Saw this program on PBS last night. I thought it gave a good historical overview of where we (the US) stand in relationship to North Korea. What I found intersting was the following comment:
(excerpt from the show via the Boston Globe)
Asked to describe the Bush policy, Donald Gregg, former CIA operative and ambassador to South Korea under Bush the elder, says, “It never had a policy. It’s had an attitude.”
What is that attitude? asks a reporter.
“Hostility.”
They also interviewed the current ambassador to South Korea who disagreed with the above assessment. Now, given what we know about the situation in North Korea (monitoring devices deactivated at Yonbyong, develoment of enriched-urnaium processing facilities, backing out of the nuclear testing treaty, development of long-range missles, etc.), is the current administration’s policy toward North Korea prudent? If so, what are the likely outcomes of continuing such a policy? If the current policy is not prudent, what might be an alternative course of action for the administration to take?
My take - I think the administration needs to seriously reconsider it position. It has undermined South Korea’s attempt to foster better relations with North Korea (and, thus would be most affected by any kind of military action taken by either US or North Korea). On top of it, I think it also creates problems in our relationship with Japan, China, and Russia.
The thing is, all those things North Korea did were done after the Bush administration targeted them as “evil” and basically implied that they’re going to oust the current regime. Backing out of the treaty, threatening with missiles, etc. all happened after the “axis of evil” deal.
Given the preceding, a better question would be: Given what we know about GWB (Afghanistan, Iraq) is KJI’s policy toward the US, Japan, and South Korea prudent?
In other words, NK had ratified the Framework Agreement without any intention to adhere to it. The administration naming of NK as part of the “axis of evil” does not appear to have had anything to do with NK’s resumption of its nuclear program.
That’s what I’ve been hoping to see discussion on. I keep hearing the argument, “Well, the Afghanis and the Iraqis didn’t have WMDs, and look what happened to them. Kim must be saying to himself, ‘I’ve got to get some nukes so that I’ll have a bargaining chip to use vs. the USA so I can keep from being invaded.’”
Which seems like utter nonsense to me. If NK develops more and more nukes, I think it will GUARANTEE that the UN/USA has to invade them, rather than deterring us. We will flatly refuse to bargain with them until they give up their nukes, which won’t happen, and then things will escalate until somebody makes a first strike (quite possibly the USA, though I wouldn’t be surprised to see, say, the USA shoots down a NK MiG that was messing with our spy planes, and then NK uses that as pretext for total war).
All in all, it seems that the appeasement pre-Bush was getting them all of the favors they needed to survive and normalize. But the fact that they were stupid enough to pursue nukes (and let’s not forget–it was the fact that the USA confronted NK with evidence that NK was ALREADY pursuing nukes that led to this latest escalation) has doomed them, IMO.
How would you suggest the administration adjust its position? Play nice, whisper sweet nothing’s into Kim’s ear? Bags of money?
The Iraq invasion illustrates what will be America’s position for at least the next 6 years: Nations that threaten the United States will be attacked. States will be ended, to paraphrase Wolfowitz.
I think this is the only way to realistically deal with the problem, and by dealing with it I mean make it go away forever, not for a few years. This country’s military might will be used as a world-shaping force, and for the better. People won’t be enslaved, people will be liberated. This is good.
I know, what right do we have? How dare us. How arrogant.
Yeah, whatever. The fact is that this is how human affairs have always played out, and if things were going to change, they would’ve by now. Face it - history will continue to be shaped by those with the strength to do it.
I really am curious as to how you think the situation in North Korea can be solved permanently without shots fired.
The thing about North Korea is that any conflict there will get very very messy, very very fast.
There’s more than ten million people in Seoul right? The North Korean artillery can hit it without being anywere near the DMZ. North Korean missiles can hit major Japanese cities, there’s little doubt they’re well stocked on chemical and biological weapons and they’ve probably got a few nukes stashed away as well.
If you yanks want to take out the North Korean regime go ahead, but the casualty list is going to be in the millions and the world economy is going to take a beating. And that’s if your lucky.
Fox , that’s the conventional wisdom on the subject. I’m not a military expert, and it might be that North Korea can’t be attacked for the reasons you mentioned.
