The Rathbone Press gives us some food for though as he writes on the future of the U.S.-ROK relationship. It’s a long one, and well worth the read (regardless of whether you agree with his conclusions on not) — here’s a mere snippet:
The question that needs to be asked is this: Would declining US influence be good for South Korea? A balanced appraisal would suggest “no.” When pride rears its ugly head, Koreans would love to be rid of the USFK and see Washington burn in hell. However, the reality is that with declining US influence, China and Japan would fill the void and Koreans could feel even more threatened by foreign powers.
As for the current nuclear problem, it should be China and South Korea who should be putting more pressure on North Korea to drop its weapons program and join the international community. Japan and the US have done their part to bring North Korea to the table. It is up to South Korea and China to do theirs.
Complaints have often been made in Asia that the US acts too unilaterally. An opportunity has presented itself for South Korea and China to correct this imbalance by demonstrating some initiative and leadership with North Korea, yet the two countries keep tossing the ball back into the US’ court.
If South Korea and China would do more to take care of their own problems, the dreaded US influence would recede — just like many Koreans (and Chinese) say they want it to. US power is a product not only of America’s doing, but others’ not doing. It stands to reason that the more other countries vie for influence and take concrete actions to shape political outcomes, the less powerful America will be.
Instapundit-quality work, if you ask me.
18 Comments
Owen (a frequent commenter on the old Korea Times board) is hands down a bright new star in the firmament of Korea blogs.
Whenver I hear speculation about South Korea choosing new allies, I’m reminded of that classic P.J. O’Rourke line about Koreans from “Holidays in Hell”: “They don’t like anybody who’s not Korean, and they don’t seem to like themselves all that much.” (apologies for quoting from memory)
Owen is definately a rising star — he’s a brilliant writer, and while I occasionally question some of his conclusions, few can question his logical reasoning skills. I really liked some of his pre-blog work, too.
I’ve blogrolled the mofo. Indeed he is good.
Kevin
It’s funny how people are now talking about “making concessions” with the North nowadays. I thought the line was “no talks, no concessions, no negotiation, no nothing with evil, rogue, communist North Korea”. We are finding out, like the U.S. govt has (again), that the North is very good at getting others to deal with them. Getting tough when dealing with them sounds good, but remember that the North tends to ratchet tensions up when they don’t get their way (the nuclear issue is how they do it).
Anyway, I don’t think what the Northerners really want is all that bad. They want a nonagression pact to ensure the survival of their regime. They also want engagement with the U.S. to ensure survival. Now if U.S. (and maybe? South Korean) recognition and a nonagression pact is not possible, then I think the North will feel a need to produce nukes and try to use them as bargaining chips. The U.S. has already said that a nuclear North is not an option. In this sense, I think that a hardline approach that necessitates an invasion and the destruction of the North is the only scenario that will win out if the U.S. position on the nonagression pact and recognition do not change.
OR maybe the current course will ensue: Just keep feeding them food and oil on and off to keep the tensions down while denying the North what it wants.
Which is better? Ending it now peacefully, or ending it now in war, or continue to kick the can down the road with no coherent policy? Wouldn’t engagement with the regime (however galling it may be to us) and the attempts to reform it from that engagement make more sense?
>>>Which is better? Ending it now peacefully, or ending it now in war, or continue to kick the can down the road with no coherent policy?
Donald Gregg is the one advocating “concessions” and he is an proponent of the can-kicking approach of the 1994-2001 period. I think it was worth the time it took to get Japan and China involved in the process. (I didn’t include South Korea because they are a passive player and, frankly the least reliable of the six parties after North Korea).
I don’t see “ending it now peacefully” as a likely outcome. The secret uranium programme unveiled in 2002 (but started in 1997) was not the first, but at least the fourth incident of North Korean nuclear cheating, stretching back to the mid-1980s when the Soviet Union provided them a reactor on condition that that they join the NPT and comply with IAEA safeguards. North Korea then dragged out that process and ultimately defrauded the IAEA. They then duped the Clintonites with the Agreed Framework. In the non-nuclear area, it’s hard to think of an area where North Korea has not hoodwinked its partners. All of the vaunted June 2000 summit-inspired projects are both way behind schedule and proceeding only on terms contrary to the spirit in which they are agreed. Yes they are foot-draggingly working on the cross DMZ railroad projects, but only because South Korea is footing the entire bill. The family reunions happen at Kim Jong-il’s whim while elderly Koreans die — and they only take place in the safe confines of Mt Kumgang, not in alternating capitals as the original agreement called for. The World Food Programme and other aid groups, even while admitting to hold their noses to serve noble humanitarian aims, have severely compromised their principles on transparency in order to work in North Korea. Hell, North Korea even managed to cheat Saddam Hussein, pocketing $10 million from Iraq while failing to deliver missiles.
