Email This to a Friend
Dead End: The North Korean Crisis
Is military force the only thing that would persuade Pyongyang to disarm?
On Wednesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that North Korea had barred its inspectors from the reprocessing facility in Yongbyon. This development closely followed Pyongyang’s demand that the agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, remove its seals from equipment and take down surveillance cameras. North Korea says it will start reprocessing plutonium in a few days. Even if it does not — it appears its facility is not ready to do so — it’s nonetheless clear that the country “will go its own way,” as its Foreign Ministry said last Friday. By going his own way, Kim Jong Il — or whomever is running North Korea at this moment — is repudiating three years of disarmament agreements reached during a half decade of negotiations
So is North Korea, by precipitating recent events, trying to improve its bargaining position and obtain more benefits from the international community? This is certainly a popular interpretation, especially because it looks as if Kim is trying to take advantage of a weak Bush administration. Christopher Hill, America’s chief negotiator at the Korean talks, says North Korea’s recent moves are just part of the “rough and tumble” of hard bargaining.
Is that so? If we want to know what’s really going on today, we need to examine past nuclear crises with North Korea. Let’s start with the first one. In February 1993, Hans Blix, then head of the IAEA, presented satellite imagery and other evidence to his governing board demonstrating that the North Koreans had not told the truth about their reactor at Yongbyon. As they listened to his presentation, Pyongyang’s delegates first sat with their mouths wide open, then denounced the satellite photos as doctored, and finally walked out. Based on overwhelming evidence, the IAEA board voted to demand “special inspections” of two Yongbyon sites that North Korea had earlier declared off limits.
Caught red-handed and left with no other options, Pyongyang, during the following month, announced its withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the global nuclear weapons pact. This triggered a series of events, both hurried negotiations and preparations for war, that eventually resulted in the Agreed Framework, a landmark deal signed in October 1994.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Gordon G. Chang is the author of Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World and The Coming Collapse of China.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
23 Comments
1. Is Military Force The Only Thing That Will Reign In North Korea? « Tai-Chi Policy:[...] Posted by taoist in Asia, China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, Security, South Korea. trackback Gordon Chang thinks so. I think he’s right that more talking won’t do the trick, but I don’t think we [...]
Sep 27, 2008 - 11:21 am 2. jvon:That’s a pretty grim analysis. I hope you are wrong. We could not settle this by force of arms 50 years ago and I’m not sure we can now.
Sep 27, 2008 - 11:54 am 3. Gordon G. Chang:jvon, you are correct in believing there is no good military solution at this time. Yet there are solutions involving coercive diplomacy. We haven’t tried them yet.
Sep 27, 2008 - 12:15 pm 4. Louis Spielman:Only if it is clear, and made clear, to China that a nuclear North Korea means a nuclear and rearmed Japan with a blue water navy, will the only power capable of restraining North Korea, its protector China, restrain North Korea.
Things may get very dicey in East Asia.
Sep 27, 2008 - 12:17 pm 5. Don Cox:North Korea, like Iran, will perceive the current banking crisis as the final collapse of the USA and “western” capitalism in general. They think they are on a winner.
Sep 27, 2008 - 12:18 pm 6. WR Jonas:Thereby proving the utter futility of diplomacy. It is a system in which one party is constantly moving in order to avoid being forced to do something they absolutely refuse to do.
Sep 27, 2008 - 2:24 pm 7. Eric R.:If the US had any integrity we would begin at once to cut off trade with China. We would suspend the relationship completely and find or develop other sources for trade goods.
We need to demonstrate that we intend to do this with unalterable finality. Let their Communist kingdom collapse, once and for all.
To continue in this bait and switch diplomacy with dishonorable criminals and liars is a travesty.
Let us rekindle our homegrown industry and stop pandering to China.
Frankly, there is now nothing we can do to save North Korea or its people without provoking at least a regional nuclear war.
If we try military force, Seoul would be nuked.
North Koreans have to be written off as dead. Beacause for all intents and purposes, they now are.
It sucks. It really sucks. But it needs to be said.
Sep 27, 2008 - 3:07 pm 8. Jack Okie:Mr. Chang:
What do you mean by “coercive diplomacy”, and how is China affected?
Sep 27, 2008 - 3:30 pm 9. Michael Lonie:For a long time I have held that the only way to resove the crisis of North Korea’s (NorK’s) duplicity and continual attempts to get nukes is to bring down the NorK government, an reunify the peninsula under the Republic of Korea (ROK). How to do this? What I suggest may not work, but it’s the best I can come up with. It requires the cooperation of China and ROK. It also requires the US to shovel out money.
