Recently, tensions on the Korean peninsula have ratcheted up dramatically, with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea, henceforth DPRK) testing several ballistic missiles over a relatively short period of time. The missiles, some of which have been nuclear-capable, have flown toward Japan and Russia, and with relations between China and the DPRK at an all-time low, the crisis has provided a unique opportunity for unity among the United Nations Security Council’s permanent five members (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China). With a potentially uncontrollable regime in Pyongyang, China has signed on to recent UNSC statements regarding the missile tests. However, should fighting break out in the region, the situation could rapidly spiral out of anybody’s control. It is with this reality in mind that we examine America’s defense obligations with regards to the Korean missile crisis.
US and Japanese warships sailing together
The origins of America’s current treaty with Japan lie in the ashes of World War II. With the defeat of Japan’s military, the country had no means of self-defense. Further, the United States and the Allied powers insisted on the disarmament of Japan, thus making Japan reliant on American military support for both defense and internal security. The first treaty that explicitly mentioned American military assistance to Japan in a post-war setting was the 1951 Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan. The treaty recognized Japan’s status as a sovereign state and reaffirmed Japan’s right to join a collective security arrangement under international law. In addition, the treaty called for the stationing of American troops in Japan to deter an armed attack, and stated that the troops may also be called upon to put down internal dissent or rebellion as instigated by outside powers. Importantly, the treaty declared that Japan shall not develop any armaments which may project an offensive threat/serve a purpose other than self-defense. The treaty also granted the United States exclusive basing rights in Japan, with any other foreign bases needing to be approved by the Americans.
A Japanese helicopter destroyer leads a joint US-Japanese fleet
The treaty lasted until 1960, at which point it was replaced by the currently-active Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan. This treaty, the longest-lasting agreement between two great powers since the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, maintains America’s right to military facilities in Japan, but states further that the American forces in Japan may be used for purposes other than defending Japan. The defense clause of the treaty states the following:
ARTICLE V
Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
North Korean missile test in March 2017
If activated, the treaty would immediately provide a valid casus belli for the United States to begin military action against the DPRK, at least in the eyes of international law. That validity would be strengthened should the Republic of Korea (South Korea, henceforth ROK) come under attack. Since the end of the Korean War in 1953, the United States has held a mutual defense treaty with the ROK. The treaty, signed with future aggression from the DPRK in mind, allows for American land, air, and sea forces to be deployed in and around the territory of the ROK as determined by mutual agreement. Furthermore, the treaty states:
ARTICLE III
Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties in territories now under their respective administrative control, or hereafter recognized by one of the Parties as lawfully brought under the administrative control of the other, would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.
With two American carrier battle groups (CBG) in the region and a third on the way, in addition to US military assets stationed in both South Korea and Japan, it is unlikely that the United States would sit by idly while the DPRK attacks either ally. Further, with Donald Trump at the helm, the potential for a preemptive strike against Pyongyang’s missile facilities is high. If the international community (particularly the permanent 5 UNSC members) can continue to work in relative unity toward a peaceful resolution of the situation, war may likely be averted. The alternatives will undoubtedly result in the deaths of untold numbers of civilians on both sides of the war.
