Earlier this month, the Biden administration released the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance laying out the president’s approach to foreign affairs. It identifies the wide-ranging threats currently facing the United States, from rising authoritarianism and right-wing extremism to the climate emergency and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Predictably, it also frequently mentions China as the only competitor able to mount a serious challenge to the U.S.-led international system.
Curiously, the document hardly discusses regional actors, such as Iran and North Korea, which are regularly cited as impediments to American interests. This is surprising given that many top Biden national security officials held similar positions in the Obama administration, which negotiated the Iran nuclear deal and told former President Donald Trump that taming North Korea’s nuclear weapons would be his chief national security challenge .
Yet, it may be a sign Biden is rethinking previous presidents’ desires to fully denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, a welcome shift considering Trump spectacularly failed to meet this objective while North Korea’s nuclear stockpile has only grown over the last four years. While North Korea’s nuclear arsenal poses continuing problems for regional stability in East Asia, it does not constitute a direct threat to the United States in ways that are often portrayed. In charting a new way forward, the Biden team should examine the last time American policymakers faced a comparable dilemma in East Asia: China’s nuclear proliferation in the 1960s.
After repeated confrontations with the United States during the 1950s, including the Korean War and the First Taiwan Strait Crisis, Chinese leader Mao Zedong authorized the establishment of a nuclear weapons program. He reasoned that if China possessed nuclear weapons, even a modest amount, it would enhance its diplomatic credibility and ensure the United States could not use “nuclear blackmail” to modify Chinese behavior. To boost its communist ally, the Soviet Union initially agreed to help Beijing acquire the bomb. During the remainder of the decade, China made steady progress on developing atomic energy and eventually building a nuclear device.
By the early 1960s, U.S. officials began to pay closer attention to China’s growing nuclear capabilities. In the final days of the Eisenhower presidency, a national intelligence estimate predicted China’s first nuclear test would likely occur sometime between 1962-1964, but that it would take at least two years after that to assemble a small cache of atomic weapons. Despite increasing Sino-Soviet tensions, the State Department also concluded the Chinese possessed enough technical knowledge to eventually produce a nuclear weapon on their own without Soviet aid.
With John F. Kennedy’s arrival at the White House, American concerns over Beijing’s nuclear ambitions grew. In the summer of 1961, the Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared a study on the probable impacts of China’s procurement of a nuclear deterrent. They warned that U.S. allies in Asia would become demoralized and panic about the increased likelihood of war in the region. As a result, they would feel new pressure to engage China diplomatically, to the detriment of American credibility. More broadly, attainment of nuclear weapons would enhance China’s status as a world power and cause its foreign policy to become more hawkish and aggressive.
To prevent Beijing from succeeding, or to soften the blow if it did, the JCS recommended working with regional partners on a multi-pronged program of coordinated actions, including strengthening U.S. alliances in Asia; facilitating Japan’s civilian nuclear activities; reinforcing Washington’s military capabilities in the Western Pacific, and initiating a covert action campaign to destabilize both China’s nuclear program and its communist regime. A year later, the Institute for Defense Analyses wrote a massive report for the Pentagon that largely supported the JCS assessment.
However, other U.S. analysts viewed these evaluations with skepticism. Researchers at the RAND Corporation argued that, although a modest Chinese nuclear arsenal would create challenges for American interests in Asia, Beijing’s leadership would remain cautious and not seek to directly confront U.S. military power. State Department intelligence analysts asserted China would avoid reckless decisions due to its comparative weakness, the probability of U.S. nuclear retaliation, and the uncertainty of Soviet support in a clash with the United States. Leading China experts at the State Department agreed, maintaining that a Chinese nuclear deterrent’s primary purpose would be to protect Chinese territory and that it was unlikely to alter the balance of military power in Asia. To reduce the political or psychological effectiveness of a successful Chinese nuclear test, they suggested reassuring local allies by bolstering their defensive abilities and muting their reaction to an effective test in order to avoid unduly inflating threat perceptions.
