This makes me nervous and I fear that Kim Jung Un will have to do something big in order to save face. I hope we make him feel that he has a non-violent way to posture for his people as that's really what this is all about: posturing.
What else is their development of nuclear arms about? NK is a signatory of the NPT. They broke their promise. They've broken their promise multiple times. What they're looking for isn't a resolution to their situation, if anything they want to prolong it as long as possible. What they actually want is to win, and emerge "victorious" in the face of US "oppression".
Personally I think while China's interests are in maintaining a peaceful region, we must be wary of the relationship between NK and China. As there is a possibility of another game being played. Perhaps China wants to annex NK.
This makes sense. NK is valuable to China as a buffer from Western countries. I'm surprised by this announcement simply because from that strategic perspective, it hurts China. If they plan on annexing, that makes more sense.
If they do, I'm sure we won't do much to stop them. We'll complain (us Westerners) but when the rubber meets the road, China is a better holder of that territory. Our only concern will be annexation of SK by China after NK, but I find that unlikely within the next 20 years.
NK is a complete basket case, with a population that has been brainwashed by 70+ years of misrule, a development level probably below China in 1949, and they have a different language and culture.
Right now, China gets the benefit of a buffer state without the downside of fixing generations of problems. They would take the blame for every problem.
Did you know that the goal of reunification is explicitly written into South Korea's constitution? Yet I've spoken to younger South Koreans -- even they don't really want to reunify with the North, because it would significantly lower the reunified country's standard of living.
It took an entire generation for East Germany to reintegrate with the West, and even now GDP per capita is about 30% lower in the east. And East Germany was only about 20 years economically behind the West. For NK, multiply that problem 10x.
I mean what do you want to do with NK? Leave it be? Laissez faire? Let it develop nukes as a "deterrent"? Let it be aggressive? This will not end will for the region if something isn't done, and SK is reminded that on a daily basis.
The problem is that nobody knows, and nobody wants to be responsible for figuring it out, implementing it, and paying all the costs. We're all hoping somebody else will fix the problem for us.
The US blames China. China predictably blames the US. South Korea vacillates between being hot and cold towards its Northern brother, yet neither approach has solved the issue. Meanwhile, Russia is all too happy to no longer be associated with the problem in the eyes of the global public, despite its own key role in getting us into the current mess.
You're right that reunification still has majority support in SK, but will that be true in 20 years' time once a unified Korea can no longer remembered by anyone still living?
If China was considering this type of thing, it would be a split of NK territory between itself and South Korea. China would be holding secret talks with South Korea about militarily assisting them to reunite with the North, in return for China getting some of North Korea's territory. After the initial show of strength, China would offer top NK leaders and military officers lifelong residence in that annexed territory, with immunity from deportation. The U.S. right now is probably trying to stop such secret talks from starting, probably by impressing on the SK govt just how much their standard of living would be impacted by reuniting with the North. Of course, China would be using this as leverage in the secret negotiations to gain as much NK territory as possible.
The Kim dynasty has shown zero inclination to give up power, which would make such a concept a nonstarter. If DPRK could be solved by all parties other than the Kim regime (say, by decapitation of the regime and containment of the resultant chaos), it would be a done deal. Everyone's been hoping the regime would collapse before becoming a credible nuclear threat, but that hasn't happened and the temperature keeps rising.
I think we ultimately will live to see this play out. I have to assume it's being negotiated even now, because it will be require unprecedented coordination to defuse NK without massive civilian deaths in Seoul or a refugee crisis in Manchuria.
As far as I know, China does not want NK territory. The last thing they need is an extremely insular ethnic group to integrate. They want containment of NK and less US presence in Asia. They also want Taiwan, but I think a much diminished US presence on the peninsula would be more than enough for them.
You don't think seeing what happened to Gaddafi has anything to do with it? Libya got rid of their nuke development plans in 2003. If Libya had nukes, would the Libyan revolution have played out as it did? Do you think Kim Jong Un wants to get dragged around, anally raped and murdered by an angry mob? Probably not.
