A sufficiently tight embargo is usefull not only to convince Kim to change (unlikely), but also to convince his generals to revolt and overthrow him. When the ruling class begins to starve, change will occur.
In order to negotiate, both sides have to want to. I see no evidence that NK wants to negotiate in good faith. We have nothing they want. And we can’t “isolate” them. As some experts have said, how can you isolate the most isolated country in the world-- a country that has purposely isolated iteslf? Kim wants the bomb, he doesn’t want anything from us except for us not to invade him. And the best way for him to ensure we don’t invade is to get the bomb. The best we can do is deal with it as a reality.
We are already not trading with North Korea. We can’t not trade with him less than zero.
And the ruling class will never starve in Korea. The peasants will starve, but the generals won’t starve. As long as someone has a gun they can use that gun to take rice away from starving people. Even if millions are starving the generals will not starve. And starving people generally don’t hold revolutions, they generally just die. You have to have surplus food to march and revolt and fight. Starving people generally are too busy searching for bark and leaves and pine needles to revolt.
Let us know when you convince China to do that. We don’t trade with NK.
I never suggested that we are trading with NK. However, we are on negotiating terms with China, and we can encourage them to cut off supplies. It appears they may arrive at that conclusion on their own anyway. Sooner or later, China will see NK as a nothing but a big pain in the ass, and cut off the gravy train. Then the generals will starve, and change will occur.
Unfortunately, nuclear war comes under the heading of “change”.
That’s why (I think) Kim Jong-il acts crazy. Whether he means it or not - it’s hard to tell - his best play is to convince everyone, allies included, that if too much pressure is brought to bear he will drop the Big One on Japan or Seoul. Or Beijing.
Best case scenario as far as I can tell is Dear Leader meeting with an unfortunate accident - he was playing with a gun and it went off ten or fifteen times. SK has the best chance of bringing that off.
It’s hard to tell if Kim scares his generals as much as he scares the rest of the civilized world - are they really dumb enough to die for this clown? If Kim makes threatening gestures towards a nuclear attack on someone, will there be a coup of some sort?
Regards,
Shodan
The other purpose for diplomacy is to give the impression of people doing serious work. When you can’t point to anything substantive, create the atmosphere of progress.
Incredible or no, Republicans today continue to insist that much of the blame for NK’s development of a nuclear arsenal lies at the feet of Bill Clinton, whose allegedly “inconsistent message” to NK emboldened Kim to move forward. The truth, however, is that North Korea has been hell-bent on developing a nuclear arsenal and if that means 10 million more peasants must die in the exchange, so be it. Nothing will stop Kim from realizing his dream and hoping for an internal coup is pie in the sky.
Perhaps the “blame” should be shared. This is from a March 2003, article:
Source: The two faces of Rumsfeld | World news | The Guardian
That’s why I suggested you let us know when you convince China to cut off trade. China would probably rather have a nuclear NK than a destabilized NK or a NK that sought a different patron. That’s why I suggested it will take a big move on Japan’s part to get China to act-- they need more incentive than they have now. MHO, of course, but I’d be willing to bet on it (literally).
The U.S. can also impose a blockade on North Korea with the putative excuse that they can’t risk weapons transfers. The U.S. can cut off arms sales to Iran, for instance. If China plays ball, they could cut off so much trade and money that they could potentially force a revolution or a regime change.
I’m not saying that this is necessarily the best policy, but it is an option other than all-out war or doing nothing.
I don’t think there was ever a serious risk of invasion from any of his enemies. The United States wasn’t going to take military action against the wishes of South Korea, and up until this test the South Koreans have been extremely unhappy with anything that might antagonize the North, let alone even come close to agreeing to outright war. Even without nuclear weapons the North has long had enough conventional weapons to set South Korea back into the stone ages, at least the areas of South Korea near the North Korean border.
They’ve said today they will regard economic sanctions as an act of war.
Who would they use this plane on? About the only target they could hit with a conventional bomber plane would be China or South Korea, I genuinely don’t think a North Korean bomber would be able to make it to Japan before being shot down.
I predict China will impose a limited embargo on NK withing 30 days. I also predict the UN will authorize some kind of blockade and inspection of ships entering and leaving NK ports.
And respond how? [yawn]
By shelling the capital of south korea? By giving a bunch of eastern european computer geeks 2 million dollars to create havoc? Maybe I just have a fertile imagination but I can think of a zillion ways a nutter head of state, with access at least to plutonium, if not a working bomb can ‘wage war’.
Any that don’t mean automatic regime suicide?
You seem to be laboring under the impression that the leadership in NK makes the same calculations that you do…and that they are fully rational. Maybe they are…but maybe they aren’t too. I don’t think that NK threatening military action of the sanctions continue is anything to yawn at myself…
-XT
Anonymously funded hackers for one. Same for terrorists funded through enough cut-outs. An oil tanker exploding in NYC harbour or whatever. ‘Accidents’ to politicians. Poisoned water supplies. There are countless destructive things to do with enough room for doubt as to the culprits. Certainly enough doubt to stop a full-scale US attack. It’s not like the USA doesn’t have a whole world of enemies.
What are blockades going to do expect starve the populace into stampeding over the border?
Are you forgetting that we have a few thousand US troops right on the DMZ? There are any number of scenarios in which they could become targets and then what are we going to do about it, invade them? With what? Nuke them? That would be insane.
The best thing we could do would be to get back to something similar to the '94 agreement. Clinton was pretty successful at keeping NK in line. We should learn from what worked.