A failure in diplomatic and economic engagement with a reclusive yet amenable regime
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6038490.stm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear_208
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/IB91141.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_party_talks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_nuclear_program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_reunification
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/10/opinion/ednkor.php
http://www.iht.com/bin/challenge.php?URI=http://iht.nytimes.com/protected/art...
First off, enjoy this quote from the recent Bush press conference. Referring to the added negotiation leverage gained if the Six-Party Talks nations achieve consensus on North Korea, he said, "One has a stronger hand when there's more people playing your same cards." I hope he wages war and conducts diplomacy better than he knows poker.
In addition to the quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington has adopted a policy of alienation and latent hostility towards "rogue states" such as Iran, Syria, Cuba, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, and North Korea. Some of those nations are important regional powers, whether we care to acknowledge the fact or not. We have more to gain though increased contact rather than marginalizing them into desperate measures (such as nuclear armament), but certain special interests and narrow ideologies prevent this from happening. Isolating and refraining from open dialogue/trade/relations with those countries are not only impacting our foreign policy interests, but making the North a poorer, more dangerous nation (I'll expand on this idea in my conclusion). I know that North Korea is a frustrating, often irrational negotiating partner who has broken off negotiations in the past, but that is no excuse for our poor effort in return. It makes no sense to refuse to acknowledge the North until they adhere to previous obligations, when we fully know that they won't heed those agreements without new dialogue with us.
RECENT HISTORY
In the 1990's, Pyongyang admitted to conducting secret uranium/plutonium enrichment programs, but the involved nations drafted an "Agreed Framework" in 1994 to keep the Korean Peninsula nuclear weapons-free and move towards normalized relations. The North would receive energy supplies, be removed from the list of terrorist nations, and be permitted to run foreign-built nuclear power plants under NPT protocols. The US would offer security guarantees and economic aid if the North refrained from weapons research and permitted full inspection of its facilities. Then Bush included the North in the "Axis of Evil" in 2001, and things went further south in 2002. The US suspended oil shipments to the North and misinterpreted a North Korean statement declaring their "right" to nuclear weapons as an admission of possessing them. Both sides accused the other of scrapping the 1994 agreements. Pyongyang claimed it had no choice but to restart its reactors after the US compromised its energy supply.
The Iraq war began, US and South Korean forces increased military exercises, the North went on high alert, and everyone was on edge. In response to North Korea's withdrawal from the NPT in 2003 and ambiguity over nuclear weapons, the Bush Administration decided to cease direct negotiations, push for international sanctions, and keep the threat of force "on the table" until the North disarms, opens its doors to IAEA inspectors, and lives up to "prior obligations to the international community." The Six-Party Talks began in 2004 to resume and expand on the 1994 agreements, with some positive results. But the North postponed negotiations indefinitely in late 2005 after the US froze North Korean assets in Macau. They offered to return to the bargaining table if the US gave the money back, but to no avail. Instead, the North fired missiles into the Sea of Japan and supposedly conducted a nuclear test. It's been a sad deterioration from building trust during the Clinton Administration to mutual treachery/provocation during the Bush Administration. So I believe that it's purely election year BS for McCain to blame Clinton for the recent developments in Korea.
NUCLEAR POLICY PROS AND CONS
Every nation with nuclear aspirations knows it will have fewer friends after obtaining the bomb, but sometimes a bomb is more useful than allies. With the exception of the US, every nuclear power has pursued such weapons in order to address grave threats to their existence, not with the premeditated desire to implement them offensively. The North is no exception, and issued a "no first-strike" clause in its nuclear strategy, preferring the weapons as deterrent only.
The USSR stole nuclear information to counter US exclusivity, and an unprecedented arms race ensued. But with our assistance, America's NATO allies went nuclear to stymie the Soviet presence menacing Western Europe. Israel probably went nuclear after the costly Yom Kippur War to prepare for the next pan-Arab invasion. Traditional enemies India and Pakistan went nuclear in the 1990's, despite our chastisement and economic punishment, and cross-border hostilities in that region have decreased. We can learn two valuable lessons from the South Asia example. First, sanctions against nations that have recently gone nuclear will not compel them to disarm. And second, nuclear weapons (or the fear of annihilation from them) can be wielded responsibly as an effective deterrent against foreign aggression. Pyongyang can't help but examine recent history to justify its controversial course of action. Therefore, it's quite hypocritical for Indian PM Singh to proclaim, "We do not support the emergence of another nuclear weapons state." Indians should know better than anyone that it doesn't matter what the world thinks, but there comes a point when a nation feels that it has to build a bomb. Some nations would like to remain ambiguous concerning their arms capabilities, to befuddle potential enemies and make them think twice about initiating hostilities (Saddam, Israel). Other nations have the know-how to rapidly construct an arsenal if the need arises, such as Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Argentina, and South Africa (also probably Taiwan, Canada, Australia, and some European nations). Most of those states are not under immediate threat, which is of course the key to convincing them that nuclear weapons would be too problematic to acquire.
