Did Obama Score a Victory at Sea vs. North Korea?
A suspect cargo ship is returning home. (Also read Claudia Rosett: "Not Helpful")
Victory in this context means preventing the weapons on board — the U-turn is a sure sign the vessel was carrying contraband — from reaching their ultimate destination. Pyongyang can put the cargo on another ship when the United States is not paying attention or, more probably, send it by truck or plane across China. If Burma, another Chinese client state, was the ultimate destination, Beijing will be sure to help the North Koreans deliver the weapons.
So the Obama administration has not won a victory by forcing the Kang Nam to head back to North Korea. It has merely come out on top in the first episode of a multi-round game. And Obama’s Washington is perfectly capable of turning what should be a triumph into an unsatisfactory result or even a defeat.
How could it do that? The rationale behind the administration’s reluctance to stop the Kang Nam is that Resolution 1874 prohibits forced boardings on the high seas, and Washington had promised China that we would adhere to its restrictive procedures. The grand plan, according to the New York Times, is that our measured response this time will encourage the Chinese and Russians to back “gradually escalating sanctions” in the future.
So far, Obama’s approach, which is essentially a continuation of George W. Bush’s, has worked. Resolution 1874, for instance, is stiffer than Resolution 1718, adopted in October 2006.
Yet there is a flaw in this reasonably sounding plan. The resolutions have been tougher, but the Chinese have not been enforcing them. It is true that China voted in favor of Resolution 1718, which calls on nations to inspect North Korean goods. Immediately after the vote, Wang Guangya, Beijing’s U.N. ambassador, declared that the inspection provision was unacceptable to China. Then, days later, he said China would inspect North Korean cargoes after all but would not intercept or interdict them. Since then, Beijing has ignored its inspection obligations while the Bush administration turned its attention elsewhere.
While China has refused to stop Pyongyang’s proliferation, the North Koreans have continued selling nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology, as they have been doing for more than a decade. So they have a big head start on us, and, given the advanced nature of the atomic bomb and ballistic missile programs they support, we have to catch virtually every shipment from here on out.
We have this decade outsourced the security of the United States and our allies to the Security Council, which means to China and Russia. As we have done so, we have allowed potential adversaries to give the North Koreans time to develop and test nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. It’s a great idea to develop friendly relations with other great powers, but it’s more important to stop Kim Jong Il.
We did not stop Kim last week. We are, on the contrary, allowing the Kang Nam to find a safe port, and that means we are merely delaying a final resolution of a matter critical to the security of the entire international community.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
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.
35 Comments
1. Libertyship46:What I always find amusing is that whenever the Democrats get back into office the first thing they want to do is find some sort of “Peace Dividend” and reduce the size of our military, especially the Navy. After all, since most of them don’t really know what our Navy does, then who needs it, right? Current projections in the Democratically controlled Congress is for the Navy to be reduced in size with more emphasis to be given to land forces (such as the Army and the Marine Corps) for the war on terror (sorry, that’s the war on “Man Made Disasters,” which is what the Director of Homeland Security is calling it these days). In any case, land is in and ships, which are expensive to build, man, and maintain, are out. Yet what are some of the very first military operations authorized by the Obama administration? Oh, that’s right, rescuing an American captain from Somali pirates and shadowing (and possibly boarding) a North Korean merchant ship suspected of carrying contraband materials. Hmmm, sounds a lot like naval operations to me. And where did we get the assets to immediately project American naval power at a moment’s notice to far-off regions of the world (in this case off the coast of Somalia and China)? Oh, that’s right, it’s the US Navy. Silly me. Now that Obama actually needs a navy to enforce a blockade on North Korea or to rescue American nationals off the coast of Africa, those expensive American warships don’t look so expensive anymore. In fact, they even come in useful from time to time, right? And there’s also a reason every President since Harry Truman asks “Where are the carriers?” whenever a global crisis occurs. President Obama, don’t do the usual Democratic dance and trash the Navy just because you are spending money like a drunken sailor. Cut the funding for a road that nobody needs in California or a boardwalk at Rehoboth Beach in Delaware. Warships have an uncanny knack for become really, really, important at the most inconvenient times. It’s a pity Democratic Presidents have to re-learn this lesson every time they get back into office.
Jul 5, 2009 - 4:45 am 2. Steve:I could be wrong but I believe that the ship was a decoy to see how the United States might react. I think they are trying to provoke a military conflict and believe just tracking the ship at this time was the right thing.
Problem is was this just the first of such with others actually having weapons on board with the thought that we will just follow the ship and not mess with it?
Jul 5, 2009 - 5:01 am 3. Letalis Maximus, Esq.:In more important news, there aren’t enough tickets for Michael Jackson’s funeral. Fans are distraught.
