I have written about the Koreas on several occasions. Here, here , here and here. I've refrained from writing about Korea the last couple of days because so many people already have.
Korea, North and South, pose a lot more risk to the global system than most commentators realize. But this is not just about North Korea. Obviously, South Korea has the most interest in a peaceful resolution to this crisis. American interests follow those of the South very closely and then there is China. Russia and Japan have serious interests in the peaceful resolution of this crisis, as well.
What the North is doing is classic Korean brinksmanship. I saw this kind of stuff all the time when I lived in Korea. It's a part of Korean culture. Korean men would often come very, very close to fighting over some trifle. They'd yell and holler at each other until one of them backed down, and one of them most always backed down. So, I am inclined to agree with the OxBloggers that North Korea has been playing good cop, bad cop for last few months. (Some good posts of theirs can be found here and here and here.) The only problem I have with this analysis is that the North concealed its weapons program until we confronted them with it. How does the good-cop, bad-cop routine square with this? (This is not a rhetorical question, anyone got any ideas?)
We cut off their fuel supplies when we confronted them with their nuclear program (the reactor at Yongbyon is not for generating electricity; it was designed for one thing: creating highly enriched nuclear fuel) and now they are running scared, as winter approaches, trying to get us to reinstate their fuel supplies. They need fuel and other supplies to feed and warm their people. Neither us, nor anyone else is providing it and the North is close to desperate. Why else would they play nuclear blackmail?
The Right seems to be upset that we are not bombing and the Left is upset that we are not, well, bombing either. They perceive a double standard vis-a-vis our relations with North Korea and Iraq. But as I wrote here, North Korea provides the perfect case for why we should invade Iraq.
We won't fight the North until we absolutely have to for a number of reasons:
1. The damage a war in Korea would do to South Korea is staggering. The North would destroy Seoul, the 10,000,000 plus person capitol of South Korea. The attendant economic fallout from the collapse of the world's tenth largest economy would be worse than 1998 Asian Financial Crisis, in my opinion.
2. The threat of nuclear warfare on the Korean peninsula is significant. Back in 1994 most analysts agreed that the North probably had from 2 to 5 operable nuclear weapons. The North also has the missile technology to reach American territory, albeit only Alaska at this point, but do we want to lose Juneau or Anchorage?
3. What happens after we have a war with the North? Do we unify Korea? Is a unified Korea in our national interest? Can we unify Korea? What would China think if there were still 37,000 American troops in a unified Korea? China fought us in the fifties to keep Korea divided. I believe a divided Korea is one of China's vital national security interests. We ignore China's interests at our own peril. What about Japan and Russia? What might their interests be? International relations, even in the unipolar era, are still quite complicated.
You see, this whole Korea thing is complicated, having the potential to become a very broad war. The Clinton Administration clearly saw this in 1994. Although the Jurassic Conservatives won't admit it: Clinton's penis was much more important.
Look again at the list of reasons why we do not want to fight North Korea (although we will fight if we have to). Those are some pretty nasty consequences, aren't they? Can you see why North Korea provides an excellent example for preventing nuclear proliferation?
Now imagine a nuclear armed Iraq threatening the oil fields in the Gulf? (If you need a better picture than the one I am painting read Pollack's, The Gathering Storm, pages 241-280.) Imagine the worldwide depression that would follow if Hussein destroyed them. And, as I have stated before, although some on the Right cannot face this argument, we are not invading Iraq because we want its oil. We are invading to prevent Hussein from having nuclear weapons, weapons he could use to seriously disrupt the flow of cheap oil that the global economy is dependent upon (see Pollack, page 273 for further elucidation on this).
Should we not do everything in our power to prevent this from happening?
If the Bush Administration were not so secretive, if it had been candid about the Korea threat, like I wrote here, leading the American people into Iraq might be a lot easier. The problem we face with North Korea could be used as the perfect argument for invading Iraq.
An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.