Calling the people who run North Korea scumbags is an insult to scum, and I have given only a few of the myriad reasons to pause before striking an “agreement” with the DPRK.
It’s funny how China reacts sometimes to US forces in Asia. I remember reading a few years ago an article on PRC strategy. What the article outlined was how the PRC actually prefers the US stay in the region for awhile.
The PRC prefers this I guess because the stability the US provides allows the PRC to modernize the military without having countries like Japan, Russia, or North and South Korea screw-up the balance-of-power. Looks like the PRC is sort of calling a ‘time-out’ while they type up their shoes and get ready to the second half of the game.
Well put, Slim. I think that’s the biggest concern many have with the North Koreans — there are no “ending it peacefully” scenarios, really. Kicking the can down the road might be the best one can get without resorting to military action, given the circumstances. Of course, hard-edged diplomacy might eventually work if it convinces the North Koreans that improved relations with the United States are simply not possible as long as it conducts its affairs the way it does; assuming the DPRK really does want “better relations” (i.e., aid money) from the Americans, its leadership is clever enough to understand that a change in approach might be necessary if Washington keeps ignoring them the way the Bush Administration has. After all, despite claims by the North Koreans to the contrary, time is on the Americans’ side, not theirs. My major concern, however, is that while I generally believe that the DPRK leadership is fairly level-headed, despite their best attempts to appear otherwise, they may be prone to miscalculations, and understandable miscalculations at that — afterall, their tactics have generally been successful up till now, and it has already crossed over one supposed “red-line” without suffering any real penalties for doing so, so in the minds of decision makers in Pyongyang, further brinkmanship might seem a reasonable policy option. If so, one certainly hopes that they know where the real “red-line” is (and on Washington’s part, one can only hope that they know where their own “red-line” is, and clearly delineate that line so that misunderstandings are kept to a minimum).
i don’t see ‘ending it now peacefully’ as a likely outcome.’ slim
well, slim, what do you see as the likely outcome since it’s folks like you who control korea’s destiny. and please tell me, if you’re in korea when the war you want to start starts, will you remain in korea and fight for your war? you don’t need to answer; i already see you.
also, could you tell me how a country with over 20 thousand nuclear warheads has the right to tell others they don’t have a right to nuclear warheads?
north korea. the united states. only one of these countries has used nuclear weapon on their own species.
Again the simplistic hanchongryun/frog-in-a-well logic that makes me (grudgingly) understand why the marmot likes to have shin jong il around — as a laughingstock. You really don’t deserve a reply, but I try to be kind to the weak and the dumb.
Stating that North Korea will probably cheat on any deal because it ALWAYS has cheated on everything it has ever done is PLAINLY not the same as calling for war. Surely your reading ability enables you to understand that. I prefer getting China’s help to pull the plug on the vile DPRK regime: cut everything going in (oil, food, coal, etc) and let everyone who wants to leave leave. Drain the swamp and kill the mosquitos. Chaotic and risky, yes, but better than letting Kim Jong-il hold a gun to anyone’s head.
It is particularly fatuous and unbecoming of Koreans — even rank ignoramuses like shin jong il — to rail on about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Check your calendar, intellectually and morally challenged one. What dates in August did the bombs fall on Japan? What date do you celebrate Gwangbokchul? How did that “gwangbok” come about?
Kim Il-sung was still dining on Russian caviar and hadn’t even murdered his first legitimate North Korean patriot on Aug 15, 1945.
Let’s try to keep it civil, guys.
I have to agree with Shin on something — the United States doesn’t have a “right,” so to speak, to tell North Korea not to build nuclear weapons. Or perhaps it would be better to say that North Korea has a “right” to develop and build such weapons. In an anarchic international system, countries are free to do whatever the hell they want. Not the most uplifting way to look at the world, granted, but that’s the particular school of international relations I come from (and for this, I owe a debt of gratitutde to my Korean professors at Kyung Hee University). To be frank, I’m not a huge fan of nuclear nonproliferation; on a theoretical level, it doesn’t seem either logical or practical. Anyway, North Korea has a “right” to build nuclear weapons, but then again, other countries have the “right” to respond as they see fit (i.e., protect their own interests). I have to ask if Mr. Shin if he would be making the same arguments if it was Japan, rather than the DPRK, that was caught developing nuclear weapons. Would he be asking the U.S. to “get tough” with Tokyo, perhaps going so far as to argue that U.N. sanctions be put in place on Japan? Only he can answer that. I simply try (operative word) to be consistent to my system model, i.e. North Korea has the right to go nuclear, as do South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan (heck, Botswana has it, too, for that matter), but those nations need to weigh carefully the potential security benefits of developing nuclear programs against the potential reactions of other states to whom those programs represent a threat to their interests.
