North Korea: The Problem with an Elusive Solution

DU wouldn't publish this article, so I will post it here.

North Korea: The Problem with an Elusive Solution
By New Dem

North Korea has never been a bright spot in US Foriegn Policy. In 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea. North Korean forces where drived to the Yalu River near the North Korean/Chinese border by the Americans and South Koreans. However, millions of Chinese soliders poured in, driving the Americans and South Koreans to the southestern tip of the pennisula. Communist forces where then driven back across the 38th parallel, to what is now the Demiliterized Zone. The war ended in a stalemate, with the two countries ended up divided at the 38th parallel, where they were before hostilities broke out. MacAurthur had been fired earlier for insubordination after speeking out against Truman while wanting to attack China, which would have started WWIII. This was the begining of a long and not so bright period with North Korea.

What is going on with North Korea now? In the early 90s North Korea was believed to build one or two nuclear weapons. They, however, have yet to test any, so how many is still a major question. In 1994 a crisis lead to Bill Clinton nearly bombing North Korean nuclear facilities after they had tried to blackmail the United States. To avoid war, the US agreed to supply North Korea with food and oil, in exchange for the shutting down of their nuclear program. All was quiet until 2002, when, possibly after being put on the "axis of evil" North Korea pulled out of the 1994 treaty. They announced that they where restarting their nuclear program. George Bush pulled the food and oil shipments, further complicating the problem. Pyongyang announced that on June 30, 2003 it had completed reprocessing of spent fuel rods, which would give them weapons grade plutonium. Gases that are given off in such a process where recently detected, indicating they are doing just that. They are believed to be able to start building 2-3 nuclear weapons a year starting in 2005.

What is the problem here? The problem is that Pyongyang demands bilateral talks with Washington. Washington wants multilateral talks, between the US, North Korea, Japan, China and South Korea. Washington is afraid of being blackmailed, or of being forced to give North Korea aid.

In all reality, however, the Bush Administration doesn't know what it wants. It knows it can't attack North Korea. Sanctions aren't an option. All it has left is diplomacy. However it has no coherant position on what to do.

What can be done? One possibility is preemptively attack North Korea. This, however, is not an option. War with North Korea would be no cakewalk. We would probably win, but this would be full scale war. Unlike Iraq, which had a largely conscript and rag tag militia type military, and which was weakened by a decade of sanctions, North Korea would put up a fight. They have a standing army of 1 million, comparable in size to the US military. They are armed to the teeth, with half of their surface to surface missles pointed right at Seoul. And they have an unknown number of Nuclear Weapons. War with North Korea would kill millions of South Koreans, Japanese, Americans and North Koreans within the first few days. Seoul would be turned into a "sea of fire." Japan would be fire bombed. And the North Koreans just might hit Hawaii or Alaska. Whatsmore, it is Chinese policy to get involved on the North Korean's side if they are attacked. China has a larger military than ours and nuclear weapons. You would have all the makings of WWIII.

What else? Sanctions aren't an option. Pyongyang has said that sanctions would be an act of war. Bush has even said we would not pursue sanctions, right after that North Korean declaration.

So what should be done? Agree to bilateral talks. And be prepared to give. Food and oil, along with other forms of aid should be an option. A nonagression pact is also a possibility. This may not seem like a great option to some, but, in reality, there are no great options when it comes to North Korea. The 1994 treaty kept the North Koreans from building a single nuclear weapon, and kept them under control. There was even talk of a Nuclear Free Korean peninsula. A new treaty is the only thing that can do the same. But anatagonism wont work. Engagement is the only option. While North Korea may be in a state of terminal decline, isolating them and hoping for the best is not a viable option. Refusing to deal with them because dealing with them is immoral is also not a good idea. One way or the other, the most imporant thing necessary for North Korean policy is to get them to stop building nuclear weapons.

No, you DON'T give North Korea what it wants. That is giving into blackmail. Just because North Korea says it will treat sanctions as war doesn't make it so.

North Korea has decided that it wants to be treated like a major power, but it won't even spend money to feed its population. We simply give them a choice. If they continue as they are, we cut off all trade, all aid and all contact. That includes South Korea and Japan as well. (South Korea has to go along. If it doesn't then we pull out American troops and let THEM figure it out.)

That leaves them only China to aid them. If North Korea doesn't like that, it puts THEM in the position of changing things, no the U.S. They also can't attack without knowledge that their nation will end.

"No, you DON'T give North Korea what it wants."???

Last time I looked they wanted a one to one conference with the US and a non-aggression pact.
Oh yeah and return to the US agreement under Clinton, before Bush ripped it up
Unless your looking at it from a 'conquer the world' position--it think NK demands are reasonable.

It would appear to be yet another case of the US justifying attacking a 'sanctioned' impoverished, militarily weak nation where the only one's who think NK are some 'giant killers' are people fed WH propaganda...