Shortly after Lyndon Johnson became president in 1963, a State Department report tipped the scales in favor of U.S. restraint toward the Chinese nuclear program. In the spring of 1964, its policy planning staff forwarded a lengthy memorandum to the national security adviser evaluating the possibilities for direct American action against Chinese nuclear facilities. Its authors insisted preventative measures would delay, but not thwart, Chinese atomic development. Inadequate intelligence would likely hinder U.S. efforts to effectively target all of China’s facilities, meaning Beijing could quickly rebuild any lost capacities to an offensive strike.
Instead, barring belligerent Chinese military action, any U.S. attack would be seen as dangerous and needlessly escalatory, handing Chinese leaders a major propaganda victory. An attack would also allow Beijing to paint the United States as an aggressor and the source of regional instability. Ultimately, the report concluded, China’s impending nuclear deterrent was not significant enough to justify American offensive action given the high political or military costs that would be incurred. When China finally successfully detonated a nuclear test in October 1964, U.S. decision makers were unfazed and downplayed the event.
The conundrums American policymakers faced over Chinese nuclear proliferation during the early 1960s hold important lessons for addressing North Korea today. At the outset, it is imperative to highlight the fact that, although Washington had serious concerns about China becoming a nuclear power, it eventually decided to tolerate a limited Chinese nuclear arsenal and shifted toward a strategy of risk management and extended deterrence. This change later helped set the stage for the U.S. opening to China in the early 1970s and the eventual establishment of formal Sino-American diplomatic relations. Moreover, U.S. officials were able to rationalize this policy for the world’s largest nation, with a population of nearly 700 million in 1964. Surely, North Korea, with a population of roughly 25 million today, poses no similar potential threat to American security.
Rather than focusing on the unrealistic possibility of full denuclearization, Washington should work with its local partners to foster a more peaceful environment in East Asia. This must include accepting North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, even if we don’t like them, and ensuring they no longer contribute to regional volatility. This can only be achieved through diplomatic engagement and rethinking our approach to the Korean Peninsula. The Biden administration would be wise to heed the critical takeaways its predecessors discovered with China’s nuclear program. A new strategy built on these conclusions would help avoid war on the Korean Peninsula and enhance stability in East Asia.
How Biden can learn from the US response to China getting the bomb
A focus on denuclearization didn’t work with China and it won’t work with North Korea.
Grant Golub
Grant Golub is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of International History at The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), where his research focuses the history of U.S. foreign policy, grand strategy, and Anglo-American relations. His dissertation examines Henry L. Stimson, the War Department, and the politics of American grand strategy during World War II. From Sarasota, Florida, he earned his BA from Princeton University and an MSc from LSE. He is also a Marcellus Policy Fellow at the John Quincy Adams Society in Washington, DC and a project assistant at LSE IDEAS, a foreign policy think tank,
Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine uses long-range missiles, Russia responds
Diplomacy Watch: Russia retaliates after long-range missile attacks
November 21, 2024
As the Ukraine War passed its 1,000-day mark this week, the departing Biden administration made a significant policy shift by lifting restrictions on key weapons systems for the Ukrainians — drawing a wave of fury, warnings and a retaliatory ballistic missile strike from Moscow.
On Thursday, Russia launched what the Ukrainian air force thought to be a non-nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) attack on the Ukrainian city of Dnipro, which if true, would be the first time such weapons were used and mark a major escalatory point in the war.
In a televised address on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed that Moscow launched a new, hypersonic intermediate-range ballistic missile. He added that the long-range strikes from Ukraine this week have given the regional conflict the elements of a global one, and that Russia could use the missiles against countries that have allowed Ukraine to strike deep inside Russia.
U.S. officials have confirmed that the new Russian missile, called the "Oreshnik," is based on the design of Russia’s longer-range RS-26 Rubezh intermediate ballistic missile (IRBM). It can carry multiple nuclear warheads but was armed with conventional weapons in the Thursday attack.
The new missile was experimental and Russia likely possessed only a handful of them, officials said.
The strike was seen largely as a response to the Biden administration’s authorization for the Ukrainian military to use the American-made ATACMS missile system to strike deeper into Russian territory. On Tuesday Ukraine reportedly used the system to fire six missiles into Russia’s western Bryansk region, which Moscow said it successfully defended.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy led a months-long effort for NATO authorization to strike deeper into Russia. On Tuesday, according to CNN, he said his military now has the U.S. ATACMS system and its own long-range capabilities, and that “we will use all of this.” The Ukrainian military also struck Russian targets with UK-made long-range Storm Shadow missiles on Wednesday. Some Russian officials warned that the strikes could lead to a “third world war.”