Jul 5, 2009 - 5:15 am 4. Bangled:Go Navy!
I agree with Libertyship46. They’ll cut the Navy’s budget and international waters won’t be as safe. Considering the tanker and freighter traffic on the high seas a less safe shipping corridor will increase costs of imported goods and imported energy. While it would be nice to have the international community step up and carry their share of the burden in reality they’ll never do that. The net affect will be an increase in the cost of foreign goods from Europe and Asia as well as an increase in the cost of oil.
Jul 5, 2009 - 8:18 am 5. Войска ПВО:..the only this I saw the Boy King do on the fourth was flap his lips from the White House and mumble something to one of his kids during the first third of the Marine Corps band’s playing of From teh Halls of Montezuma..
..epic do-nothing.
Meanwhile, Pajama Boy was giving new meaning to the lyrics, “..the rocket’s red glare..”
Jul 5, 2009 - 9:36 am 6. Edward A:Just think how George W. Bush would have handled this!!!!
Jul 5, 2009 - 9:38 am 7. Gordon Chang:Libertyship46, you got that right. Everyone should tell their representative in Congress.
Thanks.
Jul 5, 2009 - 10:20 am 8. Gordon Chang:Steve, it could be a decoy, but, if it is, they probably would have continued on a little longer. They would have certainly gone on longer if it was an attempt to provoke a confrontation. In this case, turning around is the last thing they would do.
Jul 5, 2009 - 10:24 am 9. Gordon Chang:Letalis Maximus, Esq., what shall we do? Is this a sign of the end of Western civilization?
Jul 5, 2009 - 10:26 am 10. Gordon Chang:Bangled, I agree they will cut the Navy’s budget, but I suspect international commerce will decline due to the global downturn. It’s hard to say what the effect this will have on the cost of goods and commodities carried by ship.
Jul 5, 2009 - 10:29 am 11. Gordon Chang:Войска ПВО, yes, you’re definitely right about the “new meaning” to “the rocket’s red glare.” Let’s see how the President responds to North Korea’s blatant violation of Security Council Resolution 1874.
Jul 5, 2009 - 10:33 am 12. Gordon Chang:Edward A, I suspect Bush would have done little better. His second-term North Korea policy was just about as bad as Bill Clinton’s.
Jul 5, 2009 - 10:34 am 13. RKV:How did GWB handle the incident when a Chinese plane interfered with the flight of one of our planes in April 2001, Edward? GWB would have not ordered the Navy to board the ship. What was done here, if I read the tea leaves correctly, is that the US managed to prevent the financial transaction which would have paid for the arms, which is why the ship turned back. Hopefully, either administration could find a way to stop arms exports contrary to the UN resolution, without a shot being fired. Unlike the situation in Pakistan, where we do have some leverage with the government, and are allowed to use drone strikes on the Taliban there, the Chinese really do try to protect their client and his assets. Let’s be very clear about the facts in the case of the Norks – 1) China is protecting them for its own political reasons 2) re-arming Japan is one thing we need to do and 3) the South Koreans aren’t that excited about what would happen to their economy should the Norks give up – think East Germany on a much more desperate scale and last 4) getting US civilian dependents out of South Korea is something else we should do.
Jul 5, 2009 - 10:43 am 14. sugga:North Korea is a child of China.. take care
Jul 5, 2009 - 10:49 am 15. Bart:“After all, since most of them don’t really know what our Navy does, then who needs it, right?”
This is essentially the Democratic Party’s take on everything. They don’t really know how the economy works, so they figure it just happens, and they can arbitrarily make up rules for it. Anything they don’t understand is simple, and they have a teenager’s impatience when the adults try to explain how it isn’t so simple.
Jul 5, 2009 - 11:29 am 16. Norman Yarvin:It is a longstanding feature of international law that a blockade is considered an act of war, on the same level as an artillery barrage or a bomber attack. An embargo, in contrast, is not an act of war; in an embargo, you only prohibit your own nationals from trading with a country, while in a blockade, you stop ships of other nationalities. Since the Security Council resolution did not authorize stopping and searching North Korean ships, it did not really authorize a blockade, no matter what the language of the resolution may have pretended in other respects. It’s hard to blame the administration much for not committing what by longstanding convention is an act of war.
And that convention is not, in general, unreasonable; interfering with the commerce of other nations can be a serious thing. Of course an occasional stop and search of a single North Korean rustbucket is not a big deal, even if it is technically an act of war. But when stopping and searching becomes more frequent and intrusive, it can become a serious cause of action, as it was in the War of 1812.
Jul 5, 2009 - 1:35 pm 17. boo2:The world should be so lucky as to be as uncomplicated as in 1812.
