-
The View From the Other Side
May 17, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Cyprus Uber Alles
May 10, 2013 | 9 comments
-
After Hugo
May 3, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Theory and Practice of Terrorism
April 26, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Border Security Games
April 19, 2013 | 26 comments
At Large
Crazy Like a Fox
The North Korean leadership knows exactly what it’s doing — who it’s doing it to.
There has been a tendency to view North Korea’s leadership as bordering on irrationality, if not outright psychosis. There has evolved the alternate view, however, that Pyongyang’s ruling clique of the Kim family and its coterie of elderly generals use seeming instability as a tool of their negotiating technique.
There can be no question that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has played upon the theme of its starving population to generate sympathy in Washington administrations of both parties that produce agreements to ship food, fuel and other basic commodities. Threats by the United States periodically to cease such humanitarian actions do not produce the expected cooperative result, yet eventually Washington succumbs and resumes shipments. This is not exactly an effective “carrot and stick” leverage.
The privations of the Korean people of the North have been presented by its leadership as part of the price that must be paid for the DPRK to maintain its independence. Washington and the West have always found it difficult to deal with the arcane workings of the imperial government of North Korea that operates in its own version of Stalinist Russia. With the third generation of Kims now in place, there hasn’t been a clear sign yet of any change in the North’s purposeful enigmatic method of governance.
There appears to be a disconnection between American military and civilian specialists on DPRK affairs. On the civilian side is the instinctive belief that the problems in dealing with Pyongyang are political and diplomatic. Those analysts who are oriented to military perceptions find that little has changed in the nearly sixty years of armistice/controlled hostility. The big difference is the growth of all aspects of the DPRK’s military power.
The aggressiveness and capability of their armed forces was calculatedly placed on display in March 2010 when the North Korean navy torpedoed and sunk the South Korean frigate Cheonan in an unprovoked attack. That was followed in late November of the same year with the heavy artillery shelling of the fortified island of Yeonpyeong.
Not only were these actions meant to warn the Republic of Korea (ROK) armed forces that the DPRK military remained a power with which they must continue to reckon, but it was equally a reminder to Pyongyang’s own forces that they could and would be called on to jump into action at a moment’s notice. In other words, the message from the aging generals to the younger ones — and on down the command — was that full scale combat always remains just around the corner.
For some reason Washington has never really accepted the fact that the leadership of the DPRK — no matter which Kim was in power at the moment — believes that the United States’ ultimate ambition is to take over the North. While North Korea’s neighbor, China, tries gently to disabuse Pyongyang of such thoughts, Beijing does not find it in its interest to press too hard on this line of diplomatic argument. It is to China’s advantage to maintain a protective — if somewhat paranoid — ally guarding its northeastern reaches.
Western governments now have to adjust to the concept of dealing with a North Korea without a clearly authoritative individual leader. The existence of the young ruler, Kim Jong-un, guided by his aunt and her very experienced husband, Jiang Song-taek, however, fits well into what might be called the oligarchic autocracy of Pyongyang’s leadership cadre of elderly generals. In the meantime the fact that the late Kim Jong-il had placed his brother-in-law as head of the department that oversees internal security reinforces the regency of Jiang and his wife.
At this juncture the DPRK strategy is to return to provocative acts in a challenge to the U.S./ROK threat to take “appropriate counteraction” such as was nottaken after the frigate sinking. The launching of the North Korean satellite, according to Pentagon analysts, is simply an early warning for the expected completed development of an ICBM weapon in the next one to two years — or perhaps even earlier. Pyongyang is carefully watching Washington’s reaction — as is Iran and the rest of the world.
The North Koreans hold the strategic initiative and the celebration of the 100th anniversary of Kim Il-sung’s birthday is the perfect time to test Washington’s own strategic will. At this point the political and military posture of South Korea is actually tougher than that of the Obama Administration. Seoul does not put much faith in Obama’s “pivot to the Pacific.”
