By PVG viagra

Personal loans and credit checks Payday loans Nevertheless is not the case
16
Dec

North Korea: The Limits of Diplomacy

   Posted by: FMFP   in China

Anyone following the North Korean diplomatic situation over the last ten years or so can’t help but throw their hands up in the air. Perhaps the consistent theme in all of the agreements and compromises that have been reached over the years is that North Korea always wins. At no point does this seem more true than today.

 

Two months after convincing the U.S. to remove North Korea from the State Department’s list of terror sponsoring countries in exchange for written verification of its nuclear disarmament process, North Korea has reneged. In what seems to be an almost comical series of rebukes on U.S. led diplomacy, the North Korean regime has refused to provide written verification that it is in fact, actually disarming its nuclear capabilities. Anyone counting on a nuclear free Korean peninsula, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

 

Even worse is that the North Koreans have already begun reaping the ‘rewards’ of the fuel oil agreement reached under the six party talks with China, S. Korea, Japan and Russia. Supposedly the remainder is going to be halted upon receiving this verification, but this is basically just kicking the can farther down the road until the Obama Administration takes office in January.

 

What do we have to look forward to? Obama has denounced the hardline stance of the early Bush Administration and the six-party talks and instead called for bilateral negotiations, saying “more diplomatic engagement is necessary.” Perhaps Obama was referring to the good ole days of bilateral negotiations in the 1990′s under President Clinton. Leading up to the 1994 Agreed Framework, North Korea threatened to pull out of the non-proliferation treaty and develop a nuclear weapons program. This was met by negotiations that allowed the North Koreans to give up their nuclear ambitions in exchange for the equivalent energy in fuel oil and two 1,000 MW light water reactors to be primarily subsidized by the U.S., South Korea and Japan.  Unsurprisingly, the fuel oil began to flow but the attempts by North Korea to enrich uranium, disallow IAEA inspectors free access, and bait its neighbors continued.

 

"I will make you an offer you can't refuse. I'll even throw in a nuke. Let's Deal!"

The type of diplomacy used by the Bush Administration under Christoper Hill and Condi Rice has consistently failed to move the ball forward and it is unlikely more talking by an Obama Administration will do any better. Kim Jong-Il has consistently gotten the upper hand in his dealings with the US/West because he realizes that no matter how many North Koreans he starves or nuclear weapons he chases, the limits of diplomacy will save him.

We need a new strategy for N. Korea, one that can actually move/force them to discontinue their nuclear weapons program.  

Tags: , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 16th, 2008 at 3:28 pm and is filed under China. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

6 comments so far

micraig
 1 

And what are you suggesting? Armed intervention? Economic sanctions that punish his starving people? Embargo? If he has a history of agreeing and then reneging what are the reasonable options?

December 16th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
econstudent01
 2 

If there was ever a case for a “just” preemptive war, North Korea would have been it. Bill Clinton actually considered a full scale invasion of the country in the mid 90′s and was only dissuaded when the Joints Chiefs told him that over 50,000 Americans, up to 200,000 South Koreans, and over 1,000,000 North Koreans would likely be killed in the war.

I am beginning to wonder if the Chinese, faced with rising internal dissent and opposition in the shadow of a possible recession, could start a war with their allies on the peninsula just for the hell of it. A good war can always distract people. . .

December 17th, 2008 at 6:29 am
 3 

Hubbel does indeed effectively layout the problems with the diplomatic approach to N.Korea, as it has a near 0% success rate so far, however you both are right, what then is the right policy? The world would be much better off if Kim Jong il was gone, but our options are slim to say the least. No attack is coming, especially now that Kim has nukes. It is my hope that now that he feels safe with the nukes, he would start to move back into a reasonable diplomatic position, but not has not really been the case. The Chinese are not invading N.Korea, though they may be able to put tremendous on Kim’s regime by cutting oil supplies. Concerning Obama’s administration, I have a feeling this won’t be a major policy he will concentrate on. He will likely just put it in the hands of Chris Hill or another able diplomat who will continue to try to make incremental progress opening up NK, and possibly garnering small concessions.

December 17th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Hubbel Relat
 4 

I agree that there are very few options available to us right now. Clearly we are not able or interested in launching some kind of full scale military invasion. But it also seems clear the diplomatic process we have witnessed in regard to NK (and Iran for that matter) has failed miserably. For NK it also seems clear that no progress will be made until China gets on board. This is their region of the world and their continued support has allowed the NK regime to keep operating with reckless abandon. So I am baffled when I hear Obama demand bilateral talks. Bilateral talks have consistently resulted in US concessions to suppress blatant NK extortion attempts.

Bush was criticized severely early on in his Administration for refusing to deal with NK unless they involve the other main players (Russia, SK, China and Japan). He recognized this as crucial to gaining any leverage on the regime. The main complaint from the bureaucrats at the State Department was that we were pushing NK into a corner. Thus, they were not not responsible for acting the way they did and seeking nuclear weapons to protect themselves. This perspective ignores the history of the NK/US negotiations, however, and grants an excuse to a despotic regime looking for any way possible to evade the rules set out by the international community. (Does this sound similar to a former brutal dictator, possibly by the name of Saddam….?)

For the next Administration’s take, I think Pat is right that Obama will not put much attention on this issue. Nonetheless, it will serve as a model for other countries that want to ignore international directives since they know, ultimately we aren’t really serious about stopping proliferation of nuclear weapons. Again, look at Iran. And as far us imposing sanctions that “punish his starving people,” Kim Jong-Il needs no help from the international community to do that.

December 17th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
micraig
 5 

I wasn’t proposing that we have sanctions that punish his starving people, I was pointing out that that would be the outcome of many sanction efforts. It is difficult, as the three of you have pointed out, to reign in someone who has absolutely no concerns for the people for whom he is responsible. Again I ask, what strategy has a chance of success?

December 17th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
 6 

I’m not sure there is one that will ever lead to Kim giving up his nukes, but an official peace treaty between NK and SK and the US could lead to a break through, though this does not look on the horizon.

December 18th, 2008 at 8:16 am