So North Korea is in a bind, some of which is self-inflicted. The conceited, insular Kim government is tired of being bullied by the US and wants recognition. Sometimes force confers respect in geopolitics. This may become a very reckless publicity stunt, and will hurt the Korean people. But they hear our strong language and take the threat of American aggression very seriously. If we mellowed our tone, Kim's desire for nuclear weapons would appear all the more ridiculous and unacceptable in the world's eyes. But the Bush Administration has helped Pyongyang into a position to somewhat justify a nuclear deterrent. Can Bush explain to North Korea why pro-America nations get to hoard thousands of megaton hydrogen bombs, while they can't even test a few meager fission devices?
Maybe that's the paradox of the nuclear age. Countries seek nuclear weapons purely out of self-interest, even if the global response will be crippling. Powerful countries want nukes, but refuse to allow others the same privilege. They think they have the right or need for such weapons, even if the rest of the world thinks its lunacy. America toots the horn of nonproliferation, but refuses to show good faith and engage in serious disarmament, and this contributes to our failing nuclear policies according to Asian affairs expert Gordon Chang. To make matters worse, Bush cancelled the Test Ban Treaty and other accords, and approved funding through Congress for new weapons development. The Test Ban Treaty kept Chinese nukes frozen in 1970's technology, and now the floodgates are loosed for a potential 21st century arms race. They shouldn't complain about the "Chinese menace" if they contribute to the problem. Speaking of China, America faced a dilemma when the People's Republic went nuclear during the 1960's. The US seriously considered a first strike on their facilities, but fortunately responsible leaders nixed that plan which would have ultimately led to World War III. We let China go nuclear, and the sky didn't fall. A nuclear North Korea and/or Iran is not the end of the world, but does force us to adapt and rethink our strategies.
What does North Korea want? Maybe they just desire respect and fair treatment. I know that they probably don't plan to nuke anyone unless as last resort. Unlike the doomsday scenarios and exaggerated, paranoid claims from the government/mass media, North Korea is not much of a threat to us. Unlike Al Qaeda, North Korea has not sworn to destroy America or our allies. Gross civil and human rights abuses take place regularly, and this must be addressed. Kim is disrespectful to our government and clearly a bad leader, but not a maniac. Even the "madman" Saddam didn't have the audacity to use WMD on Coalition forces during Desert Storm, because he knew we would reduce Iraq to rubble in retaliation. Most dictators realize that it's folly to commit national hara-kiri, because who would be left to boss around? Hitler, Nero, and the Khmer Rouge were the few exceptions. Even though the North has broken agreements in the past, their no first-strike policy is an important sign. I just don't think Kim would walk the path to oblivion and foolishly employ his nukes just to spite America, but he will respond to perceived aggression on our part, including excessive sanctions. Korea's neighbors have reason for concern, and may well match or surpass Pyongyang's arsenal in a new Asian arms race. Surely the North profits from arms sales to questionable parties, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to Western defense companies. There is scant evidence to suggest that Pyongyang has ever engaged in WMD proliferation or dealt with international Islamist groups, even less than the case against Saddam. Noam Chomsky claims that Bush added North Korea to the "Axis of Evil" in 2001 simply because it was too controversial for the Axis to be exclusively comprised of Muslim nations. North Korea is a dysfunctional, impoverished, idiosyncratic hermit state with a mediocre military (significant manpower but obsolete weaponry) and primitive nukes at best. We shouldn't let our guard down, but we don't need to freak out either. Freaking out after 9/11 got us into the Afghanistan/Iraq mess, so I hope we can learn to avoid repeated mistakes.
INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS?
