Responding to North Korea’s latest provocation

North Korea’s latest flurry of missile launches has renewed concern over the progress of the rogue state’s nuclear and ballistic missiles program.

Most recently, Pyongyang authorised the launch of two ballistic missiles, which landed outside Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

According to Japan’s state minister of defence, Toshiro Ino, the missiles reportedly reached an altitude of 100 kilometres and covered 350 kilometres.

Pyongyang and Beijing claimed the tests were a response to joint military exercises between the United States and its allies in the Korean peninsula.

“Our missile tests are a normal, planned self-defence measure to protect our country’s security and regional peace from direct US military threats,”" North Korean state media KCNA stated, citing an aviation administration spokesperson.

However, the United States joined South Korea and Japan in condemning the tests, described as an act of “serious provocation”.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has also announced fresh sanctions on two individuals and three entities connected to the delivery of refined petroleum to North Korea.

VIEW ALL

But should the punishment end there? Is it time for the West to turn up the heat on Pyongyang?

Bruce Klingner — senior research fellow, Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation — claims North Korea’s actions reflect “enduring regime themes of resistance to outside pressure”, as well as “rejection of denuclearisation, and dismissal of offers of economic benefits”.

He adds the tests also affirm fears Pyongyang’s nuclear program seeks both “deterrence and offensive” capability.

North Korea’s continued resistance to international pressure, Klingner argues, could prompt the West and its allies to strengthen their security posture.

Tokyo, for example, could “prioritise construction of additional Aegis-capable ships” or rethink its cancellation of the Aegis Ashore program.

“The North Korea missile launch will affirm growing Japanese public support for increased defence spending and counter-strike capabilities against North Korean missiles,” Klingner writes.

Similarly, Pyongyang’s latest actions “will only strengthen South Korea’s resolve”, with President Yoon Suk Yeol pursuing bolder ties with the United States since his election through joint military engagement.

“Washington has pledged to resume rotational deployments of strategic assets (bombers, dual-capable aircraft, or aircraft carriers), which have been curtailed since 2018,” he continues.

Meanwhile, Klingner calls on Washington to lead an international campaign to “hold Pyongyang and other violators accountable”, despite obstruction from China and Russia on the UN Security Council.

“Washington can use existing authorities to take greater punitive action against violators,” he writes.

“However, successive presidential administrations have refrained from fully enforcing US laws, including against Chinese banks committing money-laundering crimes in the US financial system.”

This should be coupled by a concerted effort to enhance the United States, South Korea, and Japan’s collective security posture.

“Pyongyang continues to reject all allied requests for negotiations on denuclearisation, arms control, tension reduction, or confidence-building measures,” Klingner adds.

“As such, the United States, South Korea, and Japan must take appropriate measures to protect their national security by augmenting and improving their deterrent and defence capabilities.”

This, he observes, should include:

• improving the missile defence of the American homeland;
• augmenting regional ballistic missile defences;
• completing modernisation programs for US nuclear forces; and
• affirming the United States’ extended deterrence guarantee to South Korea and Japan.

“For their part, South Korea and Japan should continue to augment their missile defences, enhance counter-strike capabilities, and take steps to improve bilateral security cooperation with each other as well as the United States and other regional security partners,” Klingner concludes.

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia's political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch with This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..