> Perhaps China wants to annex NK.
Not even close. China would rather NK sank into the sea than try to take 25M malnourished, undereducated more people.
Furthermore the value of NK isn't the people, but the geographical position. It is a well known fact that China is amping up its projection of power, and using it to claim territory. Doklam is the most recent example. Furthermore I don't think China gives two shits about forcing people into doing what it wills. 25 million people is basically a negligible amount for China to handle, it's >2% of their total population. If anything it is an opportunity to gain goodwill by "rescuing" them.
All I'm saying is that perhaps China has a vested interest in trying to provoke NK into increasingly irrational decisions so to open an opportunity for them to annex NK in the name of "maintaining order".
https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/3/the_libya_gamble_insid...
Qaddafi gave the U.S. his centrifuges and other equipment, which in turn laid bare the A. Q. Khan network and Iran's program, and also helped the U.S. and Israel hack Iran's program to slow it down. And just what did Qaddafi get for his troubles? He got killed.
After that betrayal no one will make any deals like that with the U.S. again. To say that President Obama's Libya adventure was destructive is to put it mildly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/12...
The BBC has run stories on it as well:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37321686
I'm sure it's just one of many motivations, but it does seem to be at least one of the motivating factors.
annex what? I don't think China's interested in maintaining a peaceful region, as much as they are scared of losing control of their country and desperately trying to keep their country in one piece, having witnessed the fall outs from the collapse of the Soviet.
I think they are, from their perspective. First, non-rational actors don't survive to establish and hold political power, for years (generations for the Kim family) in dictatorships where failure means death. Kim Jong-un's behavior would be madness in a democracy and where we care about fellow citizens, but it's successful (by his terms) and makes sense in a dictatorship.
Second, consider the history of U.S. regime change from an outside perspective:
1) Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program; the U.S. said it did, invaded, and overthrew the regime.
2) Libya did have a minor nuclear weapons program. In an agreement with the U.S. (and maybe with others too) it gave up the program. Soon after, the U.S. bombed the Libyan military and helped the opposition overthrow the regime.
3) Iran had a very capable nuclear weapons program. It gave up the program in a treaty with the U.S. Now the U.S. is at high risk to renege on the treaty, continues to threaten Iran, and continues to talk about regime change.
It seems that no matter what you do, what the U.S. says, or what international law is, if the U.S. doesn't like you then it pursues regime change. That's the Russian point of view, too, to an extent. It's openly discussed that perhaps the only way to protect yourself is to own nuclear weapons.
(As a side note, when people question the value of following international law, this is it: If the U.S. reliably followed international law, NK could trust that a deal to give up its weapons would be followed and others wouldn't feel the need to acquire them. On the other hand, if the U.S. withdraws from the Iran agreement, why would NK - or anyone - bother even discussing an agreement? So they can disarm and be destroyed?)
> Sometimes you need to stop being Chamberlain, and start being Churchill.
And sometimes you need to stop being Bush and start being (name your favorite peace-maker). I'm not sure what that proves - sometimes one tactic is appropriate, sometimes another, and often a a completely different approach. Also, this situation does not at all seem similar to WWII.
I don't see why you say this. I wouldn't say they are especially competent, but they seem to have stayed in existence and played off various larger rivals successfully for 70 odd years.
A rational actor is a nation that is predictable, and is willing to uphold their word, and agreements. If promises are broken, agreements torn a part I don't think that state is a "rational" actor.
You discomfort with certain truths of your own country is not a reason to dismiss what he said.
Personally I would trust the USA on its word far more than I would NK. I don't know about you.
North Korea acting unpredictably and dishonestly has little inherently to do with the rationality of those actions, and there are strong arguments to be made that those actions are rational from the perspective of the North Korean ruling class.
No it isn't.
A rational actor is one who acts rationally.
