U.S. President Joe Biden holds an Infrastructure Implementation Task Force meeting in the Cabinet Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., Thursday. UPI-Yonhap

Experts split over effectiveness of Biden's strategy

By Jung Da-min

The U.S. is facing major challenges in its pursuit of additional sanctions against North Korea for conducting a series of missile launches this year, as China and Russia have been vetoing the move amid growing doubts over the effectiveness of the punitive measures. According to media reports citing diplomats, Thursday (local time), China and Russia placed a "hold" on the U.S. proposal for additional U.N. sanctions against Pyongyang, ahead of a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meeting held later that day.

China told other member countries that it needed more time to study the U.S.' proposal for such additional sanctions, while Russia said more evidence was needed to back Washington's request, diplomats said.

The U.S. had imposed unilateral sanctions over the missile launches by blacklisting six North Koreans, one Russian and a Russian firm, Jan. 12, accusing them of procuring goods from Russia and China for the North's weapons development programs.

The U.S. then sought to put five of the North Korean individuals under a U.N. travel ban and freeze their assets, which China and Russia have virtually rejected.

International relations experts said the veto from China and Russia was much anticipated considering that the two countries have been in conflict with the U.S. on many other regional issues.

But they said the U.S. does not have many other options in terms of its North Korea policy but to place additional sanctions on the North, considering that Pyongyang has not made any conciliatory gestures toward Washington, instead only heightening tensions by conducting four missile launches during the first few weeks of the new year.

Experts divided on effectiveness of sanctions

Experts have also expressed mixed opinions over the effectiveness of the sanctions themselves.

Some said that the effectiveness of sanctions is questionable in terms of pushing North Korea to return to the negotiating table, when the country has long been at an intense level of economic self-isolation.

But others said the purpose of the sanctions is rather to show the international community's disapproval of the North's weapons development, having more meaning as punishments rather than as measures to actually prevent further weapons development, which many people often misunderstand.

"People misunderstand the purpose of sanctions. There is no evidence that sanctions have prevented the development of any nuclear or missile programs," said Jeffrey Lewis, the director of the East Asia nonproliferation program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey.

"What sanctions are intended to do is create pressure on the leadership to change its policies. Such an approach is obviously doomed with a country like North Korea, which values autarky."

The United Nations headquarters building in New York is pictured though a window with the U.N. logo in the foreground, in this Aug. 15, 2014, file photo. Reuters-Yonhap

Bruce Bennett, a senior defense analyst at the RAND Corporation, said the sanctions might not prevent North Korea from developing missiles, but they punish the North for its defiance of the U.N.

Bennett, however, said he favors the selective lifting of sanctions if North Korea begins to recognize the authority of the U.N. and follows the UNSC resolutions.

He has acknowledged the limitations of the current sanctions on North Korea when China, which can impose the most serious sanctions on the North, vetoes additional UNSC sanctions on it.

"With North Korea, we have to remember that the most severe sanction that has been implemented was the closing of the North Korean border with China, something that Kim did to his country (rather than being a sanction imposed from outside)," Bennett said.

Eric Gomez, the director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute, said that imposing secondary sanctions seems to be the only effective option, when the reclusive country already went into a period of very intense economic self-isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

"North Korea went into a period of very intense economic self-isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent virus spread. This put the economy under significant strain, plus sanctions were in effect, yet North Korea did not come to the negotiating table, which damages the theory that sanctions will force North Korea to the negotiating table via economic pressure," Gomez said.

"At this point, the only real place sanctions could go next is secondary sanctions against entities outside of North Korea."

However, Gomez pointed out that secondary sanctions are unlikely to be authorized, given the Chinese and Russian vetoes of additional U.N. sanctions at the UNSC.

He also said such secondary sanctions often involve Chinese banks related to North Korean individuals or entities, and that implementing them, accordingly, could escalate tensions between the U.S. and China, while they might not serve their original purpose of getting the North back to the negotiating table.

"The United States could sanction Chinese banks directly and cut off parts of China's economy from the U.S. banking system. This would be a big gamble to take, as it would likely make any U.S.-China cooperation on North Korea impossible, while also having a questionable chance of success, given the failure of sanctions to get Kim to the table during the period of economic self-isolation I described."

Meanwhile, the prospects of regional security are getting more complicated, following North Korea's message that it is considering resuming "all temporally-suspended activities," suggesting the possible resumption of nuclear or inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) testing.

The North's message came two days after it fired two presumed KN-24 missiles, Jan. 17, marking the country's fourth missile testing since the start of the new year. It also came just a day before the UNSC's closed-door meeting held Thursday.

In this photo provided by the North Korea's state-run Korean Central News Agency, Thursday, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un attends a meeting of the Central Committee of the country's ruling Workers' Party of Korea in Pyongyang, a day before. Yonhap

Political watchers have said that North Korea is expected to conduct more testing of its weapons this year. But they have said that it is yet to be seen what kind of weapons will be included, as it will depend on the U.S.' responses to the North's messages.

Park Won-gon, a professor of North Korean studies at Ewha Womans University, said that Kim Jong-un's message at the political bureau meeting has left room for many different options on the North Korean side, as seen in the report of the meeting carried by the country's state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), Thursday.

"The KCNA report said that the members of the political bureau of the party central committee recognized the need to prepare for long-term confrontation with the U.S., but it did not say that any further decision has been made regarding the matter," Park said.

Park also said that North Korea is expected to adjust the level of its provocation in accordance with the U.S.' reactions.

"We can draw different scenarios at this moment, including one with the two sides confronting each other with hardline policies, or another where they make conciliatory gestures by toning down their messages to each other. . . . In my opinion, the two sides are likely to exchange verbal messages rather than taking any real action."

Park also said that Pyongyang's continued missile tests and Kim's message suggesting a possible resumption of nuclear or ICBM testing are aimed at both Seoul and Washington, as both countries are at important political junctures.

"For South Korea, whoever becomes the next president after the March 9 election, North Korea is likely to conduct many missile tests in an attempt to tame the new administration and create a favorable situation for their side in future inter-Korean negotiations," Park said.

"For the United States, the Biden administration is preparing for a midterm election in November. As its foreign policies, especially those regarding North Korea, are already unpopular, the Biden administration will not want to risk provoking the North to conduct a nuclear or ICBM testing."