I disagree with some of the NYT editorial above calling for stiff sanctions and punishment. Unlike Iran, North Korea has no oil leverage and few strong allies/foreign investors apart from China. So compared to Iran, it will be easier for the international community to come to a consensus on imposing punishment. Beijing lost face when North Korea tested their device in defiance of their warnings, but they hesitate to cripple their close ally. They realize that the international response should not be to merely punish the North, but instead seek to convince (or bribe) them abandon nuclear activities for their own good. If China agrees to withhold their veto and cut aid/oil to North Korea (doubtful), it may very well bring Pyongyang to its knees. But arrogant centralized governments don't like to beg on their knees, and might prefer extremism instead. Take the case of pre-WWII Imperial Japan. That nation was obviously militaristic and aggressive, seeking to become a respected world power and regional leader. After Japan invaded and conquered French Indochina and some of the Dutch East Indies, the US (then Japan's chief oil supplier) imposed an oil embargo to cut the lifeblood to the Japanese military. Instead of shamefully bargaining for a resolution with the West, Japan decided to sneak attack Pearl Harbor instead, and the rest is history. So we shouldn't implement excessive external pressure that may provoke Pyongyang into using its military/nuclear resources in desperation.
If we learned anything from our economic embargoes in the 20th century, external pressure does not weaken enemy regimes and foster democratic reforms. In fact, it only serves to strengthen our enemies at the expense of their suffering people (whom we supposedly care about and wish to liberate). The people may come to resent their corrupt leaders more, but our economic strangulation weakens their ability to resist. As a result, they probably blame the West more than their own leaders for the hardships. Castro has outlasted 9 (soon to be 10) US presidents, and the Ayatollahs still run Iran, despite our decades of economic and diplomatic estrangement. The secretive Kim regime enjoys its privileged, demigod status and prefers to spend its meager capital on nuclear/military expenditures while the society languishes and falls further behind. Like Iran, this nation is generally immune to trade sanctions. The government seems content to cut off ties with the outside world even as their people starve, and yet the deceived populace still has great love for the two Kim leaders. The North won't back down in the face of terrible hardships. Are we ready to take responsibility for another ruined, suffering nation? By all means we should attempt to block the North's acquisition of new military/nuclear technology, but general economic sanctions will do more harm than good. One punishment the Bush Administration seeks to impose on the North is a mandatory search of all inbound and outbound cargo. This technically constitutes a naval blockade, which the North would rightfully interpret as an act of war (according to international law). Events may escalate out of control from there.
Military aggression obviously makes matters worse. As observed in Iraq, democracy can't function through violence, and our hostility only increases support for undesirable, unstable strongmen. Yet America expects the grateful recipients of our sanctions and bombs to spontaneously overthrow their own leaders and do the West's bidding instead? Especially after we stifled democratic movements (that were too leftist for comfort) in Africa/Latin America, hung the anti-Saddam resistance out to dry after 1991, and utterly failed in Vietnam/Bay of Pigs, maybe reformers don't quite trust us to reliably assist them in their struggles for positive change.
IMPROVING OUR DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The NYT's columnist Nicholas Kristof says we need to start talking to "monsters" from hostile regimes, instead of taking the Republicans' juvenile cold shoulder approach. Sometimes talking prevents fighting, and we should have tried it long ago with Cuba, Iran, the Iraqi insurgents, Islamist groups, and even Osama. Bush rules out direct talks with the North because he believes Six-Party negotiations give us more diplomatic advantage. While that may be true, completely refusing to engage them directly is setting us back, especially when the North has been requesting bilateral talks! UN Secretary General Anan has said as much. They claim to pursue nuclear arms as a deterrent against US aggression. It might all be a smokescreen, but it appears that their gripe is with us. So why don't we talk with them, put their fears to rest, and convince them to disarm in a more effective, equitable manner? What do we have to lose by talking? But Bush and the GOP have to remain on message and stay the course. Staying the wrong course is hurting us in Iraq, and staying the wrong course is costing us with North Korea. Sadly, this nuclear standoff will probably help the fear-mongering, security-driven Republicans in the November election.
I am not Korean, but please permit me to make a few inferences. Certainly Southerners are dismayed with the nuclear test. They feel betrayed that these years of increased openness, cooperation, and generosity were squandered. Seoul's "Sunshine" policy of engagement has been making progress for the last decade, and unfortunately the North's recent nuclear brinkmanship has infuriated many South Koreans and increased criticism of the engagement strategy. The Korean people want peaceful coexistence, reconciliation, and eventual reunification. They want it so badly that many of them are willing to bury decades of hostility and mistrust to work for a better future. The South gives millions in socioeconomic assistance each year, and the North graciously accepts. Young people in the South want American troops off the Korean Peninsula for good. Koreans are tired of being Cold War pawns for China and America. Unlike Israel and Hamas, the South and North have become more reliable, respectful negotiating partners since the Clinton Era. Surely it's impossible to bury all the hate, war scars, and communists-capitalists ideological animosity. We still have a long way to go, but at least the loudspeakers on the DMZ have silenced, leaders have met and shook hands, Korea has a joint Olympic team, and some lucky families have reunited.
