North Korea: 2012-2016

[davidbfpo]

An IISS commentary:http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...htens-concern/

[Brandon Friedman]

Not sure if this is the correct thread, but I think this news encompasses a few categories. South Korea's Yonhap News Agency is reporting that North Korea will no longer be "bound" to the armistice that ended the Korean War in 1953 and that the peninsula will soon be "returned to the state of war."

SEOUL, May 27 (Yonhap) -- North Korea said Wednesday that it will no longer be bound to the Korean War armistice and will militarily respond to any foreign attempt to inspect its ships, denouncing South Korea's participation in a U.S.-led security campaign as a "declaration of war."

"As declared to the world, our revolutionary forces will consider the full participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) by the Lee Myung-bak group of traitors as a declaration of war against us," the North's permanent military mission to the joint security area said.

It said the North Korean military "will be no longer bound to the armistice agreement" that ended the 1950-53 war, and the peninsula will soon be "returned to the state of war" as long as the armistice remains ineffective, the mission said in a statement carried by the Korean Central News Agency.

That's pretty interesting.

[Ken White]

under only two leaders versus our 11 leaders in the same period. They're pretty good at it. They generally bluster and bluff until someone pays a bribe of some sort and then they remain quiet until they want something else. They're a little dotty but not completely nuts.

[Brandon Friedman]

Ken,

I get that, and I'm certainly no expert on Korea. But it's one thing to say this kind of stuff. And it's another thing to say this kind of stuff after you've spent the weekend detonating a nuclear bomb.

But maybe you're right. Hopefully this is just the latest cry for help on NORK's part.

[Bill Moore]

that this is not a problem we can wish away. We also can't apply western logic to North Korea's decision making process, and I'm always a little apprehensive of those from the West who claim to understand their reasoning.

Western logic would tell us that it is illogical to saber rattle just before you attack when they must have as much surprise as possible before launching a military attack to even have a snow ball's chance in hell of achieving limited, although short lived, goals.

On the other hand, don't expect people or a nation in dire straits to make rational decisions. I believe their food stores are lower than the normal meager of recent years, so they may feel they have nothing to lose by upping the tension and risking a miscalculation.

Obiously a war that no one desires, but one we must remain ready for.

[William F. Owen]

Well my understanding is that if UN forces or anyone else boards North Korean vessels or blockades NK, then that is a breach of the 1953 ceasefire.

See article 15. Might want JMM to jump in on this.

..but don't worry. According to the great and the good, "Big Wars" are unlikely. We only have to worry about insurgents and Hybrids.

And don't assume that THEY THINK military action is not in their interest. History is covered in examples of folks who did things that turned out not to be in their interest... and they did them anyway! I think it might not be a good idea to under estimate just how serious things are right now.

[orange dave]

Confucian culture is all about respect to one's superiors. All Confucian cultures are more centralized than their respective Western Communist or capitalist counterparts. Sometimes, Confucian societies can be pushed to defer to foreign rule: for instance, Japan and South Korea have adopted capitalist and democratic systems. Neither of these cases were really homegrown, the result of indigenous protest, but rather come from deliberate US policies. From these examples, the first thing required is a show of strength to establish status. The second, more subtle step then is a show of mercy, or an attempt at nation-building. Japan was a good example of that, and it is one of the most famous applications of such a policy (the other being Germany.) Besides this one model, which would only work in very specific political circumstances, this strategy has also worked when it wasn't even really intended. Nixon's rapprochement to China may not have been meant as a signal for them to keep their political system, but it did give them 'face' enough to open up to the world and start down the path to development. It may be unclear if that made China more or less of a threat down the road, today, but it was clearly the moral approach to take, as it brought hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

This is going to have to be the end result of the North Korea situation. Every Confucian society of geopolitical importance which has developed has done so as a result of American interference of some sort. (Taiwan, the only one which didn't originate from American designs, is kind of the exception that proves the rule, as their influence in the region has steadily been declining for practically as long as it's existed.) The only question is, how? There's no Taiwan here - selling South Korea to them would be crazy. So how do you make the first diplomatic overtures?

I actually have my own answer to that question, but I won't disclose it just yet, just to get people thinking the way I am. What I'm thinking of is quite political, and once I mention it then the thread will probably go off topic.

