Tom Plate thinks we need to love North Korea to death:
Four, if it is outright regime-change that you prefer, consider trying something different. Consider aggressive, near-reckless engagement. What do you have to lose? That the North Koreans will be emboldened to … what? … launch missile and nuclear tests?
Heck, they’ve already been doing that. Better to execute an Obama (the bold campaign Barack, not the waffling presidential one) and run circles around the North Koreans with an embarrassment of recognition and riches.
Drop the embargo, establish a U.S. embassy in Pyongyang (we have no official representation there now ― can you believe it?), fatten the regime up with aid, accumulate leverage, change the behavior, establish regional peace ― try to be subtle, indirect and smart for once.
Accumulate leverage? Heh. Ask the South Koreans how well a decade’s worth of “leverage” is working out for them. And how much it’s changed North Korean behavior and established regional peace.
Mind you, I agree with Plate that pressuring North Korea or trying to isolate it further would be an exercise in futility — in fact, they’d probably prefer at least the latter. But aggressive, almost reckless engagement by the South Koreans for the better part of a decade didn’t result in much, either… other than the South Korean taxpayer being taken for a Daepodong ride.
Sure, the North Koreans are already launching missiles and conducting nuclear tests, as Plate points out. But at least they’re not doing it on the US taxpayer’s coin.
I take issue with something else Plate said, too:
Five, we don’t do that and here’s what we get: probably a destabilizing regional arms race ― amid a trigger-happy Tokyo. For it is hard to believe that the Japanese will sit tight with Pyongyang on a missile-test spree.
For Japan, North Korea, in the midst of a leadership succession, is far more the enemy than China and, in case we haven’t noticed, the politics in Tokyo these days is volatile. The government is unstable and the opposition under reorganization. So Pyongyang is to Tokyo what Tehran is to Tel Aviv: a constant temptation to launch a preemptive strike.
A “destabilizing” arms race? I’ll tell you what’s inherently unstable: an East Asian international order where the Chinese, Russians and North Koreans enjoy a nuclear monopoly over democracies South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, who base their security on the belief that the United States — in hoc to the Bank of China — would trade Los Angeles, San Francisco or Seattle for Taipei, Seoul or Tokyo. Sure, it might, but then again, it might not. Let the South Koreans, Japanese and Taiwanese go nuclear, and you take all the guess work out of the equation. Heck, it might even encourage the Chinese to act like the Great Power it wants to be.
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
I sort of wonder what they would do for propaganda if word got out the U.S. had completely pulled out of the ROK, assuming the South had restarted their nuclear program and had several dozen warheads ready for MAD. It seems that so much of their control over the society stems from fear of a “U.S. imperialist” assault. If the only thing on the other side of the fence was a bunch of Koreans made rich from the wonders of capitalism, it would be hard to continue the fear mongering.
Oh, I don’t know. It’s not like North Korea ever let reality get in the way of good propaganda.
The real shocking reversal is how South Korea now has the forces of a communist state stationed in its capital.
What, by getting them to spend vast amounts of money on an arms race?
Are there any US-friendly nations you would not like to see go nuclear? How can you be certain that the Chinese would sit back and let Taiwan go nuclear? Do you see it as a positive that Pakistan went nuclear? Does the “go nuclear” trick work for all regions of the world or is it just a particular conflux of fortuitous circumstances in East Asia? What about handing out a few nukes to the Ethiopians, or the Darfuris?
No, by encouraging them to take the North Korean nuclear issue a bit more seriously than they do now.
The same reason the Chinese were certain the US would sit back and let North Korea go nuclear.
No, but it did. As did North Korea, and probably will Iran. So I fail to see how responsible democracies — or at least countries unlikely to use them on us our our allies — getting nukes can possibly be any worse. We seem to do OK with the French, British and Israelis having them.
You think by putting the Chinese back up, casting them as the regional threat, you’ll persuade them to bring about a positive outcome in North Korea? Mighty big balls you’re swinging there. What if they call your bluff, start ramping up the propaganda and backing the North Koreans up in all the crazy things they do? Do you then go and really arm the Japanese and Koreans? What if that doesn’t work?
