North Korea scraps key military pact with the South
Following the launch of North Korea’s first spy satellite on Tuesday night, and South Korea’s resumption of border surveillance in response, the North scrapped a key military pact between the two neighbours yesterday (Thursday).
It’s quite the escalation, though it didn’t come out of nowhere.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signed the Inter-Korean Comprehensive Military Agreement (CMA) with his then counterpart in the South in 2018. The idea was to build mutual trust and lower tensions by:
banning some drills near the border’s demilitarised zone (DMZ)
ceasing all live-fire maritime exercises in certain regions, and
creating military no-fly zones around the DMZ.
The pact was good in theory, but it wasn’t working out too well in practice:
The two neighbours had frequently accused each other of violations (e.g., Kim blew up a joint liaison office on the border in 2020), and
Critics in Seoul were already saying the pact favoured the North in the way it placed limits on the South’s surveillance activities.
So now Kim has axed the deal altogether, and the announcement says he’ll “deploy more powerful armed forces and new military hardware”.
For its part, the South’s defence minister said before parliament yesterday, “if North Korea stages provocations under the pretext of the suspension, we will respond immediately, strongly and until the end.”
INTRIGUE’S TAKE
Some say this pact was effectively already ‘dead’. If that’s the case, then Kim has now simply signed the death certificate, with little concrete impact.
But the broader context makes a difference here.
First, Kim has continued to make advances in his military capabilities. And if his new satellite is working, he’ll have more accurate intel on South Korean, Japanese and US forces in the region, which can shift the balance of power.
Second, Kim now enjoys stronger Russian support, including at the political, diplomatic, and technological levels, so he’s less isolated.
And third, tensions (🇨🇳) between the North and South’s respective treaty partners (China and the US) remain high, notwithstanding last week’s talks between Presidents Xi and Biden.
So in our view, the collapse of this particular agreement, and in this particular context, is a concerning development. Even the EU just said it “strongly condemns” Kim’s actions this week. 🔥🔥🔥
Also worth noting:
North Korea says the spy satellite will “make a significant contribution to definitely ramping up the war preparedness” of the country.
A US Carrier Strike Group is currently completing a port visit in South Korea and will likely conduct deterrence exercises thereafter.
SUPPORTED BY TALKSPACE
Take the first step towards a healthier you.
In life, challenges are inevitable, but now, therapy is more convenient than ever. At Talkspace, you gain access to live chat, video, and audio sessions that seamlessly connect you with licensed therapists, psychiatrists, and nurse practitioners across all 50 states. You can also message your therapist any time, and they’ll usually reply within a day to offer support or guidance.
What's more, these sessions are affordable and covered by most major insurance providers, ensuring no conflict between your financial health and your mental well-being. It starts at just $69/week when you pay out-of-pocket, and most insured members enjoy a low $25 copay or even less.
With Talkspace, you have accessible, affordable support that's ready when and where you need it. So, what are you waiting for?
Use promo code SPACE80 to claim $80 off your first session and take that crucial first step towards a happier, healthier you.
ROAD TO COP28
Our resident diplomats answer your most burning COP questions (thanks for submitting them via Wednesday’s briefing!)
Question 1: Are multilateral agreements or bilateral agreements a more effective way to achieve diplomatic success? - S.M.C
As a general rule, bilateral agreements - e.g. free trade agreements - are easier to negotiate and implement because they focus on the interests of only two parties.
But collective problems - like climate change - require collective solutions that account for many more parties’ interests, and that means broader multilateral agreements are crucial for both legitimacy and execution.
In the context of climate change, a bilateral deal between two larger emitters, say the US and China, could be meaningful, but ultimately these broader COP meetings are crucial to get the job done. - John
Question 2: If the idea is to save the environment, shouldn’t this be a zoom conference? - R.B
I’m reminded of an embarrassing incident in which my former employer sent 23 executives (sadly not including me) to Paris for a meeting on ‘finding operational efficiencies’. Needless to say, the headlines (“diplomats fly business class to Paris to save money”) more or less wrote themselves.
The more serious answer is that complex negotiations like COP simply must be done in person. Not only are video conferences terrible for building trust and rapport - both essential for ‘getting to yes’ in diplomacy - but the fact that there are 197 very different parties to COP would make a zoom pretty unworkable.
I do, however, agree with you that the optics of planeloads of diplomats arriving in Dubai to talk about how to reduce emissions aren’t great. - John