Who Sells North Korea Weapons
North Korea is a unique country, when it comes both to politics and the global arms trade. On the one hand, it is a heavily sanctioned nation with a long history of international condemnation, yet on the other hand, it is a nation that has consistently pursued a wide range of weapons technology. As a result, the question of who is selling North Korea arms or other military technology is a frequent topic of discussion.
The status quo has been largely maintained since the end of the Cold War, with China and Russia being the primary suppliers of military materiel to the North Korean regime. As two of the only nations with positive diplomatic relations with the Pyongyang foreign ministry, they are the most capable suppliers of conventional weapons. This includes major offensive systems such as artillery, tank rounds, fighter jets, and surface-to-air missiles.
China, in particular, has long been known as a major supplier. Reports of shipments of weapons, spare mechanical parts, engines, and ammunition have all been tracked in recent years. Beijing is estimated to have sold in the ballpark of several billion dollars’ worth of military technology to North Korea since the early 2000s, although the exact numbers are nearly impossible to pinpoint. Some have speculated that China has doubled as a de facto arms merchant, meaning that it buys weapons from other countries and then re-sells them to North Korea.
Russia is another key supplier, although it doesn’t quite match up to the scope of Chinese military sales. A number of agreements on defense cooperation and weaponry trading are in place between Moscow and Pyongyang, although there has been renewed scrutiny in recent years over ships suspected of transferring arms and ammo to North Korea. Russian citizens have also been accused of illegally supplying ballistic missile technology, which may have been used for weapons tests.
Apart from Russia and China, the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) has also secured ties with a number of smaller nations to secure weapons and military technology. Countries such as Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam have all sold directly or indirectly to North Korea over the past few decades. Small arms and military hardware such as missiles and maritime patrols have also made their way to North Korean hands.
For its part, the United States has remained resolutely opposed to the selling of weapons and military technology to North Korea. Washington has exerted strong economic and diplomatic pressure on those nations suspected of engaging in military trade with the Pyongyang regime, while US naval presence in the region has served to deter alleged arms transfers.
Ultimately, North Korea’s access to weapons and military technology is a complex and multifaceted issue. It is a nation under an economic and diplomatic embargo, yet it is able to maintain contact and trade with a handful of countries. With tensions between North Korea and the US continuing to rise, it remains to be seen how the international community will respond to allegations of military trading with the DPRK.
Prospects of Conventional Weapons transfers
North Korea has long relied on the importation of conventional weapons for the maintenance of its military capabilities. In recent years, Pyongyang has acquired technology and materiel such as missile systems, tanks, combat aircraft and even nuclear warheads from China and Russia. In addition, countries such as Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam have been reported to have sold directly or indirectly to North Korea.
Conventional arms transfers present a key source of geopolitical tension in the region. Washington has strongly opposed these transfers, while continuing pressure and economic sanctions have been sustained against the North Korean regime. As a result, weapons transfers usually take place through indirect channels and clandestine deals.
In the wider region, the influx of conventional weapons into North Korean forces could have potentially disturbing consequences. For instance, in the event of a conflict with South Korea or Japan, the North Korean military would be far better equipped with its newfound weaponry in comparison to its southern rivals. In addition, further weapons transfers could also help to further tighten the grip of the self-isolating nation on its population.
Given the present geopolitical dynamics of the Korean Peninsula, it is highly likely that arms transfers to North Korea will continue in the near future. China and Russia are likely to continue providing the necessary weapons and military technology, while smaller countries in the region such as Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and Thailand would likely remain prominent secondary suppliers.
Economic Motives and Implications of Arms Transfers
Arms transfers to North Korea present two distinctive economic motivations. Firstly, it allows foreign nations to sell excess or outdated arms and military equipment from their own inventories. This has the convenient benefit of providing financial resources for the military-industrial complex, while also reducing the storage burden of surplus and obsolete weapons.
The second and more substantial economic benefit is the potential for setting up lucrative arms deals with North Korea. While the United Nations has placed strict economic sanctions on Pyongyang, certain players are able to operate with impunity in the military transfer trade. Furthermore, cash-strapped North Korea is particularly resourceful when attracting foreign investors in arms deals.
Nevertheless, there are also several economic risks associated with arms transfers to the DPRK. Firstly, it is likely to further increase the already tense geopolitical relations between Washington and Pyongyang. In addition, it could also lead to a breakdown in diplomatic relations between Pyongyang and other nations in the region, while creating further tension in the Korean Peninsula.
Economic sanctions are likely to remain a key tool in the foreign policy of several countries towards North Korea. The efficacy of trade sanctions is highly debatable but they remain a potent tool in limiting economic and military transfers to the Pyongyang regime. The economic implications of arms transfers should thus be taken into care when considering the geopolitical stability of the Korean Peninsula.