They were wrong about Iraq (twice!), but right about NK, right?

Kim Jong Il is a lunatic, and he has said sanctions would be an act of war. The last thing we need to do is hope that he is bluffing. It is easy for us to take risks with North Korea, but if I was living in Seoul, or Tokyo, I would want the solution that is least likely to result in war. Look, we can be immature about this, not giving the commies what they want. But the simple fact is that they are building nukes, and will be much more dangerous when they have more than the 1 or 2 they have now. The hard line was what started this mess, it was what antagonized them in the first place. The Ivory Tower PNACers don't have a clue of what to do when the solution does not involve war. We need to get the North Koreans back under control. Issueing ultamatums will only result in them building more nukes. If the state department can get some kind of comprimise multilateral/bilateral talks then fine. But I don't think the North Koreans are going to give up their nuke program if they don't get SOMETHING in return. We where feeding them and giving them oil during the 90s. Remember when, in 2000, at the end of Clinton's term, when Albright went to Pyongyang and danced with the North Korean leaders? I believe she even had tea with Kim Jong Il. THAT is where we need to be back to by 2008. Issueing ultamatums, antagonizing them, and taking major risks hoping they are bluffing is NOT the way to get them to disarm.

"No, you DON'T give North Korea what it wants."???

Last time I looked they wanted a one to one conference with the US and a non-aggression pact.
Oh yeah and return to the US agreement under Clinton, before Bush ripped it up
Unless your looking at it from a 'conquer the world' position--it think NK demands are reasonable.

It would appear to be yet another case of the US justifying attacking a 'sanctioned' impoverished, militarily weak nation where the only one's who think NK are some 'giant killers' are people fed WH propaganda...

They were wrong about Iraq (twice!), but right about NK, right?

Kim Jong Il is a lunatic, and he has said sanctions would be an act of war. The last thing we need to do is hope that he is bluffing. It is easy for us to take risks with North Korea, but if I was living in Seoul, or Tokyo, I would want the solution that is least likely to result in war. Look, we can be immature about this, not giving the commies what they want. But the simple fact is that they are building nukes, and will be much more dangerous when they have more than the 1 or 2 they have now. The hard line was what started this mess, it was what antagonized them in the first place. The Ivory Tower PNACers don't have a clue of what to do when the solution does not involve war. We need to get the North Koreans back under control. Issueing ultamatums will only result in them building more nukes. If the state department can get some kind of comprimise multilateral/bilateral talks then fine. But I don't think the North Koreans are going to give up their nuke program if they don't get SOMETHING in return. We where feeding them and giving them oil during the 90s. Remember when, in 2000, at the end of Clinton's term, when Albright went to Pyongyang and danced with the North Korean leaders? I believe she even had tea with Kim Jong Il. THAT is where we need to be back to by 2008. Issueing ultamatums, antagonizing them, and taking major risks hoping they are bluffing is NOT the way to get them to disarm.

"No, you DON'T give North Korea what it wants."???

Last time I looked they wanted a one to one conference with the US and a non-aggression pact.
Oh yeah and return to the US agreement under Clinton, before Bush ripped it up
Unless your looking at it from a 'conquer the world' position--it think NK demands are reasonable.

It would appear to be yet another case of the US justifying attacking a 'sanctioned' impoverished, militarily weak nation where the only one's who think NK are some 'giant killers' are people fed WH propaganda...

They were wrong about Iraq (twice!), but right about NK ?

Kim Jong Il is a lunatic, and he has said sanctions would be an act of war. The last thing we need to do is hope that he is bluffing. It is easy for us to take risks with North Korea, but if I was living in Seoul, or Tokyo, I would want the solution that is least likely to result in war. Look, we can be immature about this, not giving the commies what they want. But the simple fact is that they are building nukes, and will be much more dangerous when they have more than the 1 or 2 they have now. The hard line was what started this mess, it was what antagonized them in the first place. The Ivory Tower PNACers don't have a clue of what to do when the solution does not involve war. We need to get the North Koreans back under control. Issueing ultamatums will only result in them building more nukes. If the state department can get some kind of comprimise multilateral/bilateral talks then fine. But I don't think the North Koreans are going to give up their nuke program if they don't get SOMETHING in return. We where feeding them and giving them oil during the 90s. Remember when, in 2000, at the end of Clinton's term, when Albright went to Pyongyang and danced with the North Korean leaders? I believe she even had tea with Kim Jong Il. THAT is where we need to be back to by 2008. Issueing ultamatums, antagonizing them, and taking major risks hoping they are bluffing is NOT the way to get them to disarm.