Hope I haven’t offended too many people.
My apologies to the very diplomatic Marmot for teeing off on a lad who does little morethan remind me of the reasons I fled the Korea Herald board in disgust.
Noone here is advocating nuclear proliferation. The hard fact is that the genie cannot be put back in the bottle and the technology cannot be uninvented.
I’m not a Korean nationalist like Shin — or even a nationalist of any stripe — but I probably share his goal of a strong unified Korea in my lifetime. The only conscionable way that can happen is when North Korea becomes merely northern Korea and the DPRK exists only as a Seoul museum exposition — right there in the room next to the other dark period of 1910-45.
>>well, slim, what do you see as the likely outcome since it’s folks like you who control korea’s destiny.they’ll be victims.
The irony of current Korean anger is that, on the one hand, there’s the attempt to remember Korean toughness. One the other, there’s the belief that Koreans are weak and helpless.
CHOOSE ONE ATTITUDE AND STICK TO IT!
In the meantime, remember that you and the North are NOT “one people.” This is a myth, a lie, a fantasy. If you refuse to view NK as the dangerous country it is, then there’s no reason to complain about an American troop pullback. Go and welcome your harmless, well-fed brothers with open arms! North and South were one people, yes; and maybe they can be one people again. But not anytime soon. Not after all the damage that NK’s regime has done to the minds and bodies of North Koreans. The blame for that rests entirely on the Kim dynasty.
Personally, I’d like to see our troops leave the peninsula entirely. They serve little use and aren’t appreciated, and their presence allows the “victim” folks to whine about “occupation” and “empire,” parroting the nonsense from KCNA.
Until South Korea owns up to its own responsibilities to the region and to its alliances, it has little right to complain. The fact is that South Korea is strong– very strong. All it needs to do is be convinced of its strength.
Shin asks an important question of us Americans, though: if war breaks out, where will we be?
I already know my answer: if war breaks out while I’m living here, I’ll stay here until all my Korean relatives are either safely to the south or out of the country entirely. Until then, I’m not leaving.
By the way, those same relatives think Noh Mu Hyon’s government’s got its head up its collective ass. Heh.
I hope this provides a sincere answer to Shin’s sincere questions.
Kevin Kim
I agree that there has been more vacillation than I’d wanted to see from the Bushies — and this will probably get worse in this election year. But North Korea has also been put on the back foot because for the first time in memory, its tantrums haven’t drawn a knee-jerk placating response (at least from actors other than Seoul). No talks whatsoever was not a sustainable policy. Preemptive attack was not really in the cards. (Clinton came closer to that) The HOPE is that when talks take place, they will be largely happening on US terms. North Korea’s reluctance to come out for a second round of six-way talks must stem in part from the feeling it’s being ganged up on.
North Korea is as clever as it is wicked, though, so there is a huge risk that it could wait out ‘04 in the hope of a Kerry victory and the capitulation that that implies. A strong Uri Party showing here in April would also strengthen North Korea’s hand, I fear.
WOW! I want to paint a plate that says “Tokdo - Our Shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” oops, that’s DDONG, not DDANG!
(snicker)
so mr marmot, you assume i am korean and therefore hate the japanese? why do you think this? because i think tokdo belongs to korea?
listen, i think japan already has nuclear capabilities. would you expect anything less from the only nation to endure a nuclear attack? i’m not saying they have an actual bomb, but rather, they know how to build it, they’ve assembled the parts, and all that is left to do is put it together. a japan with the atomic bomb does not scare me at all; i’ve been under the impression they already have one for quite some time.
korea too will have to go nuclear.
thank you for your blog. i’m going to try that special ddokbokki dish as soon as i can find a restaurant that serves it!
by the way, i don’t celebrate ‘gwangbok’, slim. but i’m a barbeque on the fouth.
by the way, i don’t celebrate ‘gwangbok’, slim.
Sorry about the strange grammar mistakes. My arm is broken, and I can’t type that well with my arm in a cast.