Political and Diplomatic Implications of Arms Transfers
Arms transfers to North Korea have direct political and diplomatic implications, with Beijing and Moscow currently the most prominent suppliers of arms to Pyongyang. The realization of political objectives is often the overriding factor in arms trading deals and a foreign nation’s stance might change towards the North Korean regime in this regard.
China, for instance, has consistently warmed to the North Korean regime, yet unconfirmed reports of weapons transfers to the South Korean military appears to be seen as a direct affront to Pyongyang. As a result, China has demonstrated an increasingly hostile stance in diplomatic relations with the North Korean leadership.
Russia, on the other hand, has consistently maintained a close political relationship with Pyongyang, yet there have been reports of certain military equipment transfers to South Korea. Unconfirmed reports suggest that Moscow was only providing the nominal military equipment in exchange for the ability to develop new rocket technology. Nevertheless, this could potentially be seen as a diplomatic error by both Moscow and Pyongyang.
Furthermore, smaller nations such as Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam could be pressured into action by their respective foreign counterparts if they are determined to take action against North Korea. In cases such as this, arms transfers could become a political football, with nations being forced to make decisions against their own economic interests in order to maintain political ties.
Finally, the United States is likely to remain steadfastly opposed to any arms transfers to North Korea. Washington has exerted significant economic and diplomatic pressure on nations suspected of transferring weapons or military technology to Pyongyang and it is likely to continue with the same policy in the foreseeable future.
International Law and Regulations on Arms Transfers
International law and regulations govern the arms transfer activities of governments and corporations around the globe. The United Nations has placed specific restrictions on North Korea in regards to weapons and military technology in recent years. This includes an array of sanctions on North Korean entities believed to be associated with the Pyongyang regime, along with prohibitions on the acquisition of new technologies.
In addition, other international organizations such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Wassenaar Arrangement have clear regulations in place for governing the arms transfer activities of governments and corporations. As a result, nations and companies engaging in arms transfers to North Korea must first obtain the necessary licenses and approvals from these international bodies.
Although not as restrictive as the UN’s sanctions, these measures are intended to ensure that governments and corporations are not supplying North Korea with weapons and military technology in violation of international laws. However, the enforcement of these regulations is highly limited, with reports of new technologies and weapons finding their way into North Korean hands in spite of these measures.
Finally, it must be mentioned that the international arms transfer landscape remains in a state of flux due to the fragile political environment of the Korean Peninsula. Weapons and military technology to and from North Korea are constantly changing and it is difficult to gauge exactly what kind of arms are being transferred and on what scale.
Alternatives to Arms Transfers
Given the restricted nature of the arms transfer landscape, North Korea is heavily reliant on alternative means of procuring weaponry and military technology. While the exact sources remain unknown, reports suggest that the Pyongyang regime has turned to other methods such as illicit drug trade, counterfeiting, and the diversion of resources, primarily to finance its ongoing weapons program.
Furthermore, North Korea has built up a number of secretive partnerships with renowned criminal organizations, such as the Yakuza in Japan, the Triads in China, and numerous networks across the globe. Reports further suggest that the Pyongyang regime has also reached out to a number of unconventional partners, such as smugglers, mercenaries, and private military contractors.
These alternative activities provide an immense economic and military advantage to North Korea. Aside from sanctions, arms transfers can be easily monitored and regulated by external agencies, while these alternative methods are clandestine by nature. As a result, North Korea is able to procure weapons and technology without being subject to the burden of external scrutiny.
Nevertheless, these activities also present a number of risks. Firstly, there is the potential for the Pyongyang regime to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous actors. The security of the weapons and military technology acquired through these activities is also at risk of theft or misuse, while the lack of oversight could lead to serious consequences for the security of the Korean Peninsula.
Summary of Arms Transfers to North Korea
Arms transfers to North Korea remain a contentious topic in the Central Asia region. Analysts are divided in their assessment of the geopolitical implications of such transfers, with a number of economic, political, and diplomatic consequences. At present, the primary suppliers of arms and military technology to North Korea are China and Russia, with smaller nations such as Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam also believed to be involved.
Economic sanctions are likely to remain the primary strategy for limiting arms transfers to North Korea. The effectiveness of such sanctions is highly debatable, however, as North Korea has turned to alternative means of acquiring weapons and military technology. Reports suggest that the Pyongyang regime has ties with renowned criminal organizations and a number of unconventional players to gain the necessary military materiel.
Ultimately, the views of the international community on arms transfers to North Korea remain divided. With tensions between Pyongyang and Washington continuing to rise, there is no consensus on how the situation should be handled. Although the trade of weapons and military
