Time to Get Serious About North Korea

As James Steinberg, the U.S. deputy secretary of state, leaves for Beijing this week to discuss North Korea's most recent provocation, it is tempting to describe his trip using time-worn quotations from two well-known foreign-policy experts: Yogi Berra (it's "déjà vu all over again") and Albert Einstein (the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result).

Don't get me wrong. The North's recent artillery attack on South Korean territory requires a tough response, or as tough as the United States, South Korea, and Japan can get without precipitating another Korean war. That translates into more military exercises, statements condemning Pyongyang and pledging closer trilateral cooperation, sending the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the region, and working more closely together in the future, for example, on military exercises. All are designed to show North Korea that the United States means business and put pressure on the Chinese to rein in Pyongyang.

But will they work? Weren't the joint military exercises held this summer after the sinking of the Chenoan supposed to deter future attacks, like the artillery barrage? That doesn't mean the United States shouldn't take those steps -- or any others that will improve its conventional defenses. But nor should American diplomats kid themselves.

Fifty years of history, if not just pure logic, tell Kim Jong Il that the United States and South Korea will not risk escalation. Just read recently declassified documents about the Richard Nixon administration's deliberations on how to respond to North Korea's unprovoked shoot-down of an American EC-121 spy plane in 1969, which killed all the crew members on board. Nixon's initial impulse to be tough was toned down over time by recognition of the reality that Washington and Seoul have too much to lose in a fight with Pyongyang.

It's also wrong-headed to think China will bring North Korea to heel. Beijing is probably working behind the scenes to encourage Pyongyang to exercise restraint, just as it did after the Chenoan was sunk. But it is wrong to think that all China has to do is snap its fingers and the North will fall into line. Exercising the potential leverage provided by its extensive ties with Pyongyang is very difficult, in part because no North Korean leader worth his salt is going to knuckle under to Beijing.

More public pressure on China isn't helpful, either. Chinese leaders are not going to abandon a core national interest in North Korea's stability and throw Pyongyang overboard because Americans say they should. U.S. leverage, moreover, is limited; threatening closer U.S., South Korean, and Japanese diplomatic and military cooperation isn't going to budge Beijing. If anything, it may backfire, reinforcing arguments made by Chinese hard-liners that Washington's real agenda is not just to deal harshly with Pyongyang but also to encircle and contain China.

All of this reflects a much bigger problem. The Obama administration's policy of "strategic patience" -- refusing to engage Pyongyang based on the false assumption that a politically and economically unstable North Korea can be contained -- has been a train wreck waiting to happen for some time now. It's a policy fixated more on process (maintaining the integrity of the six-party nuclear talks in close consultation with allies) and domestic politics (avoiding Republican criticism) than on securing national interests -- with the risks of talking to North Korea seen as far greater than the dangers of the status quo.

Anyone who has experience dealing with North Korea, however, knows that Pyongyang cannot be contained through pressure alone. Strategic patience is failing on all fronts: building peace and security on the Korean peninsula, curbing and eventually eliminating North Korea's nuclear program, and stopping the spread of weapons technology. As first demonstrated by the Chenoan's sinking last spring, the signs of failure have become clear and unmistakable with the recent tragic artillery attack and the surprise unveiling of Pyongyang's new uranium enrichment program.

Unless the United States changes course, the threat to its interests and those of its allies will get much worse in the months ahead. Expect more provocations, escalation, and possibly even war.

Equally dangerous, Pyongyang stands on the threshold of a significant expansion of its nuclear arsenal. Up until now, one could argue that the North seemed satisfied with a small stockpile of less than 10 weapons. But like every country that has built nuclear weapons and seemed satisfied with a "minimum deterrent," that can quickly go by the boards. The North's new uranium enrichment program is a clear sign that we may be on the brink of such an expansion.

12NEXT

Save big when you subscribe to FP.

DMITRYI.YEREMIN

5:25 AM ET

December 14, 2010

Good leaders can tell right

Good leaders can tell right away from wrong... but great leaders can transcent the differences and unite the people and the nations despite all the odds. The United States should not try to go down to the North Korean level - the United States should apply all it's might to bring the North Koreans up.

ZORRO

9:45 AM ET

Am I Turning Into a Neocon?

I don't think I've ever used the term "appeaser" (not being a neocon), but Joel Wit seems to fit the bill.