This spring and summer are of particular importance to Washington-Pyongyang relations. The North Korean leadership group sees President Obama in the pre-election mode as he explained to President Medvedev. The difference in reaction of Pyongyang and Moscow, however, is that the former has no reason to wait for Mr. Obama’s promised “flexibility.” The lack of an American attack to prevent the satellite launch will be “flexibility” enough for the moment — and Pyongyang would not be irrational to think so.
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (19) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George H. Wittman
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/11/crazy-like-a-fox
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Gary B| 4.11.12 @ 7:23AM
"...to test Washington's own strategic will."
Obama's Washington has no strategic will, unless you include surrender.
Only a Marxist would sabotage his own country to ingratiate himself to his fellow Marists around the world. It's their approval he seeks, not ours.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.11.12 @ 8:50AM
You're right.
Obama has openly declared his disdain for the average citizen, accusing them of being bitter clingers, holding onto their guns and their religion.
c.j. acworth| 4.11.12 @ 9:56AM
I never understood why the south didn't respond after the sinking of their frigate.
Gary B| 4.11.12 @ 10:02AM
Me either. It was a perfect opportunity.
The Road Warrior| 4.11.12 @ 10:24AM
Trust me, it was the last straw. If the North does anything like that to them again, all hell will break loose.
Bob K.| 4.11.12 @ 10:59AM
It can't be for any other reason other than they were ordered by Obama's administration not to retaliate.
The Road Warrior| 4.11.12 @ 11:22AM
Not in this case. NO American administration will be able to hold the ROK back if it happens again. I think the North knows this, and will remain quiet until they think it's safe to tweak the tiger's tail again. But that will be years from now, in my opinion.
Dmac | 4.11.12 @ 9:59AM
Our policy towards them after Clinton, Bush and Obama should be to just ignore them, and put the onus squarely on China's back to control them or face major trade sanctions, but also to let them know that if they get caught exporting anymore nuclear weapons technology that we will immediately invade and do just that! China can't afford trade sanctions or a war.
A. C. Santore| 4.11.12 @ 10:53AM
So long as we continue to bluster and threaten - with n0 follow-through, or worse, with exactly the opposite followthrough from what we threaten - the North Koreans will continue to jerk our chain.
If they launch that missile, the U.S. must do absolutely everything it ever threatened, starting with cutting off all aid of every kind and not under any circumstances renew it - until the North Korean government has completely failed and faded into nothingness.
That could very well include military action, but it would be better to have that done before they have enough nuclear weapons. It will only get more difficult the longer we wait.
That is the North Koreans' plan - lead us down the primrose path until darkness falls, and they have their nukes, then then can mug us with impunity.
No hope that the Obama sillies will do anything but more thoroughly proven empty bluster and threats.
TrueBlue | 4.11.12 @ 11:41AM
That's the difference between Western nations and countries like North Korea and Iran. Western nations have nukes and will only use them if they absolutely positively HAVE TO. North Korea and Iran will threaten other countries with annihilation if they don't submit to their demands, which will lead to a war where one side launches as much as they can to hold off everyone else (promising to stop if we stop) and the other side (us) loses troops and planes trying to take out all of their launch sites.
Even if we manage to take out all the launch sites (and that's assuming they don't have any mobile launchers) they will still get a few off. Someone is going to eat a nuke. In the case of North Korea it'll be the ROKers, with Iran it's Israel.