But I’m thinking that there are probably ways around it. Massive airstrikes taking out the artillary and rockets that threaten Seoul? Evacuate Seoul? Decapitation strikes? Special Ops raids against key installations?
Like I said, I don’t know the details. That’s why we have West Point, and that’s why generals get paid the tall coin to figure this stuff out. Who knows what they’ve got in mind, but I think there’s a possibility they have something in mind, otherwise they wouldn’t have settled in this hardline stance.
Evacuate Seoul? No fffin’ way! Couldn’t be done in time, and you wouldn’t be able to get everyone to agree to it. Besides, how would you keep it secret from North Korea? Massive airstrikes wouldn’t work either. The moment the bombs started dropping, the North Koreans would begin launching an attack against the South. Sure, the airstrikes might knock out 50% or more of the NK’s forces in the first few seconds, but the remaining ones will get at least one shot off before they’re hit. A military “solution” to NK is going to be highly messy.
If we were to take North Korean rhetoric at face value, which I wouldn’t, it won’t be an issue of attacking so much as defending. I think KJI realizes that his rhetorical hostilities cannot be matched with ultimate victory on the field. Or, I hope so. Otherwise, we’re looking at Korean War II, based on what KJI has said, or other North Korean representatives.
I agree about the potential intensity of the conflict. Any war on the Korean Peninsula will be very bloody. The DMZ, of course, being the most ill-named place on the Earth. Remove the D.
This is reality. As the primary power, it is incumbent upon us to work with our allies and the world community generally. As much as liberating people from bloodthirsty dictators is good, and it is, military power must be exercised judiciously. OTOH, there is no need to be French about it.
Did you see the show that the Evil Dwarf put on for Maddy Albright. A quarter million people doing precision dancing! Yes, this is madness, but this is some potent madness.
If this thing goes south, hundreds of thousands of people will die, among them the troops were have offered up as hostages (they certainly can’t be meaningful militarily against an army of a million NK…and I would remind you, the Korean soldier has long had a reputation as the baddest of the bad…make a Chiricaua Apache crap his pants…).
At this point, Our Leader is sticking to his inane policy of refusing to talk because this would “reward” them.
If swallowing a bit of pride or eating some of our words save that many lives, how can we, in any decency, do otherwise?
Well, e, they’ve taken nukes off the table, what is there to negotiate? I guess it’s bribe them to keep them from invading? That reminds me of the relationship the Avars had with the Byzantine Empire. Why, when I was a kid, and Constantine…
What you say about the North Korean soldiers is true. The question is what happens when they find out everything that they were taught about South Korea and the United States was a lie. War planners actually consider, what happens when North Koreans overrun shopping malls?
OTOH, the shopping mall defense is not one to hang your hat on. I fear a nuclear response if NK attacks SK. It would be tempting if the North Koreans open up with all that artillery, using gas, on the Seoul population of around 12 million people.
What the U.S. is trying to avoid is the ‘bilateral trap’. The trap looks like this: North Korea rattles its saber. The U.S. begs them to settle down. North Korea demands concessions. The U.S. agrees. Things calm down for a short while, then the cycle repeats.
In the meantime, NK’s neighbors withdraw from discussions and drop the problem in the U.S.'s lap. The problem is, the U.S. has no good tools for dealing with North Korea, other than to give it what it wants. North Korea knows this, so there’s no reason to stop ratcheting up the demands.
The day will come (and it’s very close now) where North Korea’s demands will be unacceptable. Then you’re really trapped - agree to something unacceptable, or refuse and force the North Koreans to play their hand. And given the nutbar nature of Kim Jong Il, calling his bluff is not a smart thing to do.
So what the U.S. is trying to do is to force North Korea’s neighbors to engage. Because those neighbors have non-military leverage the U.S. does not have. China is NK’s biggest (almost only) trading partner. North Korea gets lots of aid from China. North Korea desperately wants to re-integrate with South Korea. So these countries have things to negotiate that the U.S. doesn’t. In comparison, the U.S.'s options are: Give in, or use military force. That’s not a sound basis for a stable situation.
The U.S.'s position is this: China does not want a nuclear South Korea and Japan. South Korea does not want a North Korea that can build six nukes a year. So these countries have a solid interest in successful diplomacy. But so far, they’ve been sitting on their hands hoping the U.S. will solve their problem for them.
