Follow us on social

google cta
2020-10-12t000000z_857557961_mt1ltana000acyuv3_rtrmadp_3_asia-north-korea

North Korean military parade offers a sober reminder of the original ‘forever war’

Kim Jong Un showed off some new military gear but it’s important that Washington doesn’t overreact.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

North Korea’s military parade this weekend celebrating the 75th anniversary of the ruling Workers' Party was streamed for an international audience. It was expected to be the largest military parade in North Korea’s history. The event was pre-recorded Friday evening and streamed Saturday evening (Korea Standard Time) via Korean Central Television (KCTV), a state-owned broadcaster in North Korea.

In his speech, Chairman Kim Jong Un struck a somber and introspective tone. He repeatedly thanked the North Korean people for withstanding the “harsh circumstances” of this year, shedding tears at one point. In a nod to the public health challenges stemming from the COVID pandemic and natural disasters, Kim gave special recognition to the People’s Army, calling its efforts “heroic.”  

His message to the foreign audience was one of measured defiance. He avoided being overly provocative, choosing instead to let the military parade do the talking. Indeed, nuclear experts were looking for clues to a new strategic weapon that Kim Jong Un promised in his new year speech. And they were not disappointed: North Korea unveiled a new 11-axle intercontinental-range ballistic missile (ICBM) at the parade, adding to North Korea’s growing nuclear and chemical arsenal

This is the latest reminder that the longer the world waits, the more dangerous the Korean Peninsula will become. Any escalation in tension on the Korean Peninsula — home to the original “forever war” — would be incredibly deadly. The Congressional Research Service estimates that 300,000 would die in the first days of fighting through conventional weapons alone. 

Any conflict with North Korea would have immediate consequences on American economy as well. The 2018 study by the Economic Intelligence Unit found that a war on the Korean peninsula would destroy 25,000 direct and indirect auto jobs in the United States in its first year. At a time when the U.S. economy is contracting due to the COVID pandemic, the last thing Americans need right now is an accidental conflict between two nuclear-armed states. 

So what should the United States do?

Rather than overreact to Pyongyang’s predictable display of force, Washington should focus on the underlying cause of North Korea’s behavior: its geopolitical insecurity. Such concern will not disappear overnight. But trying to reach peace on the Korean Peninsula, as stated in the joint statement of the Singapore Summit, is impossible without addressing North Korea’s perennial need for bombs as a security guarantee. One way to do this is by declaring the seven-decades long Korean War over and signing a peace treaty to end that chapter of violence between the United States, South Korea, North Korea, and China.

The broader question is in defining the United States’ core strategic interests in the region. Is it indefinite militarism that so clearly benefits the military-industrial complex at the expense of lasting peace and stability in East Asia? So far, the United States appears to be more fixated on maintaining 28,500 U.S. troops in South Korea than answering the basic question of to what end.

The long-term goal of U.S. grand strategy should be to facilitate the creation of a peaceful global order consisting of fully sovereign states capable of providing for their own security, rather than to perpetuate dependency in American military or American weapons. 

In this weekend’s parade, Kim Jong Un said he would develop nuclear weapons in order to “defend the rights to independence and existence.” It is time for Washington to be equally honest about U.S. interests in the region. 


Pyongyang, North Korea.- North Korean leader Kim Jong-un (center) participates in the celebration to mark the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Workers' Party (WPK) in Pyongyang, North Korea on October 11, 2020. At the celebration a large-scale military parade, banquet, fireworks, and gymnastics and art shows were held.
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
NPT
Top image credit: Milos Ruzicka via shutterstock.com

We are sleepwalking into nuclear catastrophe

Global Crises

In May of his first year as president, John F. Kennedy met with Israeli President David Ben-Gurion to discuss Israel’s nuclear program and the new nuclear power plant at Dimona.

Writing about the so-called “nuclear summit” in “A State at Any Cost: The Life of David Ben-Gurion,” Israeli historian Tom Segev states that during this meeting, “Ben-Gurion did not get much from the president, who left no doubt that he would not permit Israel to develop nuclear weapons.”

keep readingShow less
Ambassador Robert Hunter
Top photo credit: Former NATO Ambassador Robert Hunter at the American Academy of Diplomacy's 17th Annual Awards Luncheon, 12/14/2006. (Reuters)

RIP Amb. Robert Hunter, who warned about NATO expansion

Europe

The world of foreign policy restraint is poorer today with the passing of Robert Hunter, an American diplomat, who was the U.S. ambassador to NATO in 1993-1998. He also served as a senior official on both the Western Europe and Middle East desks in President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Council.

For decades, Hunter was a prominent, sober, and necessary voice of restraint in Washington. To readers of Responsible Statecraft, he was an occasional author who shared his insights, particularly on Europe. To those of us who knew Robert personally, he was a mentor and a friend whose tremendous knowledge was matched only by his generosity in sharing it.

keep readingShow less
NATO Summit 2025
Top photo credit: NATO Summit, the Hague, June 25, 2025. (Republic of Slovenia/Daniel Novakovič/STA/flickr)

Will NATO survive Trump?

Europe

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump threatened to place new punitive tariffs on European allies until they acquiesce to his designs on Greenland, an escalation of his ongoing attempts to acquire the large Arctic island for the United States.

Critics loudly decried the move as devastating for the transatlantic relationship, echoing Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Fredericksen’s earlier warning that a coercive U.S. seizure of the semi-autonomous Danish territory would mean the end of NATO.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.