What can we do about North Korea?
By Sean Aqui | Related entries in Foreign Policy, Ideas, In The News, Military, News, The World, WarOkay, so I’m not sure why we’re suddenly all atwitter about North Korea demonstrating it has nukes, since we’ve credited them with nukes for years.
And there’s a possibility they don’t actually have them.
But assuming they do, it would be churlish not to try to lay out some ideas for a solution.
The blogosphere is abuzz with the usual solutions — bomb them, nuke them, invade them, bribe them, send them flowers, blame Clinton — but let’s disregard those. This is reality, not a video game. And reality, in this case, is messy.
So what can we do? Here’s one idea.
This entry was posted on Monday, October 9th, 2006 and is filed under Foreign Policy, Ideas, In The News, Military, News, The World, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:31 am
There are, as far as I can see, no good options. Still I think that there is a pretty good candidate for least bad option. But first, what not to do:
1) Nothing. Even if the US does nothing (or nothing but bluster) someone in East Asia is going to do something in response to this. Doing nothing just means we have no influence over what that is.
2) US military action. Whether it’s tactical air strikes at where we think (correctly or not) North Korea’s nuclear and/or missile facilities are, a full scale invasion, or anything in between, the immediate result will be the same: Seoul gets wiped from the face of the Earth by conventional artillery. Not to mention all the other reasons why it would be a bad idea.
3) More bribery and/or sanctions. Hasn’t worked before. Won’t work now. And since everybody in East Asia knows it (whether they are admitting it publicly or not), this differs from option 1) only in that we are also out the cost of the bribes — and burnish our reputation as fools of the first order.
So, what do we want to accomplish? Simply put, no more nuclear armed North Korea, preferably without getting a few million South Koreans killed in the process. Anything else above and beyond that would be frosting on the cake.
How can we get it? Well, absent a miracle, someone is going to ahve to go in and physically remove North Korea’s nuclear weapons (if any) and the facilities to make more. Since we (which includes the US, South Korea, Japan, the UN, etc.) can’t go in without getting Seoul wiped out, who could? China. (NOTE: there’s no reason for North Korea to shell Seoul if an invasion is coming across their northern border. And with luck, they wouldn’t.)
Why would they? Well, would you want a nut case with a nuclear weapon for a neighbor? Neither do they. And they aren’t under any illusions about what it will take to deal with the situation.
Why wouldn’t they do it? 1) Concern about how the US, South Korea, and the other neighbors would react. 2) Unwillingness to be pushed (or to even seem to be pushed) into something by the US.
So, where do we go next. First, we ask South Korea, Japan, etc. if they have any viable alternatives to suggest. If they did, they probably would have already — but ask. Then quietly, very quietly, let China know that we wouldn’t object if they choose to take action.
In a competent administration, I’d even suggest
1) asking the Chinese if it would make their internal political lives easier if we objected loudly while doing nothing, or if we actually spoke in support of their actions, and
2) offering food and relief supplies to help pick up the pieces afterwards.
But currently, that kind of effort to expedite a solution seems unlikely to happen. Or even be considered. It will be amazing enough if we get anything but option 1.
October 10th, 2006 at 8:55 am
What to do about North Korea
So, what to do about North Korea? Sean Aqui has a thoughtful post up at Midtopia about the problems facing us in confronting North Korea. Avoiding political blame-gaming, he addresses several of the most-discussed options available, highlighting why ea…
October 10th, 2006 at 9:43 am
I’m sure this idea will be met with scorn.
I’ll say it anyway. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. Why not just face it. Uranium can be mined from anywhere including seawater. Enrichment can be accomplished by anyone with enough electric motors and spinning disks.
These are facts whether or not we like them. Telling another nation that they cannot build the motors and disks, that they cannot mine their own sand or seawater is simply stupid.
Face the facts. The genie is out of the bottle. Deal with it. The U.S., the U.N., the rest of the world has no authority to tell other nations what they can and cannot do with their national resources.
This seems to be one of those situations that cannot be controlled by “Authority.” It must be left to that most elusive of things, self-interest.
Nations surrouding rogue states will ultimately realize that their self-interest is best served by finding ways to limit rogue actions.
The U.S. must leave other nations to control neighboring rougue states however they may. The U.S. has no right nor reason to impose it’s will on other nations. Let nature take it’s course … the U.S. should simply “butt out.”
The logical question is, “But what if some rogue nation sells or detonates a nuclear weapon as a ‘terrorist’ action?”
