North Korea...Again

Let me turn away for a moment from my usual focus on ancient Chinese thought, and consider the North Korean nuclear question. 

In one of my courses ("The International Politics of East Asia"), we have been discussing North Korea for the past week and a half.  Students have read Bruce Cumings' book, North Korea, for background, and we have read several articles that outline the US debate over what to do about that country's nuclear ambitions.

So, we were ready when the North Korea missile launch came into the headlines over the past several weeks.  Today's news that Pyongyang is threatening to rebuild its nuclear facilities is thus not a surprise; rather, it is a depressing eternal return...

Yesterday, I asked my students what the US should do about North Korea, and they came up with some principles.  First, there was a fairly broad feeling in the classroom that the issue must be handled multilaterally, within the context of the Six Party Talks.  This is sensible.  The failures of the early Bush administration were rooted in its doggedly unproductive unilateralism.  The US obviously has an important role to play in the whole affair, but its actions must be coordinated with those of China, South Korea and Japan. 

Another principle was expressed in language that might not be familiar to some of the older analysts out there:

Don't feed the troll.

This struck me as quite perceptive.  It recognizes that much of what North Korea does is a matter of creating a kind of shock to produce a threat that it can then trade for resources.  They want us to get anxious and worried.   If that is what they want, then obviously we should keep our cool.  We cannot completely ignore them.  Quite the contrary, this is important business and needs to be a fairly high priority for US foreign policy.  But neither should we be drawn into their tantrums and manipulations.  We need to control the agenda.  The missile firing is a side-show to the main nuclear event.  The North is using it to gain leverage in the Six Party Talks.  We need to recognize it as a violation but not let it determine what our interests and strategies should for the broader nuclear issues.  Don't feed the troll but focus on the key issues.

Of course, if we downplay the missile firing, they might come up with some other distraction.  I'm imaging that since the Somali pirate sage drew media attention away from the NK missile over the weekend, Kim Jong-il might now be planning on creating his own pirate band.  It might get him some more face time on CNN...

More seriously, however, I still think that the US needs to change the game with NK.  For too long we have been in a reactive position: they create some threat, we respond.  They are the ones driving the dynamic of the situation.  What if we totally reversed the flow and suddenly gave them much of what they say they want: formal diplomatic recognition; expanded economic ties; a reiteration of the security guarantee of 2005 (in the context of the Six Party Talks); hell, invite Kim to the Oscars next year.  Give them many, many carrots which, in the intermediate term, could create new sources of leverage for us (once you give a carrot, you can then threaten to take it away...).  In other words, let's do what I have been arguing for some time: flood the zone.

North Korea is clearly a problem for the US, China, Japan and South Korea.  But our polices have not been working for many years now.  Perhaps it's time for something new (though I recognize that domestic US politics makes this highly unlikely).  Why not follow these guidelines:

Don't feed the troll.

Flood the zone.

Comments

[The Rambling Taoist]

For me, there's a more elemental thing we can do -- dismantle our own nuclear capabilities! It's extremely hypocritical for the nation with the largest nuclear stockpile to run around the world wagging their finger at other countries for trying to develop nuclear weapon capabilities.

[Peter Chisteckoff]

Here's a new tack...How about we just ignore them. No aid, no nothing. Let the North Koreans eat their nuclear weapons if they get hungry. Support South Korea, miliarily if needed. But screw the North. For far too long they have been yanking our chain. Let China and Russia know that we have had it and it is their problem, and if the North atacks the south, we will use our nukes on the North to solve this problem once and for all.

[isha]

"we will use our nukes on the North to solve this problem once and for all"...

Once and for all?

[SteveGW]

I wasn't aware that the US had pursued a 'unilateralist' policy with respect to North Korea. In fact, I thought the complaint during Bush II was that the US was being recalcitrant and obstructive in refusing to enter into one-on-one negotiations with NK. Of course, the only reason that NK wants these bilateral talks is so that it can blackmail the US alone for aid, and renege on the deal by claiming some transgression or other later. With the other states involved, their interests are also involved and that game's a bit harder to play. This may be a moot point anyway, since NK hasn't given much indication that it's going to abide by any agreements no matter how many people are sitting at the table.

Rambling Taoist: If the US dismantles its own nuclear capability, then it puts itself at the mercy of the nuclear states like Russia, China, Pakistan, North Korea, ... even (shudder) France. On the other hand, if the US cooperates with all the other states to dismantle its weapons then only those who are willing to cheat on an agreement to get a military advantage will retain the power of eliminating the US (See previous list.) You might like to rethink that recommendation.

Peter: Being able to just ignore them would be nice. I'm sure we'd all like to be able to just ignore things that are hard. The reason we can't just ignore NK is that they are collaborating in proliferation efforts with other unpleasant states all around the world. Only a few months ago the Israelis had to bomb a suspiciously NK reactor-ish looking building in Syria. There are also connections with Pakistan and Iran. No, I fear this is one of those things that one just has to hold one's nose and get on with.

[Jonathan Dresner]

Flood the zone

I completely agree, on both strategic and humanitarian grounds.

On the full disarmament issue, there are so few circumstances under international law of war or reasonable ethical considerations in which use of a nuclear weapon would be justifiable that it doesn't make sense to have more than a bare minimum deterrent force anyway. Not if we're going to claim the moral high ground (and I know, we have some climbing before we get back there on international law) on anything.

[San Toi]

Something puzzles me, why aren't the Chinese as concern about a nuclear North Korea as the West seems to be, because the only real threat of regime change in North Korea comes from China, so therefore, a North Korean missile is not only technically more likely to land on Beijing but politically much more likely - surely the Chinese can not believe that the gangster cabal, that are sucking the blood of the North Korean people, would have any qualms on turning on China, there seeming protectors if their grip on power were threatened?
As for engagement - other than famine relief and basic humanitarian aid, this is in my opinion, to be avoided as it would only be channeled into the coffers of the ruling elite. One other thing horrible as it is - North Korea is of negative world status being so small and insignificant, and actually should simply be corralled, monitored and ignored, sooner or later the dictatorship will die. As for the guy ho said the West should disarm, do you want to buy some magic beans? I can let you have them for a very reasonable price.