The Rosett Report

October 20th, 2006 9:05 am

It’s Called Nuclear Blackmail

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

Now we’re hearing that North Korea’s Kim Jong Il regrets he conducted a nuclear test. That’s like Tony Soprano dropping by your shop with his hand out, and saying he is — oops — sorry he just test-fired a bullet past your head.

This is a shakedown, in which Kim has just succeeded in notching up his negotiating position to include a radioactive new bargaining chip. The idea is that if we now do what he wants, he won’t conduct any more nuclear tests… at least not until the next time he decides he wants to. And what have we got? The U.S. and its allies are now waving around a limited and leaky UN resolution for sanctions on North Korea, which China might sort of somewhat sometimes maybe enforce as it chooses — or not. And we now appear to be heading for more of those six-way talks, where nations such as the U.S. and Japan are by their nature constrained to honor their agreements, while any promises Pyongyang might make will mean no more than they have before — which is to say, they will be worthless.

North Korea’s regime has used this kind of brinksmanship for years to boost its importance in the world, strengthen its grip at home, and create a situation in which the Free World endlessly seeks to engage Pyongyang at the bargaining table. Over the past decade, this has meant the U.S. and others offering round after round of concessions, which Kim then incorporates into his own intricate maneuvers, both foreign and domestic, to stay in power. Along with pouring the foundations for two turn-key nuclear reactors for Kim, sending free fuel, free food, and in 2000 dispatching Madeleine Albright to cozy up to Kim in Pyongyang, these concessions have included the morally bankrupt and politically blind policy of dismissing as a side-show such abominations as the North Korean gulag, and the famine under Kim’s repressive policies in which during the late 1990s an estimated one to two million North Koreans died. For an excellent history and analysis of Pyongyang’s tactics, see the book “Over the Line: North Korea’s Negotiating Strategy,” by Chuck Downs. Writing in 1999, the era in which talks with North Korea were “Four Party” instead of “six-way,” Downs details how North Korea’s regime, which uses a mix of shocking acts and bad-faith negotiations to wring concessions meant “exclusively to ensure its survival, extend its power, and enhance its control.”

It’s worked so far. And, you can bet on it, Iran’s Ahmadinejad and his comrades are taking copious notes.

Comment DiggDigg This Delicious del.icio.us Digg Print Digg PJM Home

1 Comment

1. DMA:

Kim Jong Il is a ruthless tyrrant desperate to hold on to the last bit of power in his tattered kleptocracy. And everyone is certainly right to think a nuclear armed North Korea is a REALLY scary thing.

That said, do you expect Kim to just stop because the US (or for that matter the UN) wagged their finger at them and said so? If the situation were reversed, would the US?

I know it seems sound to think “if we play along they will just do what they did before and keep raising the rent, so we should just stop”. But what is the outcome of that position - that they continue to build the amount of knowledge, experience, and plutonium.

More importantly, it makes the idea of destabilizing the regime even more difficult because whether you do attack them (and I’m not saying we should or shouldn’t because that is a whole other debate) or let them collapse under their own weight they are now 1) nuclear armed, and 2) able to lose control of their materials to other folks we don’t want to have them.

In an ideal world they would stop because we said so, but in the real world we have to trade them something to do what we want. Their were lots of problems with the 1994 agreement - for instance it didn’t say anything about uranium, which is what got this whole thing started again - but at least we knew that as long as the money was flowing the American safeguards were in place.

As far as the impact of the UN, I use a simple test. If they didn’t exist would the situation be better, worse, or the same. I think this is definitely a case of the last category - the sanctions that Ambassador Bolton was able to get China, Russia, France, and Britain to agree to (and in the Security Council it is those 5 countries, not the “UN” that decides and does things) are simply irrelevent to moving closer or further to a final outcome.

Oct 20, 2006 - 3:27 pm

Write a Comment

Name: (required, displayed)
Email: (required, not publicized)
URL: (optional, displayed)
remember personal info?
Comments: