The North Korean leadership has officially declared that North Korea will become a gangseongdaeguk, or “strong and prosperous state,” by 2012. But the outlook is grim. Despite its efforts to develop a nuclear military-first ideology, North Korea is walking down the path of deepening insecurity and uncertainty, followed by additional excessive security measures. Its currency reform was made to no avail. Excessive spending for security has made it impossible for Pyongyang to invest sufficiently in culture, the environment, and information technology, which are all necessary aspects of developed states in the twenty-first century. Last, Kim Jong-il’s dire health condition has led Pyongyang to the inevitable next succession, and it is unclear whether his successor, Kim Jong-un, will persist in military-first politics or redirect the country to an economy-first politics.

Pyongyang designated the year 1999 to be the turning point for gangseongdaeguk in the 1999 New Year's Joint Editorial. Now ten years have passed, and it is still suggesting its way of gangseongdaeguk, with the three pillars of political ideology, military, and economy, as the survival strategy for the twenty-first century. With political ideology and military already established to some extent, the DPRK is placing emphasis on the economy, which might improve the standard of living as well as help develop heavy industry (Rodong Sinmun, January 1, 2010).

The DPRK explained that “changes in circumstances around the Juche state” and “unprecedented hardships in the face of the revolution” are the reasons for Kim Jong-il’s decision to focus on military-first policy in the mid-1990s. The fall of the communist bloc, the death of Kim Il-sung, the military threat from the United States, and the Kim Young Sam administration’s hard-line North Korea policy are the four factors Pyongyang listed as alarming “changes in circumstance.” As for the “unprecedented hardships,” the following three factors were spelled out: first, the collapse of the communist market, which accounted for 70-80 percent of North Korea’s overseas exports, seriously undermined North Korean economy; second, the financial sanctions by the United States and Japan “completely blocked international finance channels” and “strangled North Korea by economic means”; last, “years of natural disasters such as floods, tidal waves, and drought” befell North Korea. As a consequence, shortages of food, fuel, and energy ensued and the Arduous March began. The DPRK records the situation of that time as follows: “History records the 900 days of the Leningrad Blockade as the most catastrophic event. But our whole country, not one city, [has been] surrounded by enemies for much longer than 900 days. These enemies are not one but numerous imperialists attacking us every single day. This is truly unprecedented” (Kang 2002; Y. Kim 2005; Chun 2004; B. Kim 2005).

Decline of Military-First Politics

Vicious Circle of the North Korean Nuclear Issue

The second DPRK nuclear crisis began when a high-enriched uranium (HEU) program was brought to the table by the U.S. Deputy Minister of the Asia-Pacific James Kelly, who visited Pyongyang in early October 2002. In the end, the Six-Party Talks, which began with Beijing’s mediation, tentatively agreed on the September 19 Joint Statement in 2005. But the core four elements of this Joint Statement, “North Korea’s nuclear abandonment,” “financial support,” “normalization of relations,” and “peace system,” faced the same fate that befell the “Agreed Framework between the U.S. and the DPRK in 1994”: no practical outcome. The DPRK demanded a lifting of economic sanctions, financial support, establishment of a peace system, recognition of the North Korean regime, and improvement in U.S.-DPRK relations as preconditions for abandoning its nuclear program. On the other hand, the United States emphasized verifiable nuclear abandonment prior to any progress in other areas (Ha 2006).

However, the fall of nuclear military-first politics is only a matter of time. Nuclear weapons of the Suryong system provide a warrant not for life but for death. If the North keeps rejecting the strategic decision to abandon the nuclear program, the U.S.-led economic sanctions will be intensified, and the possibility that the United States and China would implicitly allow an emergence of a non-nuclear, pro-Chinese regime in the North will mount. After 9/11, the United States has been placing top priority on eliminating weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. North Korea would be sorely mistaken to expect the United States to allow its nuclear program in any case.

Failing in Economic Growth

In the midst of deepening crisis, North Korea chose a military-first economic strategy to prioritize the defense industry over light industry and agriculture, even during the Arduous March. This decision can be seen as a desperate action taken at the brink of collapse after the fall of the communist bloc.

The military-first economy attempted a twenty-first-century version of wijǒng ch’ǒksa, or defense of Confucian orthodoxy and rejection of Christian heterodoxy —that is, a rigid way of looking at its own future in a dichotomy of self-reliance and subordination—outwardly, and domestically allocated its meager capital into heavy industry and defense, all of which failed to resolve the imminent financial crisis. In the end, Pyongyang carried out the “July 1 Measure” in 2002 and implemented “jonghabsijang,” or the “Comprehensive Market System,” in 2003. But even these efforts were carried out within the limits of the military-first economy, and North Korea’s economy went through negative growth for 10 years consecutively from 1990. Despite slight growth in the 2000s, North Korea’s GDP remains at 500 to 1,000 dollars per capita, one of the lowest in the world.