[George L. Singleton]

Orange Dave, what you apprea to be talking about is the importance of education for moral development of the individual so that the state can be governed by moral virtue rather than by the use of coercive laws.

Taiwan has absolute freedom of religions whereas China is still an enigma when it comes to not allowing free and open, unfettered practice of religion.

Ever since the Ike years as President in the 1950s I well remember, I was a teenager then, the Qumoy and Matsu Islands challenges by Communist China militarily, which failed ultimately.

China has come a long way since the Nixon days and today the US economy owes China for helping keep our national debtd afloat. The defacto capitalism model for world trade by China has defanged many of the past negative habits of China, I agree. But the issue of freedom of all religions inside mainland China still haunts it, as evidenced recently with Muslim riots in far Western China.

The Deputy Dean of "the" main Medical College of China was visiting the Medical College of Alabama, a part of the University of Alabama at Birmingham campus, in the late 1980s. As the administrator of the VA's Medical Research & Development Division at that time I was asked by our local US medical school dean to take the Chinese Deuty Dean of their main Medical College to lunch.

During lunch the Chinese MD told me that his son was a premed student then at UAB, hoping to be admitted to the Medical College of Alabama in a few years. Secondly he told me that mainland China was (and I suspect still is) very backward internally, this was circa 1989) still very backward, with it's people still eating rice out of iron bowls.

Just to balance some remarks today about mainland China which economically is our main stay in terms of our national debt today.

[Ken White]

as they define it. POTUS visits both; aid flows prompting a counterflow of love and decency. Development ensues. They all live happily ever after.
. . .

Thus two more nations are added to the long list of those who dislike the US for several reasons, not least that they responded to power by wanting acknowledgment and 'respect' from that power and demeaned themselves or were demeaned by needing,wanting or taking his aid. All these nations act nicely in public while working, sometimes feverishly, sometimes casually, behind the scenes to trip the big guy -- not necessarily kill him, just trip him and cut him down to size...

Interesting you mention Germany and Japan. More interesting may be their pay back -- when it occurs.

[orange dave]

Iran is a different question. US policy debates tend to mention them in the same breath, but I'm not convinced they themselves think of themselves of having anything to do with each other.

The US, both privately and publicly, could justify taking this path with North Korea, and a different path with Iran, because North Korea off the bat has a better outlook for success, according to the 'Asian Tiger' model. Nevertheless, this strategy has already been applied in Iran, under the Clinton administration, but not North Korea, rendering that point irrelevant anyway. What I'm thinking of here is a historical apology for the Korean War, based on more effective ways the US could have won the Cold War.

Letting the Communists take control of all of Korea would not have been less effective, as long as the US demonstrated the strength and will to take over the country if it wanted to. Perhaps it could have made a landing with its troops, and then immediately negotiated a deal aimed at breaking this united Korea off from the Soviet Union, akin to the Sino-Soviet split. The fact that this kind of political sophistication, not to mention the necessary foresight, didn't exist at the time is irrelevant. And of course a lot of problems would also have been solved if the US simply fought the war more effectively and defeated the North, but we can't exactly say that.

Interesting you mention Germany and Japan. More interesting may be their pay back -- when it occurs.

Umm, what kind of time scale are you thinking of here? Tens, or hundreds, of years?

George, I understand what you're saying about how much China hasn't yet opened up. But would you not say that Nixon's diplomacy was an overall success - particularly compared to the expectations at the time?

[Ken White]

Iran is a different question. US policy debates tend to mention them in the same breath, but I'm not convinced they themselves think of themselves of having anything to do with each other.

Agree; the only similarity is in the quest for international respect and a perverse and probably incorrect sense that US 'acceptance' is tantamount to such respect.

The US, both privately and publicly, could justify taking this path with North Korea, and a different path with Iran, because North Korea off the bat has a better outlook for success, according to the 'Asian Tiger' model.

Having spent four years in Korea, including a couple as the tiger was developing and after it was pretty well grown plus a couple in Iran prior to the '79 revolution, I disagree -- the 'Middle East Lion' could be Iran; it has a better chance at that than any other in the region to include Iraq even with our help (which isn't likely to be forthcoming).

Nevertheless, this strategy has already been applied in Iran, under the Clinton administration...

Clinton visited Iran? I missed that totally...

