Email This to a Friend
On North Korea, Washington Should Listen to South
South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak arrives in Washington this week to advocate a tough stance on North Korea.
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak — also known as “The Bulldozer” — rolls into Washington this week for his first summit with President Obama. He could not be arriving at a more crucial time.
According to U.S. sources, North Korea is preparing to detonate yet another nuclear device. Its first test was in October 2006, and its second occurred last month. A third detonation, if it takes place soon, would indicate an acceleration in Pyongyang’s race to perfect a warhead.
At this moment, reconnaissance satellites are watching North Korea prepare for its fourth long-range missile test. Its third took place in the beginning of April. Its first two occurred in 1998 and 2006. The upcoming launch will, therefore, constitute evidence of an expedited missile program.
Since the missile shot on April 5 and the nuclear detonation on May 25, North Korea has repudiated the armistice that ended fighting in the Korean War and sentenced two American reporters to 12 years of hard labor. This month, a North Korean patrol boat intruded into South Korean waters. The North has also issued threats to start a nuclear war.
In the past, Pyongyang’s provocative acts came one at a time. Now, one closely follows another.
Why is North Korea acting up now?
Of course, there are many factors. There is an internal political struggle over succession. North Korea’s generals need to advertise their weapons work for their Iranian and Syrian customers. Hardline military elements are gaining strength inside the regime as Kim Jong Il’s health fades. The North, in the fourth year of a downturn, needs additional assistance from the international community. And Kim apparently wants to show his displeasure over the tougher — and more sensible — policies of South Korea’s Lee.
But one other factor may best explain the timing of North Korea’s provocations: Washington’s extraordinarily weak response to the early-April missile launch.
Just a day before the test, Stephen Bosworth — President Obama’s part-time envoy for North Korea — warned Pyongyang in stern words not to launch. So what did the American diplomat say after the test? “I think everyone is feeling relatively relaxed about where we are at this point in the process,” Bosworth noted while in Japan in May. “There is not a sense of crisis.” At the same time, the envoy said this: “It is clearly understood that the possibility of direct dialogue between the U.S. and the DPRK is very much with us.”
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.
24 Comments
1. Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: I Find….
….it truly ironic and poetic justice that Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, has to deal with the crisis of a nuclear North Korea that SHE and her husband helped create in the 1990s.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Jun 16, 2009 - 5:28 am 2. Phineas:[Karma! It's everywhere you don't want it to be.....]
I hate to say it, Gordon, but “tough stance” and “Obama administration” seem to be mutually exclusive — except when dealing with US bondholders. (Who, as we know are a much bigger threat than delusional dictators with nuclear weapons.)
Argh.
Jun 16, 2009 - 5:32 am 3. El Coqui:Only delutional if you are out of the range of a potential NK missile.
But frankly, I don’t think that the O-man cares too much about Alaska, anyway.
Jun 16, 2009 - 7:30 am 4. sjc-tx:Hey chuck… Hillary isn;t the president… Your bozobama is. The buck stops with HIM. And sadly he is CLUELESS. And the irony is that all you fools that voted for him are in just as much danger as the rest of us.
Jun 16, 2009 - 7:51 am 5. arhooley:Has anyone tried to track or profile or otherwise quantify South Korean public opinion on American policy? I recall the South Koreans vociferously demonstrating against George W. Bush and saying America is more dangerous than North Korea. What motivates them? What will they do if Obama gives them the brush-off?
Jun 16, 2009 - 8:30 am 6. Chuck Pelto:TO: sjx-tx
RE: And….
….where did I say she was ‘president’? Or do you suffer from poor reading skills? Or not enough coffee yet?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Jun 16, 2009 - 11:09 am 7. Blackwell:[For additional information, please re-read this comment.]
The author suggests there is some benefit to involving South Korea in a “coalition”. There isn’t. Puffing up a “coalition” of the unwilling and unable means nothing unless someone is willing to do more than talk. Its simply more fluff that distracts us from realities.
The South Koreans’ most recent contribution to the US that protected them for 40 years was demonstrating against the US presence there. Then they elected a President who sought to make nice with NorKo. A “new way” and so on. Rumsfeld obliged and pulled 6,000 troops. We should have pulled them all from this latter-day Vichy state. So the kids there think George Bush is more of a risk than NorKo? Have a nice life!
Sticking out our neck for the SoKo’s makes little sense. They’re not the Brits; I don’t want to bail out ingrates: nor I see any strategic advantage to SoKo. I’m tired of defending people who are only interested in penetrating US markets and how much US cash they can take home. The SoKo’s ought to make fewer KIA’s, hold fewer demonstrations behind our soldiers and plan on defending themselves. But don’t look to the US for troops in this one.
Japan at least has an ocean barrier from China and NoKo. Its a sustainable base with motivated people and a decent military. If they are willing to do somehing material, terrific. Bt they are the only people that need be involved in any discussions.
Absent US willingness to take decisive unilateral action meaning; (a) a costly blockade risking a confrontation with the Chinese or Russia; or (b) air strikes on the reactors, there is only talk left. That’s what Bush did since 2000; its what Obama will probably do. Pretending that “involving” South Korea will change this is silly.
Jun 16, 2009 - 11:30 am 8. Meryl:“a tough stance on North Korea”……(from the sub heading)
How can that phrase be used seriously if it is a fact that our POTUS can’t even bring himself to say the word “freedom” in a positive context?
“A tough stance” in his world is being able to kill flies that buzz in his face.
Since Mr. Cheney has been accused by POTUS’ CIA head of wanting a terrorist attack on America, I feel free to suggest that POTUS would like nothing more than to have the Norks send a missile toward Alaska.
It’s a win-win for him. Then he can say, “See, I told you that George Bush was bad for America”.
Then he will lecture the South Koreans about being better neighbors.
Jun 16, 2009 - 10:07 pm 9. Ole Sarge:The only time I have seen talking about something solve anything of consequence was when their A-S was kicked so hard and so repeatedly that it was going to take them a few generations to get it repositioned. Then you stand their with the kicka-s machine pointed at them as they sign the paper and then leave the kicka-s machine in place after you go home. Any other approach has a long history of failing
Jun 17, 2009 - 12:51 am 10. Steve:You got it Ole Sarge we need to go ahead and stomp their rears while we can and put a quick and immediate halt to this krap. They have limited resources and starving people, take out the nuclear facilities and missile facilities, and it would be a good place to try out the MOAB (Mother of all bombs), then we can say oh well we were just conducting a test and it blew them all away, seems to have worked real good, sorry about the damage.
Jun 17, 2009 - 3:37 pm 11. Gordon Chang:Chuck Pelto, yes, President Clinton, had he listened to South Korean President Kim Young Sam, could have ended Kim Jong Il’s regime when it was particularly vulnerable in 1994. Instead, Clinton chose to sign up the Agreed Framework and extend the life of that abhorent government. Now, Clinton’s wife has to deal with a strengthened North Korea.
Jun 17, 2009 - 6:46 pm 12. Gordon Chang:Phineas, I am afraid you are right. But the administration may find itself in a conflict nonetheless because it refused to take a resolute stance at this moment.
Unfortunately, Kim now has the initiative, and he has not ruled out violence to achieve his ends. In fact, both he and his dad have resorted to violence to upset status quos they found to be unacceptable.
Jun 17, 2009 - 6:49 pm 13. Gordon Chang:El Coqui, in about a decade no American will be out of the range of Kim’s missiles.
Jun 17, 2009 - 6:51 pm 14. Gordon Chang:arhooley, what motivates them? Korean nationalism is the primary factor. Also relevant are some distorted and unbalanced views of the Korean War and the Cold War period. The issue is complex, due to the divisions in Korean society and some historical factors going back to the 19th century.
Jun 17, 2009 - 6:58 pm 15. Gordon Chang:Blackwell, I understand what you are saying, but do you think the United States would have any allies left in Asia if we just pulled out of South Korea? The answer is probably no. Remember the problems we faced after Vietnam? This time, the fallout would be worse, because China would fill the vacuum.
Jun 17, 2009 - 7:01 pm 16. Gordon Chang:Meryl, our president will learn about the necessity of employing sensible policies because the Norks will not leave him alone. This will, however, be a costly lesson.
Jun 17, 2009 - 7:03 pm 17. Gordon Chang:Ole Sarge, yes. Thanks for stating this.
Jun 17, 2009 - 7:04 pm 18. Gordon Chang:Steve, because our diplomacy has been so bad for so long, we have lots of room to improve it before we have to resort to force. We can, if we want, destroy the North Korean regime without firing a shot. Bush nearly did so with his financial sanctions before he inexplicably removed them.