The U.S. policy isn’t fixed in stone. The government knows it has a little time to make this policy work, but once that time runs out (which will happen when NK starts re-processing spent nuclear fuel), the U.S. will be forced to engage in negotiations, threats, or military action. But until then, this policy of local engagement looks sound, and is worth trying.
The above is the latest spin from the administration’s apologists which ,as usual, Sam Stone has swallowed hook,line and sinker.
You have to ask the question: if this was the administration’s strategy: why spend so many months making threats to North Korea and naming it in the axis of evil. If the administration wanted a multilateral solution, one would have though that making unilateral threats to North Korea wouldn’t be the best way to go about doing it.
The fact is that the administration doesn’t have any coherent strategy on North Korea. It has alieanted South Korea and no military option is remotely attractive. There is no policy and it’s trying to spin this as some kind of clever gambit which will make China and South Korea take the lead. It’s letting the matter drift and allowing North Korea to collect more and more bargaining chips before the inevitable deal.
I can understand the US position of not wanting to get caught in the bilaterial trap. What I don’t understand, is that if North Korea is working on obtaining nuclear weapons, why aren’t we putting more pressure on those that can deal with them most effectively (particularly the South Koreans)? In rewatching the Frontline program tonight, I get the impression that those within the administraton don’t see the situation as critical at this point.
It’s interesting you mention this - In the Frontline program it was the impression of former Secreatary of State (Defense?) Perry that we (the US) have a very short window (months) in order to deal with the situation. After a critical threshold, then, in his words, we’ve “reached the point of no return.” As I understand it, Kim has already played his cards. He has, in effect, said “We’re going to develop nuclear weapons - what are you going to do about it?”
I don’t think out only option right now is give in/use military force. Why can’t we bring it upon ourselves to cajole/twist the arm of South Korea, Japan, China, et al ? I mean, it’s also in their best interests that North Korea not go nuclear. We don’t come across as the “appeaser” if it’s the South Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, et al that are trying to make nice with Kim.
Problem is (as reported by the Frontline program), North Korea has already started the process of re-processing spent nuclear fuel - Yongbyong is up and running. It doesn’t look as if the current administrations policy of local engagment has changed anything. Which, to me, is worrisome.
I agree. It’s a reasonable thing to try. That doesn’t mean it will succeed. But I think the war with Iraq helped. The U.S. sent a pretty powerful message with that rapid destruction of the Iraqi military. It may cause China and North Korea and South Korea to re-evalauate.
Looks like the strategy might be working after all. At least, they’ve got these other countries at least trying. The question is whether or not North Korea will respond.
“But I think the war with Iraq helped. The U.S. sent a pretty powerful message with that rapid destruction of the Iraqi military”
Yes it has “helped” North Korea come to the conclusion that the best way of preventing a US attack is to keep its nuclear weapons and made it harden its negotiating stance. Hopefully this is just a bargaining tactic but it’s certainly not a good sign. http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030411.wkornuk0411/BNStory/International
Nukes have been off the table for some time. It’s not really breaking news, though the cite claims it is.
But, if KJI thought about it, he would reconsider. There are several reasons, here’s one: North Korea, with each step in its nuclearization, becomes more and more a candidate for a first use of nuclear weapons in the event of a war. Let me be clear, I’m not saying that the US would preemptively strike Pyongyang with a nuke. I am saying that if the North Koreans came streaming accross the DMZ supported by armor and the missile barrage and artillery all the experts anticipate, the US would be well within long-standing principles of first use (over decades) to nuke the enemy troop concentrations and military instillations.
I’m not saying that is good or bad. It just is. The US has a first use policy going back to the beginning of nuclear weapons, if you think about it. In the case of North Korea, by becoming a member of the nuclear club, it makes itself a prime candidate for a first use, again, in the event of an all out war on the Korean Peninsula. If, OTOH, NK did not have a nuclear program the US would not consider the first use of nuclear weapons.
Err… do some of you have diplomatic sources I do not? How do you know what has been going on? The US hasn’t made any big press releases, unlike the weekly North korean Threat-of-the-Day and the regular Amerca-is-Going-to-Invade/America-Will-Nuke-NK.
But I’ve heard a few saying that we’re dealing indirectly with South Korea. And in this diplomatic war, it would seem that we need some silence on that front.