Overtures were made by Clinton and flummoxed by Congress as had occurred with overtures by Reagan, the difficulty in relations with Iran (as with Cuba and North Korea) is in the Congress, WH overtures to fix that even under George W. Bush (his Father didn't even really try), were routinely deflected by Congressional hard liners -- as were possible overtures to China by Johnson before Nixon. Dick and Henry just pulled an end run. Good for them. Most Administrations aren't that ballsy.

...but not North Korea, rendering that point irrelevant anyway.

Few points are irrelevant in international relations; too many variables to summarily dismiss anything.

What I'm thinking of here is a historical apology for the Korean War, based on more effective ways the US could have won the Cold War.

Heh, you're correct about derailing the thread, I suspect. I'll let that go for now but will agree with you that there were far more effective ways for the US to have handled the Cold War. I do not agree with use of the word 'win' in that respect as I'm not at all convinced it's over. No bodies have been buried...

...And of course a lot of problems would also have been solved if the US simply fought the war more effectively and defeated the North, but we can't exactly say that.

Having been there at the time, I can agree that the war could have been fought far more effectively -- we tried to fight a land war in northern Europe while in Asia (a bad habit of ours...) -- I will also point out that defeat of the 'North' would have entailed a lengthy irregular postwar cleanup problem that would easily have rivaled Viet Nam. Oh -- and that you seem to, as MacArthur tried to, ignore the Chinese...

Umm, what kind of time scale are you thinking of here? Tens, or hundreds, of years?

A few score for Germany, whatever it takes for the far more patient Japan to include "hundreds." Both with the caveat that time will cure some of that as the world modifies and anger fades, thus the desire and thus the capability will diminish over time but either would take advantage of any opportunity or weakness to achieve to offset their known population decline which will adversely affect their ability for payback which a good many in both nations think is deserved.

[Dayuhan]

Addressing the original post...

Confucian culture is all about respect to one's superiors. All Confucian cultures are more centralized than their respective Western Communist or capitalist counterparts. Sometimes, Confucian societies can be pushed to defer to foreign rule: for instance, Japan and South Korea have adopted capitalist and democratic systems. Neither of these cases were really homegrown, the result of indigenous protest, but rather come from deliberate US policies.

Not precisely homegrown, though certainly evolved in a uniquely indigenous fashion... and certainly not, in either case, constituting "foreign rule".

One might debate the extent to which North Korea can be described as a "Confucian culture".

Nixon's rapprochement to China may not have been meant as a signal for them to keep their political system, but it did give them 'face' enough to open up to the world and start down the path to development. It may be unclear if that made China more or less of a threat down the road, today, but it was clearly the moral approach to take, as it brought hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

Are you implying that Nixon's move was the sole cause of China's "start down the path of development"? I think you might find on examination that there was a good more to it than that.

Every Confucian society of geopolitical importance which has developed has done so as a result of American interference of some sort. (Taiwan, the only one which didn't originate from American designs, is kind of the exception that proves the rule, as their influence in the region has steadily been declining for practically as long as it's existed.) The only question is, how? There's no Taiwan here - selling South Korea to them would be crazy. So how do you make the first diplomatic overtures?

Japan was a developed industrial power well before the US got involved, and I think the case for claiming that "American interference" caused Chinese development is sketchy at best. I don't see any real historical evidence to support the idea that US interference is a necessary element to produce development in an East Asian state.

[orange dave]

Are you implying that Nixon's move was the sole cause of China's "start down the path of development"? I think you might find on examination that there was a good more to it than that.

Necessary but not sufficient. That put them in a position to open up; they still needed a competent leader who could understand their situation and take advantage of it, which didn't happen until Deng.

Japan was a developed industrial power well before the US got involved...

If you go back further, the precursor to Japanese development was the 'black ships' incident - which was taken as no less than a full US invasion.

On a political - not to mention personal - level, interactions between Eastern and Western cultures often involve the Western party putting themselves in a position high on the social hierarchy, without even realizing it. I see these crossed expectations all the time in my interactions with various Asians. The Asian side thinks that the Westerners were going to be more responsible with their power, while the Westerners think the Asians really were that enthusiastic about whatever.

[Dayuhan]

I'm not at all sure that the inevitable US recognition of China's existence qualifies as a precondition for Chinese development.

I think we can certainly agree that NE Asian nations have in the last century had increasing contact with the US and the West in general, and that they have subsequently made substantial economic progress. I'm not at all sure that one can legitimately deduce from this that American action is necessary to bring North Korea back into the community of nations.