Kim Jong Il is a lunatic, and he has said sanctions would be an act of war. The last thing we need to do is hope that he is bluffing. It is easy for us to take risks with North Korea, but if I was living in Seoul, or Tokyo, I would want the solution that is least likely to result in war. Look, we can be immature about this, not giving the commies what they want. But the simple fact is that they are building nukes, and will be much more dangerous when they have more than the 1 or 2 they have now. The hard line was what started this mess, it was what antagonized them in the first place. The Ivory Tower PNACers don't have a clue of what to do when the solution does not involve war. We need to get the North Koreans back under control. Issueing ultamatums will only result in them building more nukes. If the state department can get some kind of comprimise multilateral/bilateral talks then fine. But I don't think the North Koreans are going to give up their nuke program if they don't get SOMETHING in return. We where feeding them and giving them oil during the 90s. Remember when, in 2000, at the end of Clinton's term, when Albright went to Pyongyang and danced with the North Korean leaders? I believe she even had tea with Kim Jong Il. THAT is where we need to be back to by 2008. Issueing ultamatums, antagonizing them, and taking major risks hoping they are bluffing is NOT the way to get them to disarm.

Kim Jong Il is a lunatic, and he has said sanctions would be an act of war. The last thing we need to do is hope that he is bluffing. It is easy for us to take risks with North Korea, but if I was living in Seoul, or Tokyo, I would want the solution that is least likely to result in war. Look, we can be immature about this, not giving the commies what they want. But the simple fact is that they are building nukes, and will be much more dangerous when they have more than the 1 or 2 they have now. The hard line was what started this mess, it was what antagonized them in the first place. The Ivory Tower PNACers don't have a clue of what to do when the solution does not involve war. We need to get the North Koreans back under control. Issueing ultamatums will only result in them building more nukes. If the state department can get some kind of comprimise multilateral/bilateral talks then fine. But I don't think the North Koreans are going to give up their nuke program if they don't get SOMETHING in return. We where feeding them and giving them oil during the 90s. Remember when, in 2000, at the end of Clinton's term, when Albright went to Pyongyang and danced with the North Korean leaders? I believe she even had tea with Kim Jong Il. THAT is where we need to be back to by 2008. Issueing ultamatums, antagonizing them, and taking major risks hoping they are bluffing is NOT the way to get them to disarm.

The Americans are the ones "tightening the noose" by cutting off fuel supplies and food aid and threatening a blockade and a surgical strike.

The "nuclear dispute" started when the Americans refused to perform its obligations under the 1994 Agreed Framework. The Americans also refused to negotiate the IRBM missile issue which the N.Koreans offered to do on multiple occasions. A review of events makes it apparent that the American regime did not intend to perform its obligation to build light water reactors by 2003 in return for the shutdown of the Korean nuclear program, hoping instead that the economic collapse of N.Korea would lead to regime change.

In recent months Americans have stopped the fuel shipments meant to replace the energy lost when N.Korea shut down its soviet style reactors. The country is almost totally blacked out. The * junta also recently repudiated the light water reactors construction commit ment to replace the shut down Korean reactors.

The N.Koreans entered the 1994 Agreed Framework in good faith but the American actions since dim wit took power appear to be much like those accorded to agreements with Native Americans in the 19th Century. The American press versions of events remind one that "white men speak with forked tongue." This regime never intended to honor its international commitments, but rather seeks to inflict further pain and suffering on a people, and submit the rest of the world to threat of war, in the hope of "regime change."

There is no bargaining or negotiation from the American side. Their diplomatic position is "do what I say." It is extremely suspect that the party who breaches the agreement previously entered claims the other side precipitated the crisis.

The Americans are the ones "tightening the noose" by cutting off fuel supplies and food aid and threatening a blockade and a surgical strike.

The "nuclear dispute" started when the Americans refused to perform its obligations under the 1994 Agreed Framework. The Americans also refused to negotiate the IRBM missile issue which the N.Koreans offered to do on multiple occasions. A review of events makes it apparent that the American regime did not intend to perform its obligation to build light water reactors by 2003 in return for the shutdown of the Korean nuclear program, hoping instead that the economic collapse of N.Korea would lead to regime change.

In recent months Americans have stopped the fuel shipments meant to replace the energy lost when N.Korea shut down its soviet style reactors. The country is almost totally blacked out. The * junta also recently repudiated the light water reactors construction commit ment to replace the shut down Korean reactors.

The N.Koreans entered the 1994 Agreed Framework in good faith but the American actions since dim wit took power appear to be much like those accorded to agreements with Native Americans in the 19th Century. The American press versions of events remind one that "white men speak with forked tongue." This regime never intended to honor its international commitments, but rather seeks to inflict further pain and suffering on a people, and submit the rest of the world to threat of war, in the hope of "regime change."

There is no bargaining or negotiation from the American side. Their diplomatic position is "do what I say." It is extremely suspect that the party who breaches the agreement previously entered claims the other side precipitated the crisis.