The thing to do is to depopulate NorK. Do this by opening the Chinese border to anyone who wants to cross. Such refugees will be taken to camps in Manchuria (financed by the US), then shipped to ROK by sea (escorted by the US Navy). There they will be integrated into ROK, where the constitution of the country already makes them citizens. This will cost a lot of money for ROK. The thing is that it will be cheaper than a war. After enough people leave NorK will collapse,like East Germany, and ROK should reunify with the North as a democratic country. China will be reluctant, but diplomats must make China realize that NorK will start a war eventually anyway and that will be adverse to China’s interests. Even their fear of a democratic government on the other side of the border giving their own people ideas sholuld be less threatening to them than the prospect of an uncontrolled NorK lashing out in desperation. We can propose to withdraw our troops after reunification, their job completed.
What so many do not realize is that the war is coming regadless of what we do. Some day NorK will collapse. When that time comes the rulers of NorK will launch a desperate attempt to grab the wealth of ROK in order to hang on a bit longer. Such a war would, of course, destroy most of the wealth they wanted to grab, but they will be desperate and not rational thinkers (assuming you can call Commies rational thinkers anyway, a dubious proposition).
That may not work, but it seems to me a better plan than handwringing or trying to appease the unappeaseable NorK rulers.
Sep 27, 2008 - 7:13 pm 10. somercet:Oh, please.
It is wrecking the six-party process simply because it can no longer adhere to its obligations.
What the hell does that mean? The only obligation it has is to stop building nukes. We give the NORKs food and fuel in exchange. What is so difficult about NOT building nukes?
Kim Jong Il is a vegetable or he’s dead. Someone new got his mitts on the levers and he thinks they got shafted last time, or he wants a new (People’s) Lexus or, most likely, he’s rattling the sabre to distract everyone from the (now-) drooling idiot at the head of the Party table.
Sep 28, 2008 - 3:09 am 11. Eric R.:Mr. Lonie:
Your plan for a mass exodus will not work because there are no easy escape routes by land (the Yalu River is heavily defended by the regimes loyal troops and the DMZ is heavily armed AND mined), and few boats for people to get out by sea.
And in desperation, Kim & Co. would still use nukes.
There is no saving these people. They don’t deserve their fate, but their fate is what it is.
Sep 28, 2008 - 3:23 am 12. Mike M:I agree, China should be the key player to the solution not us; the chicoms are the very reason there is a ‘North Korea’ in the first place. A very significant percentage of DPRK’s population are starving and many are going to freeze this winter; probably more than ever before. That’s a tremendous embarrassment to the chicoms which is likely why they do nothing to thereby keep DPRK closed off. China wants to keep the failure of communism, as witnessed by the miserable conditions in the DPRK, to remain hidden from the world like some deformed sibling kept in the attic.
So I think a good first step would be to get China to admit how bad things really are in the DPRK and take some lead responsibility to de-duke them. The world is watching you chicoms – you cannot hide from FACTS like these – http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm
Sep 28, 2008 - 5:05 am 13. Ex-fetus:“We could not settle this by force of arms 50 years ago and I’m not sure we can now.”
Jvon, that is incorrect. We could have settled the issue by force, only Truman showed why he was considered a coward by his contemporaries. Truman chose to settle for a draw. One assumes he did so out of fear of China, a groundless fear that cost him re-election. I can still remember my granddad and uncles agreeing that Truman was a B_____S wienie (Southern for eunuch).
Anyone claiming that the US lost in Korea is ignorant of military affairs. The dexision to stop and fight trench warfare was strictly a political one made by the same coward that use the Berlin airlift as a way to avoid war. He kicked that can down the road and now we face it today in a Despotic Russia led by a Putin, who is a Hitler wannabe.
“There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.”
Sep 28, 2008 - 7:39 am 14. Ex-fetus:- Niccolò Machiavelli
WE could settle the issue by force today. If you think the Norks will fight, you have been deep into the koolaid.
The Norks are mostly underground. Blow the doors to their bunkers and they will stay underground. WE pretty much know where the doors are and what is in each bunker. South Korea is as good as it gets at intelligence gathering.
The more modern Nork weapons are 30 years old. Regular ones are 70 years old. Their radars still use TUBES. Anyone here remember what a tube is?