As you know, North Korea isn’t really a threat to anyone. What happens when North Korea goes away and you’ve introduced nuclear weapons into the region? Everyone learns to live together in happiness?
Because North Korea matters as much to the Americans as Taiwan does to the Chinese.
Fingers crossed.
Mahathir bin Mohamad was here last week saying how outrageous it was that countries with nuclear weapons were trying to stop countries without nuclear weapons from developing them. I happen to think he’s nuts, but don’t you think you’re rather letting the cat out of the bag? Those who agree with him will only get further emboldened. If nuclear weapons are alright, what about chemical and biological weapons? Are you going to leave export licensing up to the individual authorities?
Today’s friends; arming Saddam against Iran might have been a bad idea. It makes it worse because it encourages everyone to feel they need bombs to be safe. China will just start casting around for client states they can arm to improve their leverage over the US, just like the USSR did – Cuba, for example.
Democratic elections suck, don’t they?
If there’s a crazy guy waiving a gun and talking to himself in a the restaurant (let’s call it, North East Asia), the solution is not to distribute guns to all the patrons.
Although the idea is still being tested here in this restaurant, there is such thing as the “talking cure”.
According to the Internets, Albert Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” I guess California’s budget problems will keep Plate out of the loony bin for the time being.
Yeah, isn’t that what Plate is saying in his article?
Bush didn’t let the isolation and threats play out long enough (i.e. long enough for 2MB’s harder line to kick in) before he went to kumbaya mode. Ten years of sunshine-up-South-Korean-arse didn’t do anything but fund more missile and nuke extortion toys for Little Elvis to play with.
No. You persuade them by illustrating to them just what happens when you refuse to use your influence to keep your loose-cannon allies from irritating the other side.
You’d have to ask Mrs. Marmot about that.
As opposed to what? Just sitting back and watching them do all the crazy things they do like now?
Yes. Or more precisely, you let the Japanese and Koreans arm themselves.
Doesn’t work at what? It would seem to me if Japan and South Korea have nukes, the problem IS solved — you have nuclear parity in the region. And — if you’re smart — you get the added bonus of being able to reduce US defense commitments. South Korea and Japan don’t really need the US to do the heavy lifting when they’ve got their fingers on the button.
Neither, really, is Japan, South Korea or Taiwan. In fact, I trust the Japanese, South Koreans and Taiwanese much more with the bomb than North Korea and Pakistan, which could very well try to sell them to countries I really DON’T want to see with nukes.
Introduced nuclear weapons into the region? Nuclear weapons are already in the region — in the form of the Chinese, Russian, American, North Korean, Indian and Pakistani nuclear arsenals. Most of those states I would prefer not have them, but they do. So a nuclear armed South Korea and Japan — two democracies and fairly upstanding members of the international community — bothers me as much as France, Britain and Israel having nukes, i.e., it doesn’t. And no, not everybody learns to live together in happiness. The learn to live together without doing something so incredibly stupid that they get nuked.
And he’s partly right, although frankly, the big concern is not so much nuclear development per se, but rather WHO is doing the developing. Belgium could announce tomorrow it was developing its own nuclear deterrent and nobody would care. Iran, on the other hand, scares people because it’s Iran.
Was it? We armed Stalin during WWII, and don’t hear anyone (except for maybe Pat Buchanan) claiming that was a bad idea.
Yeah, well, maybe the Chinese should have thought about that before.
Crikey! They might even do something REAL crazy, like — Heaven forbid! — let allies like North Korea and Pakistan go nuclear. Oh, wait…
One guy’s thought on the matter;
http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2009/05/groundhog-day-on-north-korea.html
Loose-cannons? Teaching them how grown-up countries behave are we? I’ve heard that the Chinese are diligent learners and excel at copycatting. But what if they don’t want to be schooled by the US?
