- Andrew J. Coe of the Institute for Defense Analyses warns that if economic pressures in North Korea get bad enough, it may resort to exports of its nuclear cash crop:
North Korea’s refusal to enter into a fourth round of these talks may be intended to test the Bush administration’s mettle and to drive a wedge between Washington and its partners in the region. Unfortunately, North Korea’s intransigence may also reflect the regime’s conclusion that further talks are pointless. If Pyongyang can no longer use its nuclear program to extort aid from the international community, rising economic pressures on the regime will force it to find new ways of generating revenue. It may well resort to selling its nuclear resources, stealthily and at a tidy profit, albeit most likely not to Al Qaeda or other risky customers.
- Meanwhile, Hahm Chaibong of Yonsei University tries to explain the roots of the split between conservatives and progressives in South Korea, and points out that the rise of the anti-American left cannot be dismissed so easily:
Some observers try to explain away anti-American and pro-North Korean views in South Korea as a largely harmless sign of the country’s maturity, a manifestation of an effort to steer a more independent course in foreign policy vis-a`-vis the United States. Others say that the changes in views are a reflection of the country’s democratization, of increasing pluralism and diversity of opinion. Still others defend this shift by saying that it is a protest against the unilateralism of the current Bush administration and not against the United States itself. In reality, anti-American and pro-North Korean attitudes in South Korea are anything but passing trends or transitory reactions to a particular U.S. policy or administration, nor can one cheerfully dismiss them as signs of a maturing democracy. Rather, they are the logical extension of the current ruling coalition’s ????leftist-nationalist???? ideology, which lies at the root of South Korea’s deep division between conservatives and progressives. What, then, is the origin, nature, and potential future influence of this ideology that harbors an increasingly virulent form of anti-Americanism while coddling North Korea’s regime?
Read the pieces on your own.
(Hat tip to reader)
4 Comments
I wish people would define “anti-Americanism” before seriously using that term.
I would tend to use anti-US/USFK more. It is more generic than anti-Bush or anti-US foreign policy, but it is not anti-Americans or anti-America. It is a long cultivated dislike for the US-SK relationship and especially targets USFK. However, it is also a broad reaching process that can throw in Hollywood, blue jeans, “American democracy”, and other things if it finds it needs something different to vent on that week. And it is not a intellectual, “just focused on policy” thing. It is emtional and often illogical.
On the selling nukes, is the potential for that happening enough to warrant paying the North off for accepting partial compliance and verification?
I believe the North will always keep some nukes on hand hidden in the country, and there is nothing we can do about that short of regime change. And if they kept a slower, easier to hide nuke making program hidden for some years, it would not suprise me if they will try that again even if paid off.
So, the bottom line to me is that North Korea will always have the option of selling nukes if it thinks it can get away with it.
How much material wealth would we have to give them to take their minds off the idea they could make a few millions by selling a nuke? Or more correctly, take their minds off thinking about the cost to benefit ratio of selling nukes?
And I’d also guess selling nukes isn’t just a cash gaining option in the North Korean mindset.
They could decide selling a nuke or two to Iran would be beneficial to NK on several fronts. Iran is a big chunk of NK missile and missile tech sells. But also, Iran can be seen as a thorn in the US’ side. Why not help them be more of a pain in the ass to the US and make it much, much more unlikely the US would invade Iran by giving them a small nuclear deterent?
Again, the risks of getting caught vs the reward is the primary equation, and as long as the North has nukes, that equation will remain in play, and I think NK will always keep a few nukes.
In my opinion, much “anti-Americanism” in Korea is very often a smokescreen or cover for plain old racism.
“Rather, they are the logical extension of the current ruling coalition?s ?ก?ฐleftist-nationalist?ก?ฑ ideology”
Agreed, but amend to “leftist/nationalist/racist ideology”
Hugh, I agree that a lot of “anti-Americanism” is plain old racist sentiment. Superiority complex, inferiority complex, xenophobia, etc., depending on its source.
That does not mean, however, that all anti-USFK complaints are due to that. There sometimes are legitimate complaints about USFK. Other times, though, there is anti-USFK sentiment whipped up by NGOs, press organizations, etc., with an agenda, who are trying to anger the public with selective reporting, innuendo, distorted reports, etc.