Last night I wrote my anti-war father an email that really applies to all of the Left. In it I asked: "if Bill Clinton or Al Gore were President and they said we needed to invade Iraq for the long-term national security reasons mentioned above, would you support them?"
He said yes. I believe this is the heart of the problem for so many on the Left. It was mine at first, too. Although I support the proposed invasion of Iraq, I do so with a great deal of skepticism because this administration has done little to earn my trust and has done much to betray it.
Posted by Sean-Paul @ 12/28/2002 11:28 AM
| TrackBack
Comments:
People have been saying that for some time: something should be done, but I don't trust this administration to do it.
Like Israel, Korea was another place where the Bush disengagement from Clinton's initiatives (to be replaced by nothing at all) seems to have been disastrous. I know that the two Koreas were approaching a rapprochement in 2000, with Clinton's blessing.
My guess is that both Korea and Iraq believe that they can gain secure medium-power status with a successful nuclear-weapons program. (Like India and Pakistan). The goal is not to use them, or necessarily to extort anything, but to gain recognition at the expense of other regional nations. Thus Korea could not be be ignored in talks between Japan, China, the Russia, and the US. Iraq could not be ignored in similiar talks involving the US, Israel, Russia, and Europe (Iraq jumping ahead of Saudi and Egypt and putting Syria in the dust, with Iran trying to keep up).
Do pro-peace South Koreans envisage a united, nuclear-armed Korea? The strving N. Korean labor pool would also make Korea more competitive in markets they've priced themselves out of.
This is all conjectural on my part. International relations is not my strength, and like almost everyone else I'm struggling to find the pattern in what's happening these days. I do think that this is about as volatile as the world has been since 1914. WWII was an enormous crisis, but Germany and the USSR were known quantities at least. There were forces at work in
I just think it's important to note that there wouldn't be 37,000 US troops in a unified Korea. The 37,000 US troops are there (nominally) to guard the DMZ. We would like to keep them there post-unification as a counterweight to China but we couldn't get away with it...
Posted by: George Paine on December 28, 2002 03:27 PM
I disagree with you about Iraq. If Iraq did not have oil we would not give a rat's ass about it. N.Korea wants 500,000 barrels of oil from us. Why do we care about N.Korea? They don't have anything that selfish, arrogant, thoughtless Americans want.
On fighting N.Korea: Hell no we don't want to fight them. They would not be pushovers like Iraq. They proved that in the 1950s. If you had been around you would know what fierce warriors they are. You can read all the history books you want but until you talk to veterans who fought in that cold miserable war you don't know what N.Korea is.Yes, the US could defeat them but at a huge cost of US lives. Truthfully, the US is a big bully. We push around the little guy. And besides, N.Korea has no natural resouces that we want to steal. God knows we don't even want to send them the oil we had agreed upon. These wars are about oil. The US is an oil whore.
I think the inspectors will come up largely empty-handed, or Saddam would never have allowed them in.
After that, I fully suspect that we'll see a very long and very detailed report from US intelligence detailing what Saddam has and roughly where he has it. Shortly afterwards, those sites will be utterly destroyed.
I think part of the reason why we're not pushing harder in North Korea is that the DPRK is fairly well contained. The Russians aren't too fond of them, the Chinese are starting to be annoyed with them, and South Korea is well-fortified. Furthermore, Mickey is (partially) right. As long as the North doesn't go after South Korea, they're isolated, not strategically important, and the potential costs of engagement just don't justify getting our hands dirty - at least not until North Korea starts getting beligerant towards the South, in which case things might get ugly.
Posted by: Jay Reding on December 28, 2002 04:36 PM
Last week it was reported that the CIA did turn over it's alleged sites of WMD to the Inspectors. Haven't heard a word since. Sort of like that photo Bush showed Tony Blair I guess. And on a final note and being familiar with people in the "oil patch". You learn to never trust an oil man. He is a bigger thief and liar than a used car salesman or a horsetrader.