A pre-emptive attack on NK seems to be the only way forward. If there was such a thing as Evil, NK would be it.

PECHORIN

9:18 PM ET

Think this through

Pause for a moment and think this through. Seoul, a major metropolitan center of some ten million people, is very close to the mountainous border. On the North Korean side of that border, fortified in those mountains, there are enough missiles and artillery to cause catastrophic destruction and loss of human life within a matter of hours. That is, far more quickly than either American or S. Korean forces could neutralize the threat.

This is what Wit is referring to when he explains how Nixon realized that in a potential conflict everyone would lose. No matter how much of a qualitative edge America has, those soviet era weapons systems are incredibly dangerous on the basis of their collateral damage.

N. Korea presents a really difficult diplomatic problem, but the only way it can be dealt with is by addressing the realities of the situation. Not by going on a freedom crusade (which, if you'll recall, hasn't worked out very well anywhere).

OTTODOG

4:10 PM ET

December 19, 2010

Evacuation an option?

If South Korea ever hopes to deal with the North without the knife of Nork Arty at their throat, bunkers & civil defense won't suffice. They'll need to evacuate their civil population.

I'm curious as to how much/long North Korean artillery will continue to fire when effective radar-directed counterbattery fire begins eliminating their antiquated towed howitzers and the ancient R409 Mulltichannel sets that stick out like sore thumbs when they try to dry-fire exercise. Still, a mugger with a .25 cal Raven is still effective when the gun's two inches from your forehead.

MARTY MARTEL

10:17 AM ET

Joel Wit's prescription is a fool's errand

Nothing that US does, can stop North Korea’s march towards nuclear power as long as China continues to be the patron saint of that reclusive regime.

US has been and is fool to even think that China can help rein in North Korea no matter what Joel Wit preaches.

Only way to change Chinese behavior is to encourage Japan to be a nuclear weapon state to counter North Korean nuclear threat.

US intentionally ignores that North Koreans do not have geniuses who can invent nuclear triggers or ballistic missile technology or plutonium reprocessing. Chinese government companies are providing those things to North Korea. If it were not for China, North Korea would have NO nuclear program or ballistic missiles. Even Pakistan would not have dared to supply uranium enrichment technology to North Korea if Pakistan’s all-weather friend China would have strongly objected.

It is US that is under the delusion that North Korea is an independent country when nothing can be further from the truth. North Korea’s lifeline passes through Beijing and North Korea, the puppet dances to the tune played by the puppeteer China.

If US really wants China to let Kim’s regime crumble, then US has to cut off six party talks right now, putting public pressure on China to cut off its military and all other trade relationship with North Korea.

US needs to tell China that US does not buy Chinese hogwash about effects of the collapse of Kim’s regime.

US needs to tell China that Chinese Army is capable enough to manage the border with North Korea to prevent mass exodus.

US needs to tell China that hordes of North Koreans are fleeing to China due to near famine conditions in their homeland anyway.

US needs to tell China that collapse of East Germany did NOT result in massive migration of East Germans to Russia.

9:29 PM ET

Disagree

This comment is ill-informed for a number of reasons. China, while an essential enabler of N. Korea, doesn't have anywhere near the influence we like to attribute to them. They're just as worried as anyone; a regime collapse would create big problems for them. So they know they need to keep the DPRK hanging on, if only barely, but that doesn't translate to influence because the N. Koreans are well aware of this and they play the Chinese the same way they play anyone. You'd be surprised how hostile the regime can be towards China; when Deng Xiaoping died they were the only country in the world not to send condolences, and their state media refers to the Chinese as traitors to communism.

Describing Chinese concerns as "hogwash" is unfounded (or at least you have not defended what is, at least, a controversial claim).

The Chinese absolutely do not want N. Korea to have nukes. Why would they? It's incredibly dangerous when an unstable regime has these weapons. The N. Korean nuclear program is mainly indigenous, with assistance they bought from the AQ Khan network. China has nothing to do with it, and unless you have some hot intelligence to that effect this claim is just ignorant.

Sino-DPRK relations are a situation of the tail wagging the dog; not totally dissimilar to America's relationship with Israel. Powerful countries can be outmanouvered by their satellite states in this way; it's a very common phenomenon.