Moscow’s position for months has been that an attack on Russian territory with British, French or U.S.-made missiles would constitute direct warfare against those countries. Russian ambassador to the UK Andrei Kelin doubled down on this threat after Ukraine fired UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles into Russia on Wednesday.
"Britain and the UK are now directly involved in this war, because this firing cannot happen without NATO staff, British staff as well," Kelin said.
Earlier this week, as an apparent warning to the West, Putin signed an update to Russian nuclear policy that lowers the threshold for a retaliatory strike.
The revised document says Russia could use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear or WMD strike against Russia or its allied nations, or in response to aggression against Russia or Belarus with conventional weapons threatening their sovereignty or territorial integrity.
The doctrine also declares that an attack by a non-nuclear power supported by a nuclear power is considered a joint attack, and that an attack from one member of NATO would be considered an attack from all members.
The White House said the policy came at no surprise, and that it will not respond with any alteration of its own nuclear policies.
Other Ukraine News This Week:
The U.S. gave Ukraine further slack later on Tuesday, with The Washington Post reporting that Biden approved the provision of antipersonnel mines to Ukraine — undoing his own policy from 2022.
According to CNN, the Americans expect Ukraine to use these mines to defend their own territory, not as an offensive tactic in Russia. Russian forces, on the other hand, have been using similar devices on the front lines since their invasion began in 2022.
Still, Biden’s move could prove controversial, the Post said, citing their indiscriminate nature and a 160-member international treaty banning their use based on an elevated risk to civilians.
The Biden administration’s policy shifts came after a violent weekend of Russian attacks: according to CBS, Moscow launched a drone and missile assault on Ukraine on Sunday, targeting energy infrastructure ahead of the winter and killing scores of civilians.
Biden is just under two months away from exiting office, with the incoming Trump administration having made clear in recent months its intentions to try to end the war.
From State Department Press Briefing on Nov. 18
In Monday’s press briefing, State Department Matthew Miller repudiated the idea of presidents working together across terms when asked about how typical it might be for a lame-duck president to make significant foreign policy decisions like enabling the long-range missiles.
“...the President was elected to a four-year term and the American people expect him to govern for a four-year term and make the decisions that he believes are appropriate,” Miller said. “There is no one who thinks that for the first two months of the next term they’re supposed to continue to carry out the decisions made by this President.”
From State Department Press Briefing on Nov. 19
Miller condemned Russia’s rhetorical responses to the long-range missile attack in Tuesday’s press briefing.
“Since the beginning of its war of aggression against Ukraine, [Russia] has sought to coerce and intimidate both Ukraine and other countries around the world through irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and behavior,” Miller said. “Despite what Russia says, neither the United States nor NATO pose any threat to Russia. Russia’s irresponsible and bellicose rhetoric will not do anything to improve Russia’s security.”
“This policy in itself just highlights Russia’s hypocrisy,” he added. “Russia is suggesting here that they would use or could use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state if they undertake the same kind of aggression that Russia itself is inflicting upon Ukraine and its people.”
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defense minister Yoav Gallant during a press conference in the Kirya military base in Tel Aviv , Israel , 28 October 2023. ABIR SULTAN POOL/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
ICC issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant
November 21, 2024
On Thursday the International Court of Justice (ICC) issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as a member of Hamas leadership.
The warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were for charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes. The court unanimously agreed that the prime minister and former defense minister “each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.”
“The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024,” the court detailed in its allegations.
The ICC also charged Hamas leader Ibrahim Al-Masri for mass killings during the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, including rape and hostage taking.
A plan suggested by former IDF general, Giora Eiland, called for the explicit emptying out of northern Gaza and the labeling of all remaining civilians as military targets, as well as the purposeful blockage of humanitarian aid. Netanyahu reportedly did not agree to the plan, but evidence points to aspects of the plan being enacted.
“The ICC decision shows once more how out of sync Biden's Gaza policy is with both American and international law,” says the Quincy Institute’s Executive Vice President Trita Parsi. “Biden has sacrificed America's international standing to arm and protect leaders who the international courts have deemed to be war criminals.”
