Alright, Kim Jong Il jokes aside...
There.
Now as I was saying, the standoff is fascinating because as crazy as Kim and his regime appear to be acting, it's all extremely rational. Ever since the Soviet Union went the way of the buffalo, the North Koreans have had to latch onto the Chinese for assistance that I'm guessing is not quite as plentiful as it might have been during communism's heyday. Thus, they've had one primary goal since: get rid of sanctions and establish relations with the United States.
We know this...Or at least we did. Most people don't know just how dangerously close we came to war with North Korea back in 1994. Kim Il Sung had recently died and the regime became very unstable. While the IAEA became suspicious about plutonium development, the North Koreans took the erratic step of blocking IAEA inspections and announcing that they would begin removing spent fuel from their nuclear reactor. The U.S. gave serious consideration to the military option but ultimately, Clinton took the carrot approach over the stick. He agreed, along with South Korea and Japan, to build North Korea two light water nuclear reactors, incapable of producing weapons grade plutonium, and provide 500,000 tons of fuel oil in exchange for North Korea shutting down its hard water reactor at Yongbyon, which could produce plutonium. The North Koreans believed that this was the path towards official relations with Washington. Essentially, they got what they wanted by threatening the U.S.
In 1995, the new Republican Congress that took over was less than enamored with the deal. They refused to fund the program for a number of years and proceeded deliberately to underfund it later on. The North Koreans became frustrated with the delays in construction of the reactors, but apparently desired to continue building their relationship with the Americans--reference Madeleine Albright's visit in late 2000.
Soon after, the Republican-controlled Congress was joined by a Republican-controlled Executive that took a more hostile stance towards the regime, as evidenced by the "axis of evil" line in the 2002 State of the Union address. Some have claimed that North Korea abandoned its agreement to refrain from building nuclear weapons before this point. No one outside the peninsula can really say for sure. But what is clear is that since then, the North Koreans have returned to their original strategy of acting out in world affairs while making demands upon the United States. They outright admitted building nuclear weapons in October 2003 negotiations, regularly threaten hostilities, and now have taken to shooting off missiles (in contravention of another non-treaty agreement made with the Clinton administration) toward Hawaii. Why? Because acting flagrantly is the only way they've ever managed to get what they want from the U.S.
That having been said, while the strategy might have been rational, it isn't necessarily wise. Simply put, Bush isn't Clinton. Clinton loved olive branches: the Olso Accords, his work on the Good Friday Agreement, his reestablishment of relations with the Vietnamese, etc. Bush? Eh...Bigger fan of sticks than carrots. But nonetheless...
North Korean foreign policy: rational, not childish or crazy.
But then again: kidnapping South Korean and Japanese film stars to make one's own movies, maintaining the world's largest film collection while the rest of the country starves (+20,000--and I hear he's fond of Rambo), spreading propaganda that he was born atop some sacred mountain, not to mention that goofy ass haircut...Maybe the guy really is just a kid at heart.
7 Comments:
You forgot the platform shoes that not even a beauty queen could walk in, the unbelievably large shipments of Cristal and Courvoisier and his recruitment of junior high age girls for the "joy squad", ew. So while this foreign policy may be rational, he certainly is not.
Other than that good post.
Good post. This is a solid summary of the last decade and I think most folks would benefit from reading it.
Clark Bar, I think this post is very insightful and right on with most points. But I do have to take small issue with one statement. You said that this policy of acting out was rational, not childish. I agree with the rational part; it's worked before, it should work again. But it also strikes me as very childish. As someone who can't stand watching kids in the toy section at Target throw a fit because they didn't get the new $60 toy, I'm not a big fan of acting out violently and abrasively to get what you want. It seems that this is exactly what North Korea is doing. I wholly agree with your point that DPRK is doing this to get attention. But as a kid who threw a few tantrums myself, you gotta know your audience because some people still believe in spanking. Keep up the great work!
Bill:
A good point. Childish and rational maybe? :o)
I miss Clinton. I miss Albright. We need China to cooperate. Hopefully Japan won't start a war.
PS - speaking of making deals with the devil, you think Isreal should swap prisoners for its soldier with Hamas?
I'm not too worried about Japan starting a war over this. If the sitz gets a bit hotter, then maybe. A few unsuccessful missile tests aren't enough to get them going though, especially in a country whose constitution prohibits offensive wars. The fact that they're discussing whether or not "preemptive" strikes might be allowed under Japanese law after the nice little precedent we set in Iraq makes me a tad nervous though. If Japan can look to the U.S.'s actions and consider with a straight face whether or not preemptive war is legit, then I can only imagine what might be attempted by some choice third world dictators out there in the next decade or two.
Post a Comment
<< Home