If survival and self-interest is your goal then lying and breaking agreements might be a perfectly rational approach.
It depends entirely what is to be gained.
They are as "successful" as cancer is "successful" - it's hard to kill the cancer without killing the patient, but that's not a redeeming quality for cancer. In the same way, it's hard to kill Kim's regime without subjecting 25 million people to extreme dangers, exacerbated by the fact that many of them are already on the brink of starvation, and a lot of them are thoroughly brainwashed. It's not a sign of "success" or regime's rationality, it is the sign that it is hard for us to find a solution for this without hurting a lot of people in process.
They could have done this in the 50s when the red army controlled Norks during the war. They want a buffer state between them and SK.
It dates back quite a long time. Development started as a response to the US putting nuclear artillery on the border with North Korea in 1958 and pointing it directly at Pyongyang.
>What else is their development of nuclear arms about? NK is a signatory of the NPT.
They withdrew from the NPT in the run up to the totally provoked and necessary invasion of Iraq. Around this time Bush famously branded them part of the "axis of evil" and casually threatened nuclear annihilation, among other provocations.
I guess something led them to believe that they needed a nuclear deterrent?
They did at the time make an offer to the US in light of the provocations: sign a non-aggression treaty and let them to continue developing nuclear power. The US didn't, so they withdrew.
>What they actually want is to win
No, they want some kind of military parity before joining the negotiating table because Iraq shows what happens when you don't have parity...
That would seem to be a good thing, both for NK and the rest of us.
The way they're behaving is quite rational. They looked at what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam, as well as how the new administration is seeking to tear down the Iran deal, and came to the conclusion that the US/West could not be trusted to honor a nuclear disarment deal long term.
This means a credible nuclear deterrent is the only way to ensure the regime's survival.
Lest people think I'm engaging in apologetics, what they're doing to keep in power is reprehensible. But they're not mad men looking for a symbolic "win" at the cost of suicide.
I believe that NK was untrustworthy long before the events you cite. They didn't reach a rational conclusion. They always were belligerant, untrustworthy, lying bullies.
> This means a credible nuclear deterrent is the only way to ensure the regime's survival.
If you're a criminal bully, then the only way to not get taken down by the bigger kids is to get nuclear weapons.
And US policy towards Korea has been something else?
The reason our diplomatic options are so poor now is because we have constantly failed to deliver our end of the bargain when it comes to nonproliferation in North Korea, see the Agreed Framework. Saying that they're "just crazy bullies" has always been a stupid over simplification that gets us nowhere closer to not blowing each other up.
> and the US seems to be honest about the contempt with which it views the North Korean regime
And DPRK is not? What are you even talking about? The DPRK literally uses inflammatory rhetoric about the USA all the time.
Yes, and that's worked out great for the Kims for almost 70 years now. We haven't exactly given them an incentive to change or reform.
It's impossible to exaggerate how badly we botched our handling of Libya in particular. After watching what happened to Gaddafi, there was literally no other option for Kim besides an all-out push to develop nuclear arms.
Iran, not being a country populated exclusively by idiots, will be doing the same.
The US simply cannot be trusted regardless of what party is at the helm, and that's a huge problem for us as well as anyone we're doing international business with.
NK made it past the finish line: they have a real program and a modest delivery system. I expect they will continue to follow the same diplomatic strategy as Pakistan.
Secondly treating your people like dirt is also a very bad idea. Singapore remains a monarchy while not being anything like NK. The man drives his country into the dirt for bombs when they are completely unnecessary. He could either a) treat his people better then wouldn’t need bombs, or b) keep China happy and still wouldn’t need bombs.
No they don't. Why would they want this radioactive toxic dumpster fire as their full responsibility? They're much better it being within their sphere of influence - so that anybody who wants anything done has to deal with China and make suitable offers to get things done - while having pretty much zero responsibility for the welfare of the people and not being subject of criticism for any atrocities that happen there, and not granting the people there even minuscule rights that Chinese subjects have. Current situation - at least until it explodes into a hot war - is a huge win for China, they are indispensable as the only power capable of putting a leash on Crazy Kim, they look relatively good in comparison to him, and they don't have to spend anything on it or bear any responsibility.