You’re suggesting a policy purposefully aimed to piss the Chinese off. Either they will buckle to your plan or they’ll look for ways to piss you off. They could, for example, start actively assisting the North Koreans in garnering much needed foreign currency through weapons sales to Arabs in dark glasses. Not much point in having a naval blockade of North Korea if all their weapons exports just get shipped through China. Or they could help the North Koreans out where they’re obviously having technological trouble. Plus you need China’s goodwill when North Korea disappears, which there is every possibility it will, just on its own. You seem to think that China couldn’t be any more annoying than they already are. Either that or you don’t really care.
We seem to disagree about what the problem is. Do the Korean and Japanese nuclear deterrents stop the North Koreans from selling technology to the Syrians? What happens when the North Koreans, with Chinese help, manage to develop the technology to attack CONUS? Do you rely on the Korean and Japanese deterrent to stop them? No, you just go back to happy Cold War days, preferably with the Russians and Chinese bombs pointing at you as well. Problem solved?
The Chinese don’t care who you trust. They don’t always back the same horse the US does. They’d probably feel more threatened by a nuclear-rich East Asia than a nuclear-armed Syria, or Sudan, or Cuba.
You seem to be struggling to see the connection. If you don’t use the influence you have on Belgium how can you hope to influence Iran, or Libya, or Brazil or South Africa? Most people in Belgium don’t particularly want nuclear weapons. Neither do the people of Japan or Korea I suspect. They want to get on with their neighbors. It’s hard work, I know. Of course, there are crazy people in Belgium who would love to hear you suggesting they arm themselves with nukes. After all, they have an empire to reclaim.
They weren’t exactly tripping over themselves to invite the Russians to join the Manhattan project. In fact, they basically kicked the British and Canadians out after the war.
That’ll show ‘em. The Chinese are probably wondering which was the first country to introduce nuclear weapons onto the Korean peninsula.
And there was me thinking Pakistan was a long-time ally of the US; founder member of SEATO, member of CENTO, Nixon buddying up to Yahya Kahn… My how times change!
You’re arguing for a very risky policy that you cannot possibly see the outcome of. Maybe it will all work out well, and whatever you think the problem is will be solved. But maybe it won’t. It seems to me that you run they very great risk of making a bad problem worse. If your strategy fails it could get very messy very quickly.
That is not factual. Bush “stuff” entailed back and forth between harsh talk and diplomacy, and while neither achieved anything over time, neither threat nor isolation were applied. They were the missing elements, and isolation was dropped.
As Fmr. Ambassador John Bolton explained on Bill Mahr’s last Real Time, there are things that can be done to further isolate the Norks. At the very least, they need to be added back to the list of states that support terrorism. Whatever you may think of Mr. Bolton, he was the only one to predict a missile test in May when things were looking honky dory.
Bill Mahr also stated his assessment that NK is the most dangerous nation on earth because, unlike Iran, it is so unpredictable and erratic that it fails to act in even its own best interests. (It appears as if it is KJI attempting to shore up his political base by playing hard line.) At the same time, he has been involved up to his elbows in developing Syria’s nuclear program.
A realistic policy would proceed from the realization that too much carrot and too little stick has not worked, and containment remains the most important element. Instead of talking appeasement of NK and China, while making vague, hollow noises that there are “consequences” to actions, isn’t it time to back up that talk with more concrete policy?
Nobody’s talking naval blockade. But, for one thing, cutting NK off from global economic support remains a viable option that would hit NK directly in the wallet. John Bolton on the UN’s role:
http://www.thetakeaway.org/stories/2009/may/26/nukes-hawks-and-foreign-policy-ambassador-john-bolton/
I am no expert on the subject, but it appears that Yuna is right to say that what hasn’t worked needs to be tweaked. Appeasement has been a failure. Bush’s smack talk combined with 6-party diplomacy followed by elimination of sanctions has also failed. Giving away the store while expecting nothing in return has failed. Let the international community have their own talks about the situation, and respond in a sterner, more authoritative single voice. And before anyone responds that that can’t be done, contemplate that it has not yet really been seriously attempted by an American leader who has the good will of the international community.