The ICC’s move comes just one day after unprecedented votes in the U.S. Senate to end the sale of certain offensive weapons to Israel. The measures ultimately failed, with the White House telling senators that they would be supporting Iran and Hamas should they vote to curb weapons sales to Israel.
Because of the ICC warrants, Netanyahu or Gallant could be arrested upon entering a nation that has recognized the ICC and its rulings. However, Israel is among dozens of other countries, including the United States, that do not recognize the court’s jurisdiction.
After warrants were requested in October, Israel reacted by challenging the jurisdiction of the ICC in the matter, but that challenge has been rejected. “Israel's reaction — that no other democracy has been treated this way by the ICC — is indicative of how perverted certain approaches to international law have become,” said Parsi. “Israel essentially argues that because it defines itself as a democracy, it should be above the law. That war-crimes, apartheid, and genocide are ok as long as the perpetrator identifies as democratic. This approach — creating different sets of laws and standards for different countries — is a recipe for global instability and a threat to American security.”
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: A sapper of the 24th mechanized brigade named after King Danylo installs an anti-tank landmine, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, on the outskirts of the town of Chasiv Yar in the Donetsk region, Ukraine October 30, 2024. Oleg Petrasiuk/Press Service of the 24th King Danylo Separate Mechanized Brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces/Handout via REUTERS
Ukrainian civilians will pay for Biden's landmine flip-flop
November 20, 2024
The Biden administration announced today that it will provide Ukraine with antipersonnel landmines for use inside the country, a reversal of its own efforts to revive President Obama’s ban on America’s use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of the indiscriminate weapons anywhere except the Korean peninsula.
The intent of this reversal, one U.S. official told the Washington Post, is to “contribute to a more effective defense.” The landmines — use of which is banned in 160 countries by an international treaty — are expected to be deployed primarily in the country’s eastern territories, where Ukrainian forces are struggling to defend against steady advances by the Russian military.
But much like the Biden administration’s controversial decision to supply Ukraine with cluster bombs — another indiscriminate weapon system whose unexploded ordinance can maim and kill civilians, especially children, for decades after their use — this move may offer limited military upside, but it comes with massive risk to Ukrainian civilians, and it will not turn the tide of the war in Ukraine’s favor.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced the policy shift to reporters this morning during a trip to Laos, a nation which the U.S. helped turn into the world’s most bombed country per capita. Either blind or indifferent to the irony of making this announcement from a country where 30% of the territory remains contaminated by unexploded ordinance thanks to the U.S. military, Austin prebutted humanitarian concerns with the weapons transfer by arguing that the land mines are “not persistent,” so “we can control when they would self-activate, self-detonate and that makes it far more safer eventually.”
But as arms experts at the Friends Committee on National Legislation have pointed out, drawing a distinction between persistent and non-persistent landmines is “dangerously misleading” because of the well-documented failures of the self-destruct and self-deactivation features that supposedly make these weapons “safer” for the civilians who stumble across them years after a war has ended. In fact, the “smart mines” the U.S. deployed in the Gulf War failed at a rate 150 times higher than the Department of Defense claimed.
The reality is that, no matter the mechanisms meant to make these weapons more humane, non-persistent landmines are still packed full of explosive materials — and so their lethality, indiscriminate nature, and ability to harm civilians persist.
In fact, when President Trump first reversed the Obama-era landmine restrictions in 2020, Joe Biden himself recognized the move for what it was — “another reckless act” that would “put more civilians at risk of being injured by unexploded mines.” Biden lived up to his campaign pledge to “promptly roll back” Trump’s move on landmines in 2022 — only to reverse his own position on the way out of the White House doors.
Coming on the heels of Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to use U.S. long-range missiles to strike Russian territory, this move is presumably aimed at proving Biden’s willingness to do “whatever it takes” to help Ukraine prevail over Russia. But as a battered Ukraine prepares to enter its fourth year since Russia’s invasion, and Ukrainian support for a war-ending diplomacy continues to grow, the question remains: when will U.S. leaders stop searching for a silver bullet weapon that enables Ukraine to win an unwinnable war, and actually pair U.S. military aid to Ukraine with an all-out push to get Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table and broker an end to this bloodshed?keep readingShow less
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.