9:30 PM ET

CHOPPY1

10:58 AM ET

Outsiders Can't Change North Korea

Wit repeatedly asserts that U.S. policy toward North Korea is failing, but he never explains what "fail" means in this context. I think the policy of the US, SK, Japan, China and Russia has always been to jolly North Korea along until it collapses. The more time goes by, the richer the five nations become; therefore, they will be better able to pick up the pieces when the North finally goes kaput. What's wrong with that strategy? Let the North starve on top of its nuclear arsenal if it wants to.

Wit is under the delusion that outside forces have the power to change North Korea. For example, he writes: "During our discussions in Pyongyang, the North Koreans clearly indicated they were willing to take limited but important steps forward in the near term, particularly on the denuclearization front." When has North Korea ever take unequivoval steps toward denuclearizing, demilitarizing, normalizing relations etc.? The North Korean military may be running the country. The ruling family is trying to maintain its grip. Both need a foreign enemy to justify their rule. Both realize they would be swept aside if North Korea truly opened up--their leaders would face execution by an angry populace. So all they are trying to do is hold out to us the prospect of peace so that we'll send them a few more gallons of fuel oil. They're trying to jolly us along, too.

MISHMAEL

11:10 AM ET

There are places in this

There are places in this world where the name of America is so mistrusted and in fact so hated that there is literally nothing they can do to solve the situation. In this case, there is nothing the Americans can do without getting heat from somebody.

My personal inclination would certainly not be to rearm Japan (who is probably disliked in equal measure by China and both North and South Korea) but to support market based reforms in North Korea. This is because those reforms will empower the materialistic and therefore bribeable North Koreans, who will in turn challenge the structure of North Korea itself. Such a challenge would force the leadership towards appeasing these materialistic generals and field marshals or whatever they call themselves, eventually to the point where the luxury of the Kim family has to be extended somewhat to those elites. At that point, multiple centers of power would develop. Then it would be possible to divide and conquer, or to play these factions against one another.

This is something which the Americans cannot support, because the Americans like to think they are above economic intrigue. Hypocrisy notwithstanding, it is the only other method besides military force by which nations have been "defeated" in the past. The Soviet Union, for instance, was not going to be easy to defeat militarily and yet its demise was inevitable given the internal dissatisfaction and constant American propaganda aggravating that dissatisfaction. The American leader who suggests a propaganda campaign against North Korea would be laughed out of office by a public too enamored with its own politics.

Also, the Americans are really not in a position to pressure anybody. Seriously, what could they do, beyond overt military coercion (which is what the recent military exercises probably mean considering that both South Korea and Japan can already defend themselves given war with North Korea) to pressure a country like China? Furthermore, such pressure is seen not only by the leadership but also by the Chinese public as entirely inappropriate. As the only actor with nothing to lose in Korean war II, there is an uncomfortable suspicion that America is being deliberately provocative to provoke a conflict which would weaken its rival.

TOMKJ

12:52 PM ET

Are you joking?

"My personal inclination would certainly not be to rearm Japan (who is probably disliked in equal measure by China and both North and South Korea) but to support market based reforms in North Korea".

How can you "support" market based reforms in a closed economy directed by a tyrannical communist government with a sugar daddy as powerful as China?

PRIDEAUX

8:33 PM ET

@TOMKJ

To be fair, there is no easy way out of the North Korean issue. No matter which way you cut it, the people of North Korea lose in some way. So it leaves you in a situation where you can either accept that and do something as ridiculous as provoke a war to end it all, or you can accept it and settle for less than a free, nuclear weapons-free, democratic, educated North Korea within our lifetimes. The current status quo, of course, is also an option.

China-like reforms could improve the lives of the North Korean people. There's no guarantee that they'll work and there's no guarantee that they'll bring eventual democracy to them(as seen with Tiananmen square). They may, like with China, end up entrenching the Communist regime's power. But it's more of a question of how lofty your goals are and just how low you're willing to settle to improve their lives.

9:35 PM ET

PRIDEAUX's first point is

PRIDEAUX's first point is well made. There are no good options for anyone on the Korean peninsula.

I agree that the best hope is that, with Chinese help, the next DPRK leadership is willing to make gradual economic reforms. Korean reunification could never happen under current conditions; German reunification was rough enough (the east is still poorer), this would be nearly impossible. Think about how different those populations are, about how N. Korean labor would impact the nation's marketplace, and the difficulty of effectively bringing that population into the democratic system. I hope Korean reunification can occur someday, but that will only happen when conditions are right in the North, and South Korea's leaders know that better than most.