A nuclear arms race in NE Asia is not a desirable outcome nor is it a cause for the best of all possible worlds. But it will happen if there is a perceived leadership vacuum wherein either the US or China fails to step up to the plate and rise to the occasion. The key to unraveling this particular Gordian knot is to let go of old, familiar ideologies which have failed us reliably in the past and adhere to realpolitik strategies based upon a clear, rational understanding of the realities at hand in terms of the dynamics of raw power and interest between all involved parties.
The most optimal present course the US can pursue is to heighten cooperation with China and vice-versa. A nuclear-armed North Korea, complete with long haul delivery capabilities, is favorable to neither the US nor China’s interests. Koreans are a people who are only a single generation removed from peasantry. To allow Koreans (either North or South) to be armed with nuclear weapons is to allow a situation where there is an intolerably large gap between technological development and social/moral development as a society. North Korea, especially, has not evolved sufficiently as a political state to be entrusted with the responsibilities of handling nuclear weapons under any circumstances.
The past eight years were a failure because the prevailing good cop/bad cop routine was based upon South Korea playing the “good cop”, with the Sunshine Policy, and the US as the “bad cop”, with the early Bush Administration’s hardball tactics. This arrangement does not work for at least two reasons:
1. US military power against North Korea is largely hampered by the fact that Seoul is held hostage by North Korean artillery and rockets. You cannot be an effective bad cop if your arms are tied like this. From the North Korean viewpoint, the US has been like a dog whose bark is worse than its bite. The only recourse that the US has exercised is sanction but that is not a real threat to an already highly isolated society whose governing philosophy is Juche and Songun. Furthermore, NK containment does not work unless the Chinese are fully on board.
Another viewpoint that hasn’t been explored more fully is that there may be elements within the North Korean elite that views KJI as a danger and favors reconciliation with the outside world. However, US-led economic sanctions and hardball policies only serve to weaken these factions and give hard-liners added legitimacy.
2. South Korea is not an effective “cop” in any sense, good or bad, because South Korea is not a Great Power capable of exercising genuinely significant acts of noblesse-oblige or punitive measures against North Korea. North Korea has been practicing extortion on their Southern brethren, with guns pointed.
For a more effective North Korea strategy to materialize, the existing role-playing has to change dramatically. The US has to fall into the role of “good cop” while China plays the “bad cop”. For all the reasons that we are already familiar with, China is the only player in this game with real means to “punish” North Korea and this is the reason why they must be the “bad cop”. But China will not exercise this option unless there is full with the US and both are on the same page. The US can offer diplomatic normalization and possibly economic aid, buttressed by additional aid from South Korea and Japan.
This state of affairs can only happen if complicated Sino-American ties evolve to a point where China and America act less like enemies than allies with closely aligned interests.
Only one generation removed from peasantry? The Chinese — the world’s fourth largest nuclear power — still ARE peasants. And they’ve had the bomb since 1964.
It’s interesting to see how a Tom Plate article has got a bunch of folks’ knickers so knotted. I have met Tom on a couple of occasions. He is actually a nice guy, but his claims to fame show how this “Asia hand” has a continent wide and a millimeter deep understanding of this part of the world.
The first time I met him was in Seoul when he pulled me over to the side and confided that he “knew how to solve the Korea problem in short order.” How? Pull out US forces! QED!! When I started to rebut his logic, he looked at his watch, excused himself and ran off.
I have since met him in LA and watched this journalist celebrity bounce around the podium while Asians in the audience silently sighed if not rolled their eyes at his extended generalities.
The problem with these fly-by journalists is they claim incredible insights since they have interviewed a large number of heads of state, high level leaders of society, etc. The reason this breed of “journalists” get such access is they have gained international stature as flacks that can easily be manipulated by anyone who wishes to get a good spin into print. Meanwhile, these flacks become flakes and some even become syndicated columnists. Which is too bad, since I suspect most if not all of these guys once aspired to be serious journalists.
