How far is it possible for a nation to progress when it
essentially disregards the general welfare of its population? The
leaders of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) have
long since decided that it’s acceptable to them to allow other
countries (such as China, South Korea and the U.S.) to worry about
North Korean citizens while the long established hierarchy put
their effort in building their military/scientific infrastructure
and churning out arms and equipment for its favored and tough armed
forces.
The DPRK defense strategy is based on the concept that the
United States will never attack on a first strike basis
(conventional or nuclear) and that the Republic of Korea (ROK) in
the south also will respond only to North Korean initiatives. This
places Pyongyang in total military control of their fate, even if
they are relatively weak in the international political
scene.
Recently the North Koreans have tested their strategy by
sinking a South Korean frigate that in turn brought nothing but a
show of force by the U.S. and ROK navies in the Yellow Sea. This
was then followed by the shelling of the South Korean island of
Yeonpyeong, killing several civilians and wounding twelve. To this
action the Seoul government responded simply with a well-publicized
artillery and tank live fire exercise.
Before Pyongyang launched its shelling operation, it
proudly showed off its previously secret new uranium enrichment
facility. Aside from some huffing and puffing, Washington responded
by reiterating it would not have one-on-one talks with the
Pyongyang and made a big show of questioning the value of renewed
six-party negotiations. What’s more, Governor Bill Richardson of
New Mexico was allowed by the Obama Administration to slip himself
back into foreign affairs by making yet again another “personal”
trip to North Korea that resulted only in bolstering his own
ego.
Meanwhile the DPRK’s prime ally, China, has kept up a
steady drumbeat calling for a resumption of the six-power talks.
Again the vision of the impoverished North Korean populace in the
midst of winter is used along with “growing tensions” on the border
of the North and South. Pyongyang propagandistically characterizes
all problems as stemming from the belligerent attitude of the Seoul
government of Lee Myung-bak. Once again black is defined as white
and white as black. Perhaps President Obama will inquire about this
absurd political colorization when Chinese President Hu Jintao
arrives for his much-heralded Washington state visit on January
19.
How long can this North Korean charade continue? The
answer is that it will last — and be embellished — as long as
Beijing acts as Pyongyang’s protector. And there is no sign of that
ending. In the meantime the DPRK actually grows in strength
internationally as it finds more support in the United Nations
among those countries following Hugo Chavez’s political lead and
ignoring North Korean sales of missiles and perhaps even nuclear
technology to countries like Iran and Syria.
The objective of the current Kim Jong-il reign is to
reinforce its existing partnership with the all-powerful North
Korean military, intelligence and security apparat to ensure the
effective transition to the next Kim as Leader, Kim Jong-eon. At
the same time maintenance of tension on the Korean peninsula
worries South Korea’s customers in all its important markets. This
plays to Pyongyang’s methodology of keeping tensions high in order
to put pressure on South Korea’s voters to opt internally for a
more appeasing and fraternally oriented political
leadership.
All this clever maneuvering and saber rattling of the
North is supposed to produce an advantageous political economic
environment for North Korea that ultimately results in a leveraged
trade with the South Koreans and possibly even some peace-seeking
largesse from the United States. Do bad things and then get paid
off to stop doing them. It has worked before!
In support of this typical cunning ploy, Pyongyang
surprisingly has floated the line internationally that it is not at
ease with its dependence on the very demanding friends in Beijing.
If this appears rather ungrateful and perhaps even
counter-productive, it is merely a reflection of the convoluted
nature of the politics of the Kim dynasty. Beijing follows the big
brother route and ignores the absurdity — for the
moment.
While such devices may play well with Bill Richardson and
perhaps even President Obama, the reality is that open conflict
between North and South Korea is only one military miscalculation
away. This danger increases as the DPRK builds on its existing
nuclear arsenal and improving missile technology.
There should be no false hope that North Korea in the
foreseeable future will cease its effort to grow into a substantial
military power. China knows this and is planning accordingly. How
will Washington handle the situation? So far, in spite of much
behind-the-scenes third party intervention, the U.S. has been
relatively passive in its reaction. Unfortunately, passivity in
countering aggressiveness generally encourages rather than
diminishes the latter.
In any case, the answer to the question posed at the
outset of this piece is that North Korea under the current form of
regime will always sacrifice the interests of its population as it
has in the past in order to stay in power. The next question has
been asked since the early 1950s: How much should the United States
care?