Jun 17, 2009 - 7:07 pm 19. Blackwell:15: Sir:
The “choice” between binding the US to help a fairweather friend or losing all our other allies there is a false one.
SoKo is not a US ally as the Brits or Austrailians are: they love us for our markets, detest our army and thought George Bush was the enemy.
One thing learned from Vietnam is to think long and hard about defending people who feel imposed upon when asked to defend themselves– and to measure the worth of a country before comitting 50,000 US lives, thousands more wounded and paralyzed and billions of dollars to its defense.
If the SoKo’s won’t man up for their own defense and think NoKo is just misunderstood, we are delusional in defending it. For what? (I have the same dim view of defending the rather selfish people in Taiwan as you know.) I see no advantage for us in SoKo: Japan is a different matter. Surely the Japanesen would appreciate it if we do not fritter away dollars and lives in a place that does not matter.
Chia is going to fill the vacuum anyway: we ought to decide now where we draw the line in our own interest, not reflexively rush to bleed lives and dollars for places like SoKo. We ought to maintain our strength for places that matter to us.
Jun 18, 2009 - 11:11 am 20. lee:I disagree with Blackwell that South Korea is not a valuable US ally, but there’s no denying that they rarely act like it. South Koreans hate two countries with fanatical passion – Japan and the United States. The never ending controversy regarding Dokdo and the 2002 armor vehicle accident, or even the recent “mad cow disease from us beef” hysteria provide a glimpse of their disturbing brand of nationalism. With a dangerous “sibling” developing nuclear ambitions right above them, you’d think S.Korea have an incentive to seek closer relationship with two of their (de facto) closest allies, but their public often regard them as mortal enemies.
But I’m not particularly confident that South Korea can capably defend themselves, even if they “manned” up. They couldn’t do it 50 years ago, and they probably can’t do it now. In fact, the Lee Myung Bak admin shouldn’t even think about going “solo”. That’d be a disaster. I have friends and siblings living in Korea. They still need our help, though ingrates they are occasionally.
I like president Lee, especially after the disappointing Roh Moo Hyun (rest in peace). I really hope he does urge Obama to take a tougher stance with North Korea.
Did Kim young Sam urge Clinton to take out Kim’s regime? I don’t think I’ve heard of this. I know Kim Dae Jung, his succesor, helped bring about the dubious “sunshine” policy with North Korea.
South Korea – a country still wating for their first great president.
Jun 19, 2009 - 2:21 am 21. Gordon Chang:Blackwell, in reality, South Korea has two electorates of about equal size. The “progressives” are the ones you write about. The other is fanatically pro-American. And, fortunately, public opinion is going our way.
Another point: There is no holding Japan in an alliance if we walk out of South Korea. Japan becomes essentially indefensible once we lose South Korea and Taiwan. Look at a map.
Jun 19, 2009 - 3:37 pm 22. Gordon Chang:lee, Kim Young Sam did not urge taking out North Korea. He urged the United States to not support it at a critical moment. And, in retrospect, we would not be worrying about Kim Jong Il now if Clinton had followed his advice then.
Jun 19, 2009 - 3:41 pm 23. kenny komodo:Having spent several years serving with the U.S. Navy in The Republic of Korea, as well as being married to a Korean woman, I can find no validity in any statement about Korean people disliking America. Yes of course there are students demonstrators, just as there are here in America, and if they happen to be loud and carry some anti America signs well that is just a small but vocal minority. I’ve met many Korean people and every one of them was grateful for our presence in Korean to strike down the attempt by the Communists to take their country. The Korean military is competent, ready, disciplined and fully capable of taking on the N. Koreans should that time every happen. The Korean government supported our efforts in S.E. Asia, sending troops to Vietnam that were so successful and feared that the N. Vietnamese would not engage them unless it was unavoidable. I am probably in a very small minority of Americans but I feel that the only way to really stop the idiocy that is coming from N. Koran is to force an invasion, to cross the DMZ in strength and remove that little tin pot dictator that is holding the people of N. Korea in slavery, in fear of death and in misery.
Jun 20, 2009 - 10:26 pm 24. Gordon Chang:kenny komodo, thanks for your comments.
I agree South Korea’s military is ready to fight. We should be proud that Seoul is our ally. This is a successful alliance.
And as for your last comment, we should be better prepared to stop the North Korean military from moving south. With generals gaining even more power in Pyongyang, the risk of conflict on the Korean peninsula has risen dramatically in recent months.
Jun 21, 2009 - 4:56 pm