An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

The North Korea Syndrome

A defiant North Korea claims it will retaliate if its ships are boarded off its western coast and if the United Nations Security Council imposes stricter sanctions on its development of nuclear warheads.

The announcement comes a day after the government said it would declare war on South Korea if provoked.

The latest war of words has strained the patience of its neighbors China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Not in Washington, apparently.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the U.S. has detected no unusual troop movements in North Korea and has no plans to reinforce some 28,000 U.S. forces in South Korea and Japan.

“Should the North Koreans do something rash and extremely provocative militarily,” the United States “has the forces to deal with it,” Gates told reporters on a flight to Singapore for an annual security conference.

It is curious that Gates is taking an Alfred E. Neuman approach of “What, me worry?” while earlier in the week Secretary of State Hilllary Clinton warned North Korea of “dire consequences” and President Obama scolded the Kim Jong-il regime for testing an underground nuclear devise in violation of United Nations agreements.

The fact is the Obama administration has no new public policy position regarding North Korea and its special envoy to that country is only a temporary position.

North Korea’s position seems to be intent on joining the world’s arsenal of nuclear powers for self defense while the rest of the nations are wondering who the hell would want to invade that impoverished nation that has little to give.

Since it tested a nuclear device last

Monday, triggering an international crisis, North Korea has test-fired at least six missiles.

The most likely hot spot for a provocation is a fishing and cargo channel off the western Korean coast which was the site of skirmishes in 1999 and 2002.

Gates echoed other senior officials by saying that North Korea’s export of its nuclear technology to other countries was a major concern. “These guys have shown a penchant in the past for selling anything they’ve been able to develop,” Gates said.

North Korea’s military threats against the South were in response to South Korea’s decision on Tuesday to join an American-led operation to stop and search ships carrying suspicious cargo. The operation, called the Proliferation Security Initiative, was created by former President George W. Bush in 2003 and now includes 95 countries.

North Korea reacted by calling South Korea’s action a “declaration of war.” The situation is serious enough for 150 Chinese fishing boats, about half its fleet, to pull out of the troubled waters.

The second front of the crises is North Korea ratcheting up its nuclear tests.

“If the U.N. Security Council makes a further provocation, it will be inevitable for us to take further self-defense measures,” the North’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

North Korea also accused the Security Council of hypocrisy.

“There is a limit to our patience,” the statement said. “The nuclear test conducted in our nation this time is the Earth’s 2,054th nuclear test. The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have conducted 99.99 percent of the total nuclear tests.”

The Obama administration is exercising patience because it has no game plan or is holding its cards close to its vest as in a high stakes poker game. The opinions expressed in the mass media markets are not encouraging, either.

Writes Michael Hirsh in Newsweek:

Kim Jong -Il has always been pretty wacky, with his bouffant hair and awkward habit of kidnapping actresses while starving his people, but at least the diminutive Dear Leader was someone you could talk with now and then. Today, with a stroke-damaged Kim apparently in eclipse and North Korea erupting out of control again, Barack Obama has a serious problem. As much as he might like to, it doesn’t look as if the president has anyone to engage with, even in North Korea’s traditional language of blackmail.

Writes Dan Blumenthal and Robert Kagan in the Washington Post
who at least offer a possible solution:

The North Korean launch of its Taeopodong-2 missile and its second nuclear test have laid bare the paucity of President Obama’s policy options. They have exposed the futility of the six-party talks and, in particular, the much-hyped myth of China’s value as a partner on strategic matters. The Obama administration claims that it wants to break with the policies of its predecessor. This is one area where it ought to.

After decades of diplomacy and “probing” Pyongyang’s intentions, one thing is clear: Kim Jong Il and his cronies want nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. What will dissuade them? Isolation and more punitive sanctions would make sense if China and Russia would go along. But they haven’t, and they won’t.

For several years, this lack of attractive options has driven many to look to the Chinese for help. Advocates of warm engagement with the Chinese have been the most enthusiastic promoters of this approach, less, we suspect, out of concern for solving the North Korea problem than to prove the worth of close cooperation with Beijing. North Korea, they have tirelessly claimed, is one of those common strategic interests that the United States and Beijing allegedly share.

This proposition has been discredited.

The ultimate American aim should be to help bring about a unified Korean Peninsula and not cede influence over the two Koreas to Beijing. The current diplomatic arrangements have permitted China to set the political agenda while quietly increasing its leverage over the North. But Washington doesn’t need to go through Beijing to get to Pyongyang. Direct negotiations between the United States and North Korea, in close consultation with Japan and South Korea, are better than working through a middleman who has no desire or interest in closing the deal. Both Japan and South Korea would welcome greater U.S. engagement with the North. Seoul wants reassurance that it will not shoulder the burden of unification by itself. Japan wants U.S. protection and a guarantee that Washington will have some presence on the peninsula for the long term.