A nuclear armed South Korea, Japan and Taiwan is what. Look, we twisted both South Korea and Taiwan’s arms to get them to stop their nuclear programs. The Soviets twisted North Korea’s. There’s no reason the Chinese can’t do the same. They just won’t because it’s too much trouble. But if they don’t see North Korean nuclear arms as a threat, I fail to see why the US should see Taiwanese nukes as a threat.
The problem is, IMHO, that the Chinese seem to think the US WON’T be more annoying than they already are. Either that or they don’t care.
And the North Koreans already are earning foreign currency through sales to the Arabs in the dark eyeglasses. The Chinese don’t seem particularly concerned. And maybe they shouldn’t be — it’s not like the Syrians are going to nuke Beijing. And besides, the Americans wouldn’t retaliate by taking the nuclear leash off Taiwan.
No, Korean and Japanese nukes won’t stop the North Koreans from selling technology to the Syrians. Nothing is likely to stop the North Koreans from at least attempting those kinds of sales. They will, however, give Korea and Japan credible deterrent capabilities independent of US security guarantees, which would keep everybody honest. And like I said, it we’re lucky, we can reduce our own security commitments in the region and, if we’re really, really lucky, get the Chinese nervous enough to the point that they begin to regard North Korean nukes as THEIR problem, too.
Or perhaps more to the point, even if you DO use your influence on Belgium, what influence would it have on Iran, Libya, Brazil or South Africa? None — as long as ANYONE has nukes, they will have cause to build them. And all I’m saying is let’s be honest — nukes themselves have never been the problem, hence why we sleep comfortably at night while Britain, France, Israel and India polish their warheads. It’s batshit crazy actors getting nukes that scares us.
Well, I suppose it could be risky. Which is why few politicians would be willing to try it. I console myself, however, with the belief that if thing continue as they are, South Korea and Japan may very well develop nukes regardless of what the man in the White House says, saving him the tough decision.
Yeah, as a good American, I demand the right of the individual to bear nuclear arms…
The Marm seems to be a real believer in MAD. I like it, gives this thread a real ’60s feel.
Because you don’t see that China launching a pre-emptive attack on Taiwan would be bad for the US.
What do you think could stop them from completing those kind of sales? We should try to stop it somehow. Do you think PSI is a waste of time? In my mind, the more North Korea pisses off the Chinese, the more likely they are to turn a blind eye to North Korean ships being confiscated.
If South Korea had a war with a nuclear North Korea without US involvement who do you think would win? If a nuclear North Korea had a war with Japan without US involvement who do you think would win? The North Koreans know that if they start anything serious they will disappear. The South Koreans know that if they start anything, hospitals in Seoul are going to be overrun. We already have conventional MAD in East Asia. They don’t need nukes to make it more stable. Once everyone has enough bombs to take preemptive strikes off the cards, people will start worrying about false alarms or rogue elements instead. The less bombs the North have when they collapse the better.
I wonder if the Chinese could launch a fast enough surprise attack on South Korea or Japan, such that these countries were unable to defend themselves. The Japanese can be explicit that they don’t have nuclear weapons because they have certain natural advantages that Israel doesn’t.
The US leaving East Asia or signing a peace treaty to end the Korean War is about as likely as North Korea giving up their nuclear weapons.
That may happen. But I don’t think the international community should sit back and accept countries going nuclear. It’s not heading towards a positive outcome. Every step that widens the ownership of nuclear weapons is a further step towards somebody somewhere getting hurt.
One of the (many) things I don’t understand is why you would say that China should be punished for not stopping the North, and at the same time say it would be OK if everyone had nuclear weapons in the region. Either’s it’s a good thing or a bad thing that North Korea has nukes. I don’t see how other places having nukes solves the problem. You’re implicitly saying that it’s acceptable that North Korea goes nuclear, but that China should be punished for it anyway.
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 1 trackback }