Civil wars are some of the most tragic conflicts, and we Americans should know. We've suffered through a civil war and instigated a few in other countries too. The US interference exacerbated tensions in Vietnam. Rather than allowing the Vietnamese to negotiate their differences and become a unified, sovereign nation (as opposed to a Western or Soviet puppet), the USSR and US decided to impose its wishes and force a path to war instead. America did not start the Korean War, but our government has impeded progress to peace because of narrow self-interest and persistent Cold War ideology. However, a better future is possible through intelligent discussion, concession, reconciliation, and trust (look at Germany and South Africa). The Koreans are closer to peaceful coexistence than many other global hot spots, and unfortunately this is an issue that America takes umbrage. As demonstrated in the recent summit between South Korean and American leaders this fall, the two nations do not see eye-to-eye regarding relations with the North. The Bush Administration continues to adopt the antiquated, fruitless policy of estrangement that has yet to succeed in Cuba, Iran, and elsewhere. Seoul adopts a more elevated, civilized strategy. Of course the North has sometime failed to live up to expectations as a reasonable negotiating partner, but they are not solely to blame for this shameful diplomatic failure.
CONCLUSION: GIVE PEACE (AND TRADE) A CHANCE
So what is the solution? Like Iraq, the situation is complex, precarious, and too difficult for the US to resolve with force. Globalization is overwhelming a net force for good, and political freedom must be coupled to economic prosperity. As great economists have observed, no democracy ever had a famine, and free trade is correlated with standard of living and honest government. So obviously sanctions, embargoes, and tariffs won't help improve life and encourage reforms in North Korea. And a poor, desperate, unstable North Korea is not good for anyone. So as we all know, democracy + prosperity = no fighting. Unfortunately, some governments in Europe and the Middle East haven't figured this out yet, and continue to marginalize and abandon angry, desperate Muslims to the manipulations of religious extremists. We have to open up to North Korea, Iran, and others if we desire peaceful social reform there, but conservatives, special interests, and ideologues profit from the regrettable status quo and routinely block détente. North Korean agricultural exports suffer from protectionist policies and subsidies of richer Asian neighbors. Some people can't overcome antiquated Cold War thinking and resist change. Kim thrives on his nation's isolation to maintain power, and our diplomatic hostility/trade sanctions are working in his favor.
Maybe we fear that more money bound for North Korea will only funnel to the corrupt regime and military. But Saddam didn't snatch every last cent of the wayward Oil For Food Program, didn't use his profits to build WMD, and much of the proceeds did help the struggling Iraqi people. Pyongyang can't hoard all the wealth, and ordinary citizens will benefit from increased commerce, which leads to demand for education, government reform, and civil liberties. Plus increased cultural exchange with the West and North Korea's Asian neighbors will reduce the mutual mistrust, prejudice, and tension. When people wield more information, wealth, and influence, it's harder for leaders to unilaterally execute deleterious policies. And as I previously mentioned, economic and diplomatic seclusion only serves to weaken the populace and strengthen tyrants. Increased trade with China and the South have helped tremendously, so the North needs more, not less, socioeconomic and diplomatic contact with the rest of the world to become a responsible, trustworthy member of the world community. It's better for the unfortunate Korean people and better for global security, but unfortunately conflicts with the interests of narrow-minded, self-serving leaders like Kim and Bush. Surely the process won't be quick or easy (trust and relations among enemies takes time), money won't fix everything, and we must remain diligent. Maybe "appeasing" and "bribing" North Korea will set a poor example for other nuclear hopefuls, so we must hold the North to account as well. If they want nukes, they can't have other benefits. The choice is theirs, but we need to offer them something more substantial than condemnations and threats. Nixon and Mao took major political risks to commence relations, and it paid off for both nations decades later. We can sew the seeds of cooperation now and work/hope for a better future, or we can resign ourselves to the continuing failure of Bush-like policies.
North Korea has gone nuclear whether we like it or not, and we can't turn back the clock. If we can't get the genie back into the bottle, at least we can reduce its preeminence. A cooperative nuclear partner is still safer than an estranged enemy with a knife. So the world has a simple choice: do we prefer to punish nuclear North Korea and render that nation more isolated, impoverished, angry, and desperate? Or do we desire to work for peaceful coexistence, normalized relations, disarmament/nonproliferation, social reforms, and prosperity instead?
"The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend."- Abraham Lincoln, Republican and war president.
No comments:
Post a Comment