A New York Times editorial takes the Obama approach by negotiating first through six-party talks and then bilateral negotiations to allow weapons inspectors into the country as North Korea’s only hope for coming in from the cold and ending its deep economic privation.
Unfortunately, Pyongyang doesn’t see it that way right now, which is why the international response must be firm and skillfully choreographed. Loudly castigating and threatening North Korea and then failing to implement sanctions is worse than doing nothing at all. It will only embolden Pyongyang and send a dangerous message to others — Iran is surely watching — about the fecklessness of the major powers.

While the Chinese Foreign Ministry condemned North Korea for Monday’s nuclear test, it is unknown whether they will enthusiastically support tougher sanctions now being deliberated in the UN Security Council.

However, there is growing dissent among Chinese intellectuals and media commentators.

“North Korea has become a major problem for China,” says Zhang Yushan, who works for a government think tank in Jilin province, near the North Korean border. “It has become a dangerous player in the world.”

China has a unique and influential relationship with North Korea as its closest ally and trading partner, sharing an 870-mile border.

In the past, many who influence Chinese policy supported the argument that North Korea’s actions must be tolerated because opposing it might lead to instability. That view is changing. “I’m less interested in stability than in having a denuclearized Korean peninsula,” says Zhang Liangui of the Party School, the leading think tank of China’s Communist Party. “It is not in China’s interest to have our neighbor exploding nuclear devices.”

Russia, meanwhile, which has taken a back seat to China, is indicating a change in direction.

After an initial, mild expression of “concern” by the Russian foreign minister, the government issued a high-level statement denouncing the underground blast as a “direct violation” of U.N. resolutions.

“Initiators of decisions on nuclear tests bear personal responsibility for them to the world community,” said Natalya Timakova, chief spokeswoman for President Dmitry Medvedev, adding that the test “deals a blow to international efforts to strengthen the global regime of nuclear nonproliferation.”

“The reaction has been quite serious and quite unusual,” said Alexander Pikayev, a top arms control expert at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. “Moscow is really concerned. North Korea most likely has an operational deterrent now with this successful test. So this changes the whole situation.”
Vasily Mikheev, a senior Asia scholar at the Russian Academy of Sciences, said Medvedev seemed to be driving the more forceful response, perhaps to assert his authority over foreign policy a year after succeeding Vladimir Putin, now the prime minister.

Medvedev may see the issue in the context of his efforts to improve relations with the United States, Mikheev added. “Nonproliferation is one of the most important areas where Russia and America can work together,” he said.

And what do the South Koreans think?

“We sent them food, fertilizer, factories, more than we give our own poor people,” said the South Korean, Lee Soon-hwan, a 30-year-old office worker. “And all they pay us back with is this nuclear test.”
After years of hope that relations with the North would thaw if the South tried to coax it into engagement, regional experts and others speak of growing disenchantment. Many South Koreans reacted with exasperation and even anger to North Korea’s nuclear test on Monday, uncharacteristically harsh responses in a country that has long been more tolerant of its unruly northern neighbor than have its allies in Washington and Tokyo.

“There has been a paradigm shift in how South Koreans view North Korea,” said Jeung Young-tai, a North Korea expert at the Korea Institute for National Unification. “The nuclear test has made people feel that North Korea has gone too far, and it’s high time for us to be tough on North Korea.”

But Jeung said that people now felt no safer after 10 years of engagement and that the latest nuclear test, along with the North’s test-firing of a long-range rocket last month, had driven home to many in South Korea their need to build up their own military, and stick with their traditional ally, the United States.
The thing is, no one knows what’s going on in the distorted mind of Kim Jong-il or the thirsty grab for power by either his political cohorts or even the military.

Cross posted on The Remmers Report

  • pacatrue
    Good review. One strong possibility, as others have mentioned, is that these current actions are motivated entirely for internal political reasons. Kim is certainly not above trying to get a few of his own vessels blown up so that he can show videos of the evil South Koreans and Americans attacking them. Only the Dear Leader and his appointed heir, the third son I think, can save the nation now!
  • Silhouette
    Let's see. If I wanted to bring down the US, I'd engage it in as many foreign campaigns as possible while its budget strains beyond the breaking point. I'd convince it that China would be willing to bankroll it [China...! really?]. Meanwhile China would be in on the deal to bring the US to its knees as it foolishly engages with bravado in stupid foreign engagement after stupid foreign engagement..

