Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

　　　　　U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson declared an end to U.S. “strategic tolerance” in regard to North Korean provocations when he made his first East Asian tour in March. Then, I question if the United States really has any measure to lead Pyongyang to give up on nuclear weapons development. Thanks to the Obama administration’s strategic tolerance, or its failure to act, North Korea has almost developed capabilities to destroy Seoul, Tokyo and Guam. Tillerson’s vow to consider all options against North Korea apparently indicates that the U.S. strategy against North Korea has reached an impasse.

Military option is not easy
　　　　　The U.S. government, military and national security experts have been agonizing over how to deal with North Korea. Over the past two decades, Washington gave up on a military option every time when it considered how to address North Korean nuclear and missile development. If a military option were to be adopted, the United States would have to be prepared to see a small disaster at present to avoid a great disaster in the future.
　　　　　In the 1990s when North Korea’s nuclear and missile development program was in an initial phase, one blow could have destroyed the program. But, even at that time, a retaliatory attack on Seoul only 50 kilometers from the border with the North might have been unavoidable. The time has passed enough to allow North Korea to distribute nuclear facilities to various locations including underground and undersea sites. It is too late for these facilities to be destroyed with a single attack. A use of force against North Korea is now feared to invite a nuclear retaliation.
　　　　　Ironically, the planned deployment of the U.S. terminal high altitude area defense (THAAD) missile system in South Korea indicates that the past U.S. strategy against the North has failed. After the past failure to remove nuclear weapons in North Korea, the United States has nothing to do but ease the increased nuclear threats with the missile defense system.
　　　　　In the United States, however, Congress has been convening hearings to hear views from experts and consider all diplomatic, economic and military options to address the threats. The Trump administration is considering expelling Chinese firms dealing with the North from the U.S. financial system and intercepting next North Korean missiles to be launched. However, it may be difficult to track all mobile missile launchers. Any cyberattack may only interrupt missile programs or confuse the chain of command temporarily, failing to remove the threats.

Japanese opposition parties lacking sense of crisis
　　　　　Nevertheless, Japan adjacent to North Korea has no sense of crisis, leaving the United States to consider what to do. Particularly, in the morning of March 6 when Pyongyang fired four ballistic missiles before the Japanese House of Coucillors Budget Committee convened a session, the committee spent time only on the problematic sale of a state-owned land lot to Moritomo Gakuen, a school corporation in Osaka. Pyongyang issued a tense statement that these missiles could attack U.S. bases in Japan. As expected, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe suspended the session for 40 minutes to convene a meeting of the National Security Council. In the afternoon session, however, Democratic Party leader Renho still focused on the Moritomo Gakuen scandal, instead of taking up the more important issue of North Korean missile firing.
　　　　　Even under the tense situation where the lives and prosperity of the people are at stake, the Democratic Party and other Japanese opposition parties are interested only in how to get more seats in the next election. Why does the Diet refrain from convening special sessions or hearings to hear opinions from experts on the North Korean threats? Little time is left for Japan and the United States to decide how to respond to the threats.

Hiroshi Yuasa is a Planning Committee Member at the Japan Institute for National Fundamentals and a columnist for the Sankei Shimbun.