It has nothing to do with intelligence but a complete difference in mindset. Totalitarian countries have strength and use it to get what they want. Russia was constantly pushing that boundary, but they were able to do so without using nukes because they were an enormous country with a very large standing military. Iran and NKorea don't have that, so nukes will be their primary weapon.
davelnaf| 4.11.12 @ 12:53PM
NK is a dying entity and the time is approaching when even food shipments won’t save it. International handouts have bought it time internally until it could produce a successful intercontinental nuke. This weapon, in Nork eyes, opens up a whole new world of extortion that goes way beyond minimal needs. They believe that China will protect them once they start up their ‘nice-country-you-have-there-and-it’d-be-a-shame-if-something-were-to-happen-to-it’ extortion. A good question to ask is: how much of a dilemma do the Chicoms think this would put them once it starts? Unless the Bamster wants even more headaches in his remaining months in office he will order a shootdown or at least not tell the Japanese or the Taiwanese not to try. They should be the ones to shoot it down since this outcome might hasten the North’s collapse. Almost certainly they will shell Seoul once the collapse begins, but this was inevitable. The simple truth is that the North cannot be placated forever.
Occam's Tool| 4.11.12 @ 12:59PM
Any reason we're not dropping a nuke on Pyongyang as an October surprise? 'Bama may do it; I would not be surprised.
cicero| 4.11.12 @ 1:40PM
The bending and the sending of food and suplies was based, I think, on the premise that, with the death of the previous Kim, there would be a change of government, and reason and a sense of reality would return to the peninsula. That did not happen. We have no idea of the mindset of the military of the north at this time. At the end of the Korean war, virtually all of the captured prisoners of war that were in the south begged to stay, rather than return to the north. Shamefully, the U.S. made all of them return. The South will not respond to anything less than a full out attack from the North. It is playing for time, and believes that the U.S. will come to the rescue in such an event. We have done nothing to discourage that belief. The best we can do is to stop the subsidies, and leave the North to the Chinese. When the North launches its missile, it should be looked upon as a target once it leaves the North's airspace. We cannot rescue those poor people from their own government without triggering mayhem. If left to the charity of the Chinese, either the regime will collapse, because they will not be able to feed even their military, or the Chinese will have to take tham over, or watch their borders overrun by North Koreans who will chance the crossing rather than starve where they are.
Paul McGrath| 4.11.12 @ 1:53PM
I agree Cicero. We must stop sending them food. Yes, it is an agonizing decision, but the current policy simply leaves them in perpetual agony. Lack of food will precipitate a crisis in North Korea, and will force China's hand, one way or the other.
We want this. Nuclear war is not a good alternative.
TrueBlue | 4.11.12 @ 2:05PM
The downside of the regime collapsing instead of being taken down and occupied is their nuclear material going unaccounted for like so much of Russia's stock, and the leftover yellow-cake in Libya. Just something to consider if you're looking to push them toward collapse.
Martin Owens| 4.11.12 @ 2:14PM
Irrationality, or the reputation for it, serves North Korea beautifully- as it did Red China, the Soviet Union, and the Third Reich before them. The idea that you may haul off and do something completely nuts at any time puts the initiative permanently on your side. Moreover, if your interlocutors are not willing to play it all-or- nothing, but rather seek some sort of accommodation even if it costs them in the short run (and this is the default mode for Western democracies), then you can extract concession after concession for essentially nothing.
It is the "tyranny of low expectations" given a judo flip- the least sign of reasonableness or even elementary courtesy on your part is hailed as a great step forward in statesmanship by your opposite numbers. Who, more often than not, have nothing but words to oppose you anyway.
In other words, a protection racket with a tie on.Why do the bad guys keep on doing it? Because it keeps on working, working, working.
JFrizzle| 4.11.12 @ 2:55PM
Cut off their food and blacklist them from the banking community again. That got their attention real quick last time.
Gary B| 4.11.12 @ 11:50PM
Yup, then turn a deaf ear to the humanitarian BS. Let someone else feed them.
Wouldn't you love to be president for a couple of years?
BodieInSD| 4.12.12 @ 5:56PM
I believe that the irrationality the the DPRK displays is not a well thought out strategy. Quite simply, the Kim-led millitary junta has NEVER been forced to examine their actions in the face of failure. They misbehave, we tsk-tsk them and threaten sanctions. Months later we cave in and accept the promises they make and feed them. The misbehave, and the pattern repeats itself. We never learn, and never force them to examine their actions.