The answer is easy, “Depend upon each nation to protect its own intrerest, and hope for the best.” Why would the U.S. think it has a better view on what’s right than mother nature, who, after all, thought up “survival of the fittest”?
October 10th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Floridian, isn’t that more or less what the U.S. has been doing under the Bush Administration? We’ve insisted that all discussions be conducted under the 6-party talks framework, not unilaterally. It’s been the North Koreans, not the U.S., who have tried to have bilateral discussions on the issue. We are doing our best to support the wishes and desires of our allies in the region, Japan and South Korea most prominently.
Your post seems to suggest you think the U.S. has NOT been following the policy you advocate. What, exactly, do you think we should do differently than what we’ve been doing?
October 10th, 2006 at 11:16 am
wj,
I don’t think the South Koreans would accept that arrangement. They believe deeply in ultimate reunification. A Chinese invasion of North Korea would dampen or end that possibility. China’s not the U.S. When it invades and occupies a country, it does it whole-hog. It’s not in China’s perceived self-interest to invade North Korea just to withdraw and allow it to develop democratically and reunify with South Korea.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Pat,
I’m sure the South Koreans would be unhappy with China in North Korea. (Ignore the question of what South Korea could actually do to “not allow” a Chinese invasion, assuming that the US was not willing to act.) On the other hand, there are no good solutions at the moment — not only from the US point of view, but from the point of view of any of North Korea’s neighbors either. But each has to ask: are the alternatives worse?
For example, China can doubtless see all sorts of down sides to going in. They’ve got a big enough supply of poor rural people already; why take on the starving hordes of North Koreans if it can be avoided? (Bad enough to have them keep coming over the border in search of food. Makes the US problem with illegal immigration look like a mere nothing.) If they could figure out another way to get rid of a) North Korea’s nukes, and b) North Korea’s current ruling elite, they’d probably jump at it. But is there one? Negotiate an independent puppet state with a Chinese overseer, maybe? I admit, my imagination isn’t coming up with much.
And South Korea would be in raptures if the North Koreas would just agree to a supervised demilitarization of the whole peninsula, and to restructure their economy to actually feed their people. (After a decade of that, it might even be possible to reunify Korea without trashing the southern economy.) But would the North Korean government do such a thing? Could they do such a thing and survive in power? Wouldn’t want to bet the ranch on it.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
PatHMV,
To my way of thinking, the U.S. has NOT had a policy of discussing the problem, multilaterally. To the contrary, the U.S. policy has been to tell other nations what they must do. That is not discussion, by definition.
I am suggesting that the U.S. (yes I am a citizen) shut it’s big fat yap and leave diplomacy to others. As a nation, it’s clear we don’t know how diplomacy works.
I am suggesting that we tend to our own little back yard and let the rest of the world handle itself. I’m sick of being hated because we feel we have some obligation to save the world. Let the world go to hell. We are as safe as we can be in our little geological cocoon. let’s take advantage of that for a while and see if the world can get along without our meddling.
If the rest of the world wants our help let them come ask (for a change). At least that way, we can say well, okay, we’ll help … how much you gonna pay? Instead, we finance Europe’s military defense when they offer nothing but grief in return. Gimme a break. I’m sick of us pretending we’re some kind of saviour.
We were a much better nation before we decided to “save the world.”
October 10th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
So, when North Korea says it doesn’t want to negotiate with China, South Korea, Japan, and the other parties to the 6-party talks, and says they will only talk with just the United States, what are we to do? We’ve taken a FAR back seat in negotiations over both Iran and North Korea over the past few years. We’re not the ones driving the train on those issues. We’ve done more or less exactly what you’re asking for, and we’re discovering that the rest of the world doesn’t care enough about North Korea or Iran to actually do anything.
The rest of the world quite often comes and asks for our help. They also know that we’ll help whether they’re particularly nice to us or not.
As for letting the world go to hell, that’s a lovely idea. The pre-WWII isolationists shared your concern. But if the rest of the world is not free, it won’t be long before we aren’t free either. An integrated, global economy has made America far stronger and richer than it could ever have achieved on its own, at the same time it has made most other nations stronger and richer as well. We can’t just get peeved, take our ball, and go home.
October 10th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Quick-hit, scattered (in the sense that they’re not necessarily connected to each other) thoughts:
1) South Korea also has a demographics issue–a serious split in attitudes toward N. Korea between those under, say, 40 and those old enough to remember the lead-up to the Korean War and the aftermath. This is particularly marked among those born in the last quarter century. In an Aug. 2005 poll of young S. Koreans aged 16-25, Gallup Korea found that 65.9 percent would take N. Korea’s side over the United States in the event of a war between the two. Interestingly, not a single one of the respondents, when asked where they would choose live if they couldn’t live in S. Korea, selected N. Korea (17.9% percent chose Australia, 16.8% chose the U.S., and 15.3% chose Japan).
