and concretizing this framework since 2008. Therefore, regarding how the inter-Korean relationship is being constructed during the Kim Jong-un era, I would like to explain the following: Firstly, the war in Ukraine, which began last year, presents an opportunity for North Korea to achieve a new Cold War, a kind of new Cold War that it desires. Although North Korea publicly criticizes the new Cold War structure as being highly problematic, it is clear that they perceive the formation of blocs in the new Cold War as a favorable international structure.

This indicates that North Korea has overtly revealed its worldview regarding its external relations. Here, the bloc politics of the new Cold War are used as a tool to criticize the trilateral structure of South Korea, the US, and Japan, as mentioned earlier. Furthermore, North Korea refers to its own bloc as including China, Russia, and Iran. Simultaneously, as mentioned in Kim Jong Un's speech, it emphasizes the era of multipolarization. As an example, we need to pay attention to BRICS and its implications. Firstly, while criticizing the new Cold War, North Korea seeks to build a bloc through cooperation with China and Russia, thereby attempting to escape diplomatic isolation. This is clearly evident.

From North Korea's perspective, this is seen as a blatant revelation of their worldview in inter-Korean relations. Here, the bloc mentality of the new Cold War is used as a tool to criticize the aforementioned trilateral structure of Korea, the US, and Japan. Furthermore, North Korea refers to China, Russia, and Iran as being in their bloc, which they label as the Cold War bloc. Simultaneously, as mentioned in Kim Jong-un's speech, they are emphasizing an era of multipolarity. In this context, we need to pay attention to what BRICS represents. Firstly, while criticizing the new Cold War, they aim to build a bloc through cooperation between North Korea, China, and Russia, thereby seeking to escape diplomatic isolation. This is clearly evident.

The core motivation for cooperation between North Korea and these countries, and the threats they pose, is the enhancement of cooperation. The more isolated North Korea becomes internationally, the more it needs to include China and Russia. To legitimize this, it criticizes the Cold War structure while advocating for bloc politics. Secondly, North Korea shares a term with China and Russia: 'territorial stability.' As I explained before, 'territorial stability' in North Korea's context means the communization of the entire Korean Peninsula. In this sense, they include the concept of 'territorial stability' when discussing with China and Russia. For example, North Korea justifies Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine by stating that Russia has rights in Ukraine and that this is to achieve territorial stability. Similarly, China asserts its rights over Taiwan, referring to it as territorial stability. Thus, we can confirm that North Korea shares the goal of 'territorial stability,' which includes its own position. Thirdly, by intentionally creating bloc politics, North Korea seeks to legitimize its nuclear weapons. It constantly refers to the opposing bloc of South Korea and the US. For instance, regarding the Camp David meeting last August, it described it as a gathering of the leaders of the US and Japan near Washington, preparing for a preemptive nuclear strike against North Korea. By framing South Korea and the US as a single entity and strengthening cooperation with North Korea, China, and Russia on the opposing side, it seeks to legitimize its possession of nuclear weapons. Fourthly, it propagates the futility of sanctions. Especially since the start of the Ukraine war last year, as the international community has continuously strengthened sanctions against Russia, North Korea argues that reinforcing sanctions against Russia is meaningless, projecting its own situation of sanctions and claiming their futility. The expression used is...

US sanctions are by no means an all-purpose tool. Furthermore, from North Korea's perspective, it also hopes to obtain support from China and Russia. The recent close ties between North Korea and Russia are a key phenomenon and evidence of this. So, given these motivations and objectives, can the cooperation between North Korea, China, and Russia truly become the bloc or supportive framework that North Korea envisions? I have briefly touched upon this before, but I believe there are clear limitations. From the perspective of the international political order, this is not so much bloc politics as North Korea claims, but rather a union of convenience due to the common enemy, the United States, shared by North Korea, China, and Russia. This is because the only thing the three countries share is not the ideology of the Cold War era, but authoritarian political systems. These systems, by definition, have their own characteristics, but they do not share a common historical developmental stage or ultimate historical goal, nor do they share common norms and principles. Therefore, the sustainability of their cooperation is bound to be significantly limited. Currently, North Korea's diplomacy between China and Russia can be described as 'pendulum diplomacy,' maximizing its influence between the two countries. I believe this approach remains effective. The recent strengthening of cooperation between North Korea and Russia also includes a message to China. Therefore, there are clearly aspects where the interests of North Korea, China, and Russia are bound to diverge, and my overall judgment is that the likelihood of their current cooperation continuing in the same vein is not very high. So, finally, what about South Korea? Many people are currently discussing the new Cold War, and the narrative often includes the South Korea-US versus North Korea-China-Russia dynamic.

As I mentioned, I do not believe this dynamic has the sustainability to become a long-term fixture. Nevertheless, the fact that many people, both domestically and internationally, are discussing it suggests a possibility of falling into bloc politics. From South Korea's perspective, efforts are needed to avoid falling into bloc politics. What South Korea must continue to emphasize is the norms-based international order, which I have mentioned several times in this program: principles such as free trade, the rule of law, opposition to the alteration of the status quo by force, respect for sovereignty, open multilateralism, and nuclear non-proliferation. South Korea must work with like-minded countries to maintain, restore, and strengthen these principles. Through this, it is important to reject the bloc politics that North Korea desires, involving China and Russia.

Furthermore, it may be my hope, but there is a need to strive towards a direction where China, Russia, and even North Korea move away from bloc politics and cooperate within a rules-based international order. Thank you.

This is discussed together. As I mentioned, I do not believe this has the potential for sustainability or has entered a practical stage. Nevertheless, the fact that many people are discussing this domestically and internationally suggests that there is a possibility of falling into a bloc mentality. From Korea's perspective, efforts are needed to avoid falling into this bloc mentality. What Korea must continue to emphasize is a rules-based international order. As I have mentioned several times in this session, these principles include free trade, the rule of law, opposing changes to the status quo by force, respect for sovereignty, open multilateralism, and nuclear non-proliferation. Korea must strengthen its efforts to maintain, restore, and enhance these principles in cooperation with like-minded countries. Through this, it is important to reject the bloc mentality pursued by China and Russia that North Korea desires.

Furthermore, it may be a hopeful scenario, but I believe there is a need to strive towards a direction where China, Russia, and even North Korea move away from this bloc mentality and cooperate within a rules-based international order. Thank you.