China is pretty much the only country that can pour enough money into NK to bring it out of poverty, and a border with an important US Ally (South Korea) would be priceless.
I don't think that's what they want to do, but it would actually make sense.
At this point it's in China's actual interest to resolve the situation. They'd probably like to resolve the situation with with the stick poker intact but that doesn't appear to be acceptable anymore. I'm guessing they are hoping Kim cools it down just enough and they can wait it out until the political climate in the US changes and then business as usual.
North Korea is rational. They have a very good idea of how far they can annoy everyone else before it starts to hurt them, and they have proven very adept at being able to extract concessions from the rest of the world.
> The NK problem can never ever be solved by diplomatic resolve.
The only way the problem could be solved diplomatically is a grand bargain between China and the US (maybe Russia as well, but China is definitely required) to let the Kim government fall.
> Personally I think while China's interests are in maintaining a peaceful region, we must be wary of the relationship between NK and China. As there is a possibility of another game being played. Perhaps China wants to annex NK.
The real problem with North Korea, and the reason we're in this dangerous unstable equilibrium is that, as much as the relevant powers hate the current situation, the alternatives are even more unpalatable. No one wants to take on the task of absorbing North Korea--China and South Korea are already too rich (the gap is even wider than East/West Germany, and that took 20 years to close). Furthermore, China already has a rural-to-urban migration problem, and North Korean refugees would only exacerbate that issue.
War with North Korea would be a very unpalatable situation. The center of Seoul is only about 30 miles from the North Korean border, and some suburbs are even closer--within artillery range of the border. That gives North Korea the ability to raise the death count to over a million people in a very short amount of time even before rockets or nuclear weapons are involved, not to mention instigating a short-term refugee situation that makes Syria's look small. Furthermore, North Korean rocketry and nuclear weapons gives it the ability to threaten the megacities of Japan, and if Kim Jung Un feels he can't win, he very well could go out with a painful bang.
Put more simply, a war with North Korea, although likely very short, could easily produce a death toll commensurate with World War I. A military option is not a good option. There are no good options when it comes to North Korea. At this point, the least bad option to me is to ignore North Korea's tantrums, publicly reaffirm commitment to the defense of South Korea and Japan in the event of a war at any cost, and quietly work with China to develop post-Kim scenarios.
I wouldn't overestimate their knowledge. Just as Saddam Hussein thought he'd be allowed to annex Kuwait and generally behave like an ass and nobody would dare to lift a finger, Kim is probably under the same impression. People think that various totalitarian regimes feed their citizens propaganda, but deep inside the inner party circle they have rational (even if evil) people that operate on correct information and capable of making correct (even if extremely self-serving) decisions.
The reality is usually different. The inner circle may have access to more information, but they are also largely ignorant about how politics works in the Western countries. They are as prone to biases and misjudgment as any human, and the absence of robust feedback circles usually present in open society amplifies their errors of judgement. And of course, somebody can only be told he is a unerring genius and supreme being for so long before he himself starts believing it, and once that happens, huge errors of judgment are inevitable.
Thus, what they expect the West to do may be completely different from what the West would actually do.
I don't believe this. I think China wants to avoid the refugee crisis that would ensue on their doorstep if North Korea collapsed.
Of course it is.
If you think about it from the perspective of a dynasty trying to save its own skin under any circumstances to avoid having to go through something akin to another Nuremberg trials, then everything the Kim leadership does is rational.
They are even willing to point nuclear weapons at the world and subject the North Korean people to no end of physical and mental abuses just to maintain their grip on power in a country where they live like God-Kings.
If we don't pressure him Kim Jong Un will have to do something be to get attention again.