For a country that has vacillated on a nearly-weekly basis between conciliation and hostility, what are we to make of this latest development? Here's how Kim has been swinging lately (hostile in bold red, conciliatory in italicized blue):
- Reportedly conducting a nuclear test in April of this year.
- With the efforts of former President Clinton, releasing two American journalists captured along the North-South border.
- Sending a diplomatic envoy to ROK upon the passing of Kim Dae-jung.
- Opening dam gates along the North-South border, releasing a flood into South Korea and killing or injuring hundreds. Later, apologizing for this.
- Agreeing to resume six-party talks.
- Launching missiles -- again.
And how much is the international community ready to tolerate? I know that many in the political and intelligence establishments are just waiting for old man Kim to die -- but this is naïve thinking, because if the reports are right, and Kim's youngest son Jong-un becomes the next leader of the Stalinist country, then we can't be sure what to expect. And this creates uncertainty, because like the Bengal, the international community can only take so much before it reaches its breaking point.
The difference, however, between a Bengal tiger and the international community is that if we reach that snapping point and exact political, military and/or economic retribution on North Korea, we will be chastened for those harsh actions.
So what's a Bengal to do? One thing's for sure: you can't trust that wily Kim.
3 comments:
North Korea = SEP (someone else's problem).
If NK could actually launch nuclear weapons towards Japan - would they? Probably not. If they were so inclined would China let them launch such an attack? Probably not.
The nuclear threat is a great bargaining chip but even the craziest world leader would not use them. George Bush and Co. - one of the most violent and war obsessed world leaders for decades - didn't resort to nuclear weapons. I personally think Ol Kim is less violent than the previous administration.
This leads to another question - why is the US spending so much money to keep soldiers in SK and Japan? What is the strategic purpose? Are those nations not strong enough - after 40 years of assistance - to defend themselves?
And if a hostile nation set up camp in a country off the coast of the United States - wouldn't the US be having a conitption. Oh wait - that happened in Cuba. So why is everyone so surprised that NK (and Iran and Russia for that matter) don't want US forces miles from their border.
The US has serious debts to pay and this is one area where can trim the defecit. We have served our time in that region and it is time for us to leave.
Let China deal with NK. Let Russia and India deal with Afpak. And Iran would likely be a willing trading partner and ally if we stopped picking on them
We have to keep in mind that progress - REAL progress - was being made on the NK front until President Bush decided to label them an 'axis of evil.' If someone called me an 'axis of evil,' I might not trust their intentions, either.
The real question, however, is why the Chinese are continuing to support NK. The cold war is over, and if Hong Kong and Macao are any indication, China is more than comfortable with the idea of capitalism resting on its doorstep.
In fact, economic ties are flourishing between China and South Korea, so why don't we do what both the Brits and the Portuguese did and leave our last morsel of the Asian mainland. I have a feeling that, without an American presence, the Chinese would be more than happy to see the North Korean regime collapse and be subsumed by the South Korean government- democracy, capitalism and all. And let's face it, without the Chinese, Mr. Kim wouldn't have much room to wile around.
Alan and Eric: thanks to both of you for your thoughts. Look for a followup post discussing some of your arguments!
Post a Comment