Want to interfer with a country’s economy???/….quit buying anything from China..This week alone I put back 123 things…Yes, I counted, and I could not find a usa counterpart for a lot of things and had to inprovise. Now that’s messing with a country’s ecomony.
There will be war..it’s inevitable..just prepare.. sounds like dooms day b.s….but it is inevitable…oh for 1812 again..and the wide open spaces to run to.
Jul 5, 2009 - 3:01 pm 18. stuart Williamson:To do nothing, and then having the opponent back off for reasons that may have nothing to do with your non-action, constitutes a “victory” in Alinskyland! Sort of like voting “absent”.
Jul 5, 2009 - 4:51 pm 19. Michael Lonie:Not long ago NorK denounced the 1953 Armistice that ended the Korean WAr. By doing so it put itself in a formal state of war with the USA, the Republic of Korea, and for that matter the UN. When at war a nation has the right to seize the ships of the hostile power. Given NorK’s own action a seizure of the ship by the USN would have been legal.
Li’l Kim is conducting a game of chicken with the rest of the world. When the thugs ruling NorK realize the place really is collapsing they will start a war to seize the wealth of ROK to keep themselves going a bit longer. If they have nukes and suitable missiles at that time it will start with nuke strikes on Guam, Okinawa, Oahu, and Japan, to cripple the immediate reinforcing capabilities of the US as ROK’s ally. If the NorK regime is not overthrown and replaced before then there will be a war.
Jul 5, 2009 - 4:57 pm 20. fear obama:Congratulations to the United States Navy for protection and service.
Jul 5, 2009 - 5:17 pm 21. RKV:Michael, One SSGN would, in the event of open war, end the Norks. Permanently. One. If they nuked US bases or territory, they would be done in under an hour. More likely less than a half hour.
Jul 5, 2009 - 8:51 pm 22. Marc Malone:#19 Michael Lonie – Uh, no, he REnounced it. He didn’t DEnounce it.
Yes, we are back at war with them, but Obama will do nothing. That’s why Kim did it, to demonstrate that nothing would happen. It is so clear how castrated our nation has become.
Jul 6, 2009 - 12:16 am 23. Gordon Chang:RKV, regarding your comment about evacuating civilians from South Korea, I hope you don’t also think we should end our alliance with South Korea. Do you?
Jul 6, 2009 - 9:42 am 24. Gordon Chang:sugga, yes, we don’t have a North Korean problem, we have a China problem.
Jul 6, 2009 - 9:43 am 25. Gordon Chang:Michael Lonie, Kim Jong Il and his dad used violence to upset status quos they found to be unacceptable. I don’t know about a full-scale war, but clear we could see incidents of some sort.
Jul 6, 2009 - 9:50 am 26. Gordon Chang:boo2, thanks for buying American. It’s one thing each of us can do.
Jul 6, 2009 - 9:51 am 27. Gordon Chang:Norman Yarvin, we need to stop and search to stop North Korean proliferation, even if we have to stop and search frequently. As a practical matter, we have no choice.
Jul 6, 2009 - 9:53 am 28. Gordon Chang:stuart Williamson, whether or not we had something to do with the Kang Nam’s reversal, it is no victory. It’s just, for the meantime, avoiding defeat. Thanks for your comment.
Jul 6, 2009 - 9:54 am 29. Gordon Chang:fear obama, we all join you in extending congratulations. But this is only one incident. Many more to come.
Jul 6, 2009 - 9:56 am 30. Gordon Chang:marc Malone, you wrote: “That’s why Kim did it, to demonstrate that nothing would happen.” Something happened, but the pushback from Washington was not nearly strong enough.
Jul 6, 2009 - 9:58 am 31. NavyMom:Did Obama score a victory? If he did, nobody noticed because they’re all too busy sobbing over Michael Jackson.
Jul 6, 2009 - 5:20 pm 32. RKV:Gordon, No, I don’t suggest we break faith with the South Koreans. I merely recommend we get civilian dependents out of the line of fire. Bad things can happen and can happen quickly. Let’s not let them be held hostage. Yes it makes a tour harder. Better that than some other scenarios.
Jul 6, 2009 - 5:25 pm 33. lefty:there is a one word anwswer…if you watched the whole hting…you can only come up with a NO NONONONO
Jul 6, 2009 - 6:58 pm 34. Gordon Chang:RKV, thanks for the clarification. I agree, because, at this moment, the situation is more dangerous than we realize.
Jul 7, 2009 - 9:34 am 35. Gordon Chang:lefty, thanks for the answer. What is the question? Did Obama score a victory? Or something else?
Jul 7, 2009 - 9:37 am