I guess I am wondering about some of the facts and opinions stated in the article here. (1)Is North Korea a risk? Is it not rather America that is the risk? South Koreans seem to think so. (2) Do American interests follow those of South Korea? I get the impression they are the opposite almost. The US is sabre-rattling while South Korea seeks diplomatic unification. (3) Is North Korea persuing brinkmanship? Surely it is the US that has forced the re-opening of this reactor. What choice did NK have? Presumably the US wanted to force this fight for some reason. They may be persuing brinkmanship or they may simply want a cassus belli. (4) If NK is trying nuclear blackmail then how come the re-processing plant wasn't re-started? (5) The US not China wanted Korea divided. (6) Nuclear NK isn't threatening anyone. Only the US has threatened countries with nuclear strikes. There's no reason to think Saddam would threaten anyone either. He's not as evil as the US. (7) The US doesn't give a shit if Iraq has nukes (other than as it would deter a US invasion of Iraq) and if it did then it would do what the Israelis did and simply bomb the installations as Saddam tries to build them.
NK provides the perfect example of why nuclear weapons _can_ be good --- as a deterence on US imperialism.
I recognise that the Agonist has said he won't reply to comments.
Posted by: DavidByron on December 29, 2002 12:48 AM
Sean-Paul,
I liked your post, but the conclusion(IMHO)left me, well-sort of guessing with respect to what I am supposed to get out of this. I agree with your preliminary assessment of situation with N.K., albeit few minor quibbles, but the conclusion doesnt sit wel with me:
Why should one's particular (dis)like of current administration affect a facts based, unbiased, objective analysis of situation? I understand that the lack of trust in the Bush Administration makes one a little more sceptical, but if I am staring cold facts in the face...why should there be a conflict of interests?
Dima -- speaking only for myself, not Sean (I am much less hawkish than him) I fear that the the Bush people will screw things up in a big way and make matters worse -- which is far from impossible. I also am convinced that Bush will always use his military actions as a way to promote his domestic agenda, which is noxious. I believe the second point to the extent that I sometimes wonder if foreign/military policy initiatives aren't primarily blinds behind which he can promote his domestic program.
Zizka,
I understand what you're trying to say, but I like to separate foreign and domestic policy issues. I dont relaly think that military actions, i.e. foreign policy somehow can justify or promote domestic policy, i.e. civil rights issues or economic issues.
And really, what domestic policy would W have anyways? ;-)
Although war may not be the best course of action to take, in this current situation it seems to be the only possible answer to the threat of Nuclear weapons in N. Korea. If an alliance was or has been formed between Iraq and N. Korea than we need to concider if they will think very much about sending an I.C.B. to our front lawns.
First of let me say, I really don't know if we should go to war or not. But let me pose these questions to Mickey.
You actually think the Iraq situation is all about oil? Well you need to get yourself more informed. Who do you think was behind the Oklahoma bombing? You think Osama had that much hard intelligence to pull off the WTC? Do you actually think Hatfield had something to do with the Anthrax? Try looking at Sadam, if you don't think he had his hands in them you must be ignorant. You're a democrat aren't you? Open your eyes man!
I read some very good opinions on the subject of US-Iraq-North Korea relations. I agree with most of them. Especially Mickey wrote very profound and intelligent comments. But, we should not see the reason of the future war only in oil; because there are some other things related with the subject. Moreover, even though Iraq has very much oil, it's not the only place where US can find it. In my opinion, Iraq's attempts to develop its own nuclear-missile system are making US worry about its future interests in the Middle East.
I read some very good opinions on the subject of US-Iraq-North Korea relations. I agree with most of them. Especially Mickey wrote very profound and intelligent comments. But, we should not see the reason of the future war only in oil; because there are some other things related with the subject. Moreover, even though Iraq has very much oil, it's not the only place where US can find it. In my opinion, Iraq's attempts to develop its own nuclear-missile system are making US worry about its future interests in the Middle East.