HADRIANEYES

6:53 PM ET

Rapid Strike

What is the likelihood that the North Koreans WANT war? Pretty low I would assume. However, we do not know much about the North Korean leadership structure as evidenced by our attempt to see if a recent painting is indeed that of their future leader. Without the basic knowledge of who exactly is calling the shots, we should re-evaluate the situation:

Thus far the North has used its torpedoes to sink the Cheonan and it has utilized an artillery strike against a South Korean populace.

In all of its aggressive actions, the North has yet to utilize its army. That same army that we stare down every single day at the 38th. Is it too fantastic to assume that the army is being held hostage in its own country? We should first assume that almost any high-ranking official, civilian or military, likely has Black Market ties as that is one of the few ways that North Korea attempts to make money. Perhaps the North Korean army is tired of its near-prisoner status, or at least certain commanders and generals are. No doubt they all enjoy a life of privilege as seen in Burma's military junta. However the North is so isolated, it has absolutely no legitimate means of obtaining a cash flow. At least the Burmese have the option of heroin rings and tourism as well as cheap manufacturing to bolster its income.

My guess is that the military or elements of the North Korean military are quite tired of never ending game being played. There is no way that a coup would work as it would either result in a civil war within the North, various interventions by China, exposure to further US and South Korean scrutiny, and a total power scramble where old ties and friendships cannot be counted upon. It is probable that whoever has something to fall back on: i.e. guarantees of safety or black market empires would be all for the dissolution of the North, they no longer have any stake in its success.

This new wave of aggression might be the latest of a series of attempts to goad the US or South Korea into destroying the North and assimilating it with the rest of Korea proper.

All that conspiracy nonsense aside, the best option on the table would be an activation of all patriot missile batteries as well as the activation of all population-securing initiatives within South Korea, followed by a coordinated, yet South-led strike on every North Korean military facility including all nuclear sites. I know quite well that journalists and scholars do not have nearly the full picture on North Korea's assets and I can deduce that they must be more numerous than we currently estimate. Taking the stick out of the child's hand will force it to the negotiating table. Here, diplomacy may take place and we can avoid the launching of a large-scale ground invasion that would be a gargantuan target for nuclear strikes. Thus avoiding that nuclear problem once more.

GRANDPAW7

10:03 PM ET

Exactly what we need

Another examination; a new policy.

It's amazing how simple the solution is. What's more, it's the solution to most every problem we or anyone else has or will have. No need to turn on the brain to determine what the new policy might be. Just make yourself feel good, like you've done something important, by saying we need to do things differently. I suggest a new policy for Foreign Affairs: find authors who have something meaningful to say.

4:40 PM ET

December 15, 2010

China and N Korea

It seems rather clear that China has no need to attempt to change any of the tactics that N Korea has been using for the past few decades. Regardless of the influence China may or may not have over N Korea's actions, as long as N Korea can remain a thorn in the side of the West (U.S., S Korea, Japan) and can contintue to cause disruption and chaos in the political world of the West, China can enjoy the results. In the meantime, China can observe and record all the rhetoric and military manuevering conducted by the West and better prepare itself for its long-range plan of becoming No. 1 in the world. China sees the future as infinite and N Korea as a simple pawn in the plan. Whenever China needs to temper the N Koreans' actions to keep the pot from boiling over, just short of a war in which they are not yet ready to engage, the Chinese leaders will take some action. In the meantime, N Korea serves a very important role for China - fostering unrest in the world. After all, why would China like to see N Korea become westernized when they have such a long border and huge water front area that they would have to share with a society that would serve to threaten their control over their own populace? Additionally, I don't think that either the Clintons or any other U.S. diplomat really understand the distorted thought process within which a nut-case like Kim Jong Il operates. We weren't very successful with the likes of Hitler, or Saddam, or - - . It's only when the will of the people decides that they will die for a change will a change take place, because any influenced change from the outside will certainly set the stage for a very messy situation. There are very novel possibilities for forcing changes in N Korea, but we have to be prepared to think beyond the same ol', same ol' box into which we continually put ourselves and then wonder why nothing changes.

Foreign Policy Magazine

Inside National Security

Obama's policy of ignoring Pyongyang is a proven failure. It's time to try a different strategy.

BY JOEL WIT | DECEMBER 13, 2010

(15)