2) There are, I believe, tens of thousands of U.S. civilians working in Seoul. Is that fact generally known? Beats me. But I’m pretty sure that figures into the equation when weighing the possibility of a physical attack on N. Korea.
3) Interesting, dontcha think, the Oct. 8 date of N. Korea’s latest test/demonstration. It happened to be the date that Japan’s PM was visiting Beijing. It also happened to be the anniversary date of Kim Jong-Il’s official assumption of the titles of General Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea and chairman of the National Defense Commission (Oct. 8, 1997). His dead father is considered the “Eternal President,” by the way, and one of the rationalizations for why Kim Jong-Il doesn’t need to hold elections is that he doesn’t hold the elective (presidential) office. And isn’t N.K. the 8th nuclear state (if you exclude Israel, which has not acknowledged whether it’s nuclear or not)?
4) “Fun” quotes from the late Kim Il-Sung:
“Our republic began with the sublime responsibility toward the cause of world peace and has tenaciously struggled to deter the imperialists’ nuclear arms race and maneuvers for a nuclear war.” (exact date unverified)
“If you bomb our cities, we will bomb your cities; if you kill our children, we will kill your children.” (exact date unverified, 1970s?)
“We consider that the United Nations has no right to discuss the Korean question nor has it any right to meddle in the domestic affairs of our country. The Korean question should not be discussed by foreigners in New York or Washington, it should be discussed in Pyongyang or Seoul by the Koreans themselves.” (1962)
“The most important thing in our war preparations is to teach all our people to hate U.S. imperialism. Otherwise, we will not be able to defeat the U.S. imperialists who boast of their technological superiority.
Therefore, we are intensifying ideological education, to imbue the people with hatred for U.S. imperialism. I think this is quite a natural and correct thing for us to do. We do not have to stop the anti-U.S. education we have been giving to our people or conceal the fact that we are educating them in anti-U.S. ideas just because you come to our country, do we?” (1972)
This N.K. thing has been brewing for a long time, it appears.
October 10th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
[...] What can we do about North Korea?Donklephant - 19 hours ago… The blogosphere is abuzz with the usual solutions bomb them, nuke them, invade them, bribe them, send them flowers, blame Clinton but let s disregard … [...]
October 10th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
It comes down to this -
Does NK want justification for having nuclear weapons? YES!
What justification for having nuclear weapons are they using at present? IMMINENT ATTACK BY THE U.S.
What is the worst thing that could happen from the NK POV? That attack does not happen.
Conversely -
What would make the North Korean regime really truly happy?
Being attacked by the US, because it would justify every promise that they have made to the NK people.
October 10th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
PatHMV,
So, if NK wants to negotiate with other nations, fine. The U.S. has no real interest to protect there. Why should we stick our noses in that bowl of noodles?
We have enough problems here. The rosy picture you paint of the current U.S. ignores the fact that we just voted away our right to trial by a court of law. It ignores the largest deficit in history. It ignores our hidden unemployment (those who have given up job-huntin). It ignores our own government spying on us. It ignores our national unwillingness to use scientific realities rather than faith. It ignores our decision to continue torture as a national policy. Does a nation like that have a claim on moral leadership?
Let’s get our own house in order before we pretent we’re able demand actions of others.
October 11th, 2006 at 8:56 am
Re – letting China do the dirty work of NK “regime change” for us: PatHMV has a good point that this might result in NK simply getting annexed by the PRC – that is, unless the PRC perceives it’s in its best interest to keep NK as a buffer between itself and the Western-aligned nations of the region. In that case, it just might let NK continue to exist as at least a nominally separate state, under the obvious condition that it not attempt formal reunification with SK. But even in that case, it’s likely that restrictions on communications, travel and commerce between the two Koreas would be loosened dramatically (all the better for the North’s economic development, and to throw a bone to the South Koreans who want reunification).
It’s also likely to help the U.S. by letting us reduce our military footprint in the region (and transfer it elsewhere?), at least along the erstwhile DMZ.
April 27th, 2007 at 7:41 am
I saw a National Geographic special about North Korea the other day and I am horrified and dismayed for the people of North Korea. I don’t believe there is anything the west can do about the situation, but it is so very tragic.