How to deal with a problem like North Korea?

Monday, 1st June 2009

As Yglesias notes, it's uncanny how too many conservative pundits continue to believe that every problem is a nail and the only tool the United States possesses is a hammer. Now, like everyone else, I have no idea how we should deal with North Korea. And even that assumes that there is some kind of a deal that can be made. One thing I would ask, however, is that since NK seems to rather enjoy its pariah status - in as much as any paranoid regime can be said to enjoy anything - one wonders if increasing or tightening sanctions on NK is the most sensible tactic. In some sense, might this not actually confirm the North Korean diagnosis of their situation and actually make them more, not less, determined to annoy the rest of the international community?

If that were the case - and, to repeat, I don't say it is - then the alternatives, counter-intuitive though it may be and thus always vulnerable to accusations of being daft, deluded or simply trying too hard, might be to either a) ignore North Korea and deprive it of the attention it seeks or b) smother it with kindness by reducing and relaxing sanctions in the hope that bringing NK into the international community will hasten its end. Who benefits from the current approach? Not the people of North Korea anyway. Is it possible that - as with Cuba - we're actually helping the regime even as we implement measures that are designed to frustrate it? Maybe!

Then again, the rest of the international community might not be very interested in change in NK. At least, not rapid and therefore highly uncertain change. Suppose Pyongyang were to fall and fall quickly? Chaos! What on earth would replace it? How would the US, China and Japan, to say nothing of South Korea, handle the power vaccuum that emerged? And that's before you even consider the likely humanitarian catastrophe and the question of who'd pay for, or take responsibility, for that. And what about reunifying the peninsula? Would the South really want that, not least since they'll have seen the damage German reunification did to west Germany's economy (a price that is still, probably, being paid)? Who the hell knows?

Consequently, we're left with a position in which it's more convenient, in many ways, for all parties to maintain the status quo. That is, you might say, at least a known known. And those are preferable - in such delicate and dangerous situations - to anything that suggests, let alone encourages, uncertainty.

Alternatively, you could take the Bill Kristol line and argue -surprise! - that the US should attack North Korea. Because, you know, two wars aren't enough. Three, if you count the one that some folk want to have with Iran. Seriously:

But, as I say, I dunno. I'd be interested in hearing more from Charles Crawford on this.

Filed under: Bill Kristol (2 more articles) , Diplomacy (75 more articles) , North Korea (11 more articles) , War (155 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (5)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

THX1138

June 1st, 2009 6:19pm Report this comment

If you don't what's going on to quote Lester Freamon (The Wire)

"follow the money"

Or in this case the Seoul stock exchange which keeps going up.

Now after the pounding I've had on the markets recently you might want to discount my advice but one thing that I'm still very sure about is that the imminent threat of invasion or nuclear obliteration by your loony neighbour might be tad unsettling on markets. Obviously the traders of the S Korean stock exchange don't think the North are crossing the 38th Parallel anytime soon.

Rhoda Klapp

June 1st, 2009 6:40pm Report this comment

It was suggested in the 70s (I think it was a Playboy article!) that it was costing the US about $1m each to kill the Viet Cong, and it would be more effective to drop fridges, beer, radios, whatever. Maybe even actual cash. Maybe they could try that this time. But expect a whole lot of new recalcitrant countries to emerge.

Beefeater

June 1st, 2009 11:31pm Report this comment

Another lazy-minded speculation undertaken in order to snigger at neocons.
Have the courage of your assumption that NK does indeed wish to preserve its perfect Stalinist state in isolation... Its foreign policy is directed at establishing zero interference. Sanctions tightened or eased would make no difference - except as a discussion point in "talks". "Talks" are an excellent way to preserve its isolation - by breaking them off from time to time - while enjoying the carrots (even nuclear ones)thrown at it.
Why would NK want to preserve its isolation? Precisely to continue its one real trade - and guarantor of isolation - nuclear warheads and missile delivery systems. Its major trading partner is Iran. We already know about their strategic partnership (with Venezuela to come as an extension of the Axis).
Of course NK wants attention. It is very loudly calling America's bluff.
This suggests 1. a blockade and 2. if NK does take interdicting of its ships as an act of war - bombing of Pyongyang and other targets.
This might prevent Iran's perfecting its nuclear capability. It might even stop the proxy war Iran is waging against Israel and its regional - soon global - menace.
What then? Reunification, supported by US and Japan. China?
China's motives and intentions with respect to NK are seldom the subject of serious analysis from journalists. They seem content with China's fear of NK refugees as reason for China's support of NK. It probably has more to do with NK's being a buffer zone - geographically and ideologically - between China and the West helping China keep its own defenses against interference. China is the sponsor of NK's weapons industry. It is the sleeping partner of the Axis.
Will it retaliate if we bomb NK? It would be very expensive indeed...
I am sure you could find much more profitably to tease from your assumption, but why go to that trouble when all you really want is to set Kristol up for a larf.

Palomudo

June 3rd, 2009 12:54am Report this comment

Why is North Korea a problem? just because is not controlled by the USA and the empires of the west? get a life media slave

Charles Crawford

June 7th, 2009 10:17pm Report this comment

Alex

I have attempted to answer your questions here:

http://charlescrawford.biz/blog.php?single=1004

This problem can not easily be left to moulder since N Korea exports nastiness elsewhwere to help itself stagger along. I agree that the China angle is central. But if the USA wants China to step in, it will have to pay a high price (not much upside for China by intervening, quite a lot of upside for China watching NK embarrass the USA).

Charles

Post comment