No, a US military offensive against North Koea would be mostly a matter of killing generals and rounding up the conscripts. Not that catching them will be hard. Just set up field kitchens and they will come running. Most Norks eat a bowl of rice on a good day. Also keep in mind that this is a police state. Very few Soldiers, and none of the conscripts have bullets for their guns. Only the ones that are responsible for keeping the slaves in line are ammoed up. And they are trained to shoot down unarmed mobs, not face US. Marines, which is a whole ‘nother thingie.
No, North Korea will be easier then either Iraq or Afghanistan. I’m sure if we could check, we will find that the same people that told us how bad Iraq and Afghanistan would be are now telling us about the thousands on American that will die if the USA does regime change in North Korea.
They were wrong then, they are wrong now.
The JDAM has changed warfare. More then the Blitzkrieg did in ‘39 & ‘40.
Plus, we are still at war with North Korea. What is in effect now is a TRUCE, NOT a peace treaty. ALL any President with any balls has to do is notify the Norks that in 72 hours we will end the truce and start shooting. Since the UN authorized Korea in the first place, there is fuk all they can do about it. Ditto for the left, Congress and any other Socialist SOB.
We should go this winter. The US and S. Korea are all weather capable, the Norks aren’t. Our side has IR gear, they don’t. So any Norks that get lucky and escape the closing of their tunnel, will stand out nicely against the ice and snow.
“If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn’t thinking.”
Sep 28, 2008 - 8:04 am 15. Gordon G. Chang:- General George Patton Jr
Jack Okie, by “coercive diplomacy” I mean forcing China to choose between its relationship with us and its relationship with North Korea.
The Communist Party needs us more than we need it. The stability of the modern Chinese state depends on prosperity, and that prosperity depends in large measure on access to American markets and technology. We have leverage, but we have never used it.
We hardly enforce China’s obligations on trade, and we provide assistance in so many ways. It’s time for us to decide whether we should continue our relationship in its present form.
So we can complain about Beijing, but we can create the conditions under which the Chinese have no choice but to be responsible. And we have never made China pay any price for its obstructionism. We should speak plainly to Beijing and do so in public.
Sep 28, 2008 - 11:35 am 16. Gordon G. Chang:somercet, North Korea’s obligations include submitting to inspections in some form. It has to do more than just promise–it must demonstrate that it is indeed complying with those promises.
Sep 28, 2008 - 11:38 am 17. Gordon G. Chang:jvon and Ex-fetus, we could have won the Korean War. Neither Truman nor Eisenhower were willing to do so because of American public opinion. We, as a nation, failed at a critical moment.
To win then would have been costly, but not as costly as failing in the long run. The price has not yet been fully paid.
Sep 28, 2008 - 11:41 am 18. jan3728@verizon.net:Any comments on the terminal naivete of the
Sep 28, 2008 - 3:55 pm 19. Gordon G. Chang:Obamabots and the liberal mindset?
Dudnt they tell us there was no “axis of evil” and if we just, well, talked and uh talked and talked somemore everything would turn out just fine.
jan3728, Obamabots will be no match for North Koreans. How do we know this? Because we have seen that the Bushies are not either.
Can Obama be worse than Bush? Maybe not. Bush, after all, has set a very low standard.
Failure on matters North Korean is, unfortunately, bipartisan.
Sep 28, 2008 - 5:55 pm 20. Bogdan of Australia:Since Reagan’s presidency had ended the entire US foreign policy was based on fantasy; in every aspect: in respect of relationship with China, Asia, Russia, Middle East, Europe, Latin and South America. Even towards Australia. Everything has been based on fantasy. The consecive US administrations developed an infantile perception that the America’s outstretched helping hand would be regarded as a gesture of friendship. It has ALWAYS been regarded as a sign of a weakness. Now America is beginning to reap reward…
Sep 30, 2008 - 2:42 am 21. Snoop Diggity-DANG-Dawg:What in the hell should we go to war for in shithole-North Korea?
Let Koreans bleed on their own country if they want to. Or the Chinese or anybody else.
Sep 30, 2008 - 5:19 am 22. Gordon G. Chang:Bogdan of Australia: agreed.
Sep 30, 2008 - 7:17 pm 23. Gordon G. Chang:Snoop Diggity-DANG-Dawg: There are ways to stuff North Korea back into the box without the use of force.
North Korea, I should remind you, is also about Iran, Syria, Algeria, and every other nation that wants the bomb. They are all looking at what we do with Korea.
Sep 30, 2008 - 7:19 pm