30 years in Asia have left me very wary of statements that begin with "The Asian side thinks...", and 50 years on the planet have left me wary of anything that purports to be "a permanent solution" to any problem.

[orange dave]

China wasn't going to split with Russia publicly unless it got something for its troubles. The US was Taiwan's main source of legitimacy, and Taiwan was China's biggest foreign policy objective. So without some movement on that issue, there never would have been a Sino-Soviet split. And without capitalism, there never would have been economic development. So the only way I can see for economic development without movement on Taiwan would have been if China somehow developed a capitalist system without splitting with the Soviet Union - which makes for an interesting counterfactual history exercise.

So I'm still not willing to concede this point on China. However, in the analogy to North Korea, the Soviet Union isn't forcing them to do anything, so the point is potentially moot anyway.

[Dayuhan]

This just showed up in my inbox, from Stratfor...

North Korea and South Korea have reportedly traded artillery fire Nov. 23 across the disputed Northern Limit Line (NLL) in the Yellow Sea to the west of the peninsula. Though details are still sketchy and unconfirmed, South Korean news reports indicate that around 2:30 p.m. local time, North Korean artillery shells began landing in the waters around Yongpyeongdo, one of the South Korean-controlled islands just south of the NLL. North Korea has reportedly fired as many as 200 rounds, some of which struck the island, injuring at least 10 South Korean soldiers, damaging buildings, and setting fire to a mountainside. South Korea responded by firing some 80 shells of its own toward North Korea, dispatching F-16 fighter jets to the area, and raising the military alert to its highest level.

Too early to say much. We'll see...

[JMA]

Take it easy guys... I remember words like deterent, containment and the like... nothing to worry about... and remember a short time ago a ship got sunk taking 46 lives with it... did nothing to deter them then... now? Its all a bit of a boring joke. Must be a slow news day. I believe things will be more lively when Iran has some nukes. Can't wait.

[Dayuhan]

Obviously if deterrence and containment are in the picture, there's something to worry about. You deter and contain that which you are worried about, what would be the point otherwise?

North Korea exists... we all wish it didn't, but it does. So does Iran. The extent to which the US - or anyone else - can tell them what they may or may not do inside their borders is very limited: the US is not in a position to tell them what they are or are not allowed to do. Action outside their borders can be contained and deterred. It's liable to be messy around the edges at times, as these things generally are.

What's the alternative to deterrence and containment? Do we want to "do regime change" in North Korea, or Iran?

[Bob's World]

Obviously if deterrence and containment are in the picture, there's something to worry about. You deter and contain that which you are worried about, what would be the point otherwise?

North Korea exists... we all wish it didn't, but it does. So does Iran. The extent to which the US - or anyone else - can tell them what they may or may not do inside their borders is very limited: the US is not in a position to tell them what they are or are not allowed to do. Action outside their borders can be contained and deterred. It's liable to be messy around the edges at times, as these things generally are.

What's the alternative to deterrence and containment? Do we want to "do regime change" in North Korea, or Iran?

Concur.

While I believe that containment needs to be retired as the centerpiece to US foreign policy, it certainly has a place for specific situations that are real, containable and tied to US national interests. North Korea is a containable problem.

As to deterrence, that needs to focus on the few big things we absolutely will not stand for (major missile attacks on Japan, Invasion of South Korea, etc) and can actually do something about. Small things can and will happen and are not a failure of deterrence. Internal actions will occur that we do not like but that are outside of any duty or right of ours to influence. Overreacting in response to the small things within the larger red lines is not particularly productive; nor is the implementation of measures that punish the populace while giving the government a great IO opportunity to shift blame for all their failures onto implementer of those measures.

There may be opportunities from such incidents. There is no reason why China, Russia, the US, Japan and South Korea cannot come up with clear red lines that all can agree upon in regards to North Korean deterrence, and perhaps this gets people to sit down and sort it out.

[Ron Humphrey]

Concur.

There may be opportunities from such incidents. There is no reason why China, Russia, the US, Japan and South Korea cannot come up with clear red lines that all can agree upon in regards to North Korean deterrence, and perhaps this gets people to sit down and sort it out.

Would require that particular meeting also laying exact what if's as to response to anything outside those "red lines"

Who and how?

And in the end will it still leave incidents such as this outside of the "defined" parameters?