    In bull fighting with several matadors, they gaff the bull repeatedly as one matador after another distracts it with a red cape flaring and taunting it to charge. Then wham! Another gaff goes in its neck. The final kill is a rather mundane affair as the bull falls to its knees, weakened by so much blood loss and charging that it no longer can put up a fight. Then there is a big BBQ where the different matadors divide up the carcass and party down.


    I think all of our generals and strategists should be required to attend at least a dozen bullfights in order to let it sink in.

    Sometimes I think we are dumber than dirt.. Russia, China, N. Korea and Iran [at the very least] are cooperating to bring the bull to its knees. Anyone who thinks differently just hasn't seen torredors in action.. My guess is that the final gaff will be a crash of our electronic systems via a nice little virus. We would be helpless. I'm not the first to postulate this either..
  • keelaay
    Great bull analogy Silhouette. Of course, all the bull need do is pursue one matador at a time. He can empale, bloody, and trample any of them individually. But the bull is a relatively dumb animal and the matadors know each can taunt it away from the other. If the US were smarter than the bull, who do you suggest we go after first?
  • Silhouette
    Is there some mandate that we must "go after" people who would do just fine without our meddling? Face it, the only real and true reason we engage in wars is A. in the case of Hitler being an indisputable megalonmaniac hellbent on genocide and taking over the world or [most often] B. to take away sovereign nations' control over their own lucrative natural resources so that we can profit and not they.

    The simple solution is to curb rampant monopolizing capitalism and instead impliment sane policies that allow us a more diverse GNP with which we can trade for the goodies we want on the world market instead of commiting armed robbery on a global scale [and we wonder why we have enemies.]

    I always try to do this. I always try to get people to imagine a reverse scenario. Imagine if say, some natural resource that only existed in the US suddenly became sought after worldwide? And imagine then if China up and decided it wanted to control it and not allow us to. So then they demonized our leader, accused him of [fill in the blank appalling information geared to spur world support], and proceeded to invade our country, sieze the resource and install a puppet government intended at once to lull the natives back into complacency while factually maintaining real control from abroad?

    Yes, I don't think we'd like that very much and yet we expect people of other nations to allow us to do it on a daily basis.

    We as a nation need to recapitulate, we need to look at ourselves and be ashamed. We need to make adjustments in how we deal with the world at large. The world isn't the US's [cloister of very rich GOP men's] oyster.

    And as for N. Korea and other nations like it, their antics are doing the exact opposite of what they intended. They intend, I'm sure, to take advantage of what they mistaken as "Obama's weakness", or rather the US's collective weakness thanks to Cheneyco bankrupting us via his hostile corporate takeover in Iraq, with our guns and money. Instead what they're going to do is prove Cheney "right" and get another round of the GOP in next time to enact another round of world exacerbations. They should also take advantage of "change we can believe in" and instead work towards real solutions to never let the GOP [their real enemies] sieze power again...to make them look like the fools they are in concert with the Obama adminstration. They need to understand American politics and the four-year cycle. Help us stamp out the foxes in the chicken coop....if they were smart... Even if they succeeded sacking the US, our populace would be worse than Afghanistan to try to control. Better that they help us be a strong and pleasant, negotiable world partner instead. It would be a win-win for everyone..

    The short answer to your question is: we need to all stop behaving like animals and "he-men", else we'll all wind up on the BBQ grill.
  • keelaay
    I was just following your analogy Sillhouette, which I thought was a good one and wanted to commend you for. In the analogy, the bulls best chance is to attack one taunter at a time, thus my query -- which one do you suggest? You seem to think I am advocating that the US should attack one of its taunters. I am not. I was just taking the analogy to its logical conclusion. If a reversal of US global policy and behavior will change this game, then its certainly no bullfight. The short answer to the bullfight query is that it doesn't matter, the bull is going to get killed whether he attacks his taunters or not. That's what bull fights are all about.

    Anyway, the analogy is not important. In the context of your two "real reasons" the US goes to war, it seems to me that a US strike against North Korea would fall under reason B, that being " to take away sovereign nations' control over their own lucrative natural resources so that we can profit and not they." I personally can't imagine any natural resources in North Korea that the US is interested in, or anybody else for that matter. (And we certainly cant argue that the good Mr. Kim, much as he might fancy it, falls under reason A, an "indisputable megalonmaniac hellbent on genocide and taking over the world").

    But I would respectfully argue that North Korea is a highly militarist, unstable, brutal, and belligerent dictatorship which, when soon armed with nuclear weapons, will pose a serious and imminent threat to it neighbors and to regional stability. We are beholden by treaty to defend two of those neighbors -- in the case of Japan under a treaty that ended the allied occupation and disarmed Japan. I agree that the US has and continues to do lots of bad things internationally, but trying to contain North Korean nuclear missile development isn't one of them.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC