A Nuclearized North Korea
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published October 17, 2006, 12:13 pm in News, Military / Foreign policy.
Sometimes I wonder whether Matt Stone and Trey Parker were on to something with their portrayal of Kim Jong Il in Team America: World Police. It's as if the real Kim Jong Il says in his South Park voice, "Nanny-nanny-boo boo!" to everyone out there telling him to stop being a jerk.
Yes, I'm referring to North Korea's announcement on Monday, October 9 that it had successfully tested a nuclear weapon. After some dispute because of the size of the nuclear detonation, the U.S. has officially confirmed Pyongyang's claim that they detonated a nuclear weapon underground. But it didn't seem to matter to anyone whether the claim was true or false anyway. George Bush actually stated that the claim itself was a threat to security and demanded ramifications. Japan said that it would impose sanctions on Korea even if the claim was false. Me, I don't care. What I care about is what this all means to me.
In the short term, it probably means nothing, for North Korea's capability to reach the U.S. with a nuclear weapon is doubtful. But if this claim of nuclearization destabilizes the entire region or means a militarized U.N. or U.S. response, then it means a lot.
The United Nations Security Council
U.N. Sanctions are the first course of action, and the U.N. Security Council officially adopted a resolution on October 14. I'm not sure what these will do, however. Bush has said that "[t]his action by the United Nations, which was swift and tough, says that we are united in our determination to see to it that the Korean Peninsula is nuclear-weapons free." The U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton said that the message to North Korea is "clear and strong." But China's ambassador says that it is "a balanced and constructive message." Why these different definitions of what this resolution does?
First, we have to understand the U.N. Security Council. Russia and China have the power to veto any proposed action, and we can probably go so far as to call them opponents of U.S.-backed Security Council measures. Before the resolution was passed, Russia said that "the North Koreans will be facing a very serious attitude on the part of the Security Council and the entire international community," which practically means nothing, for it says nothing about Russia's own response. And the language of "a very serious attitude" is too vague to even suggest what Russia would support. China has come out pretty strongly condemning the move by North Korea, but they equivocated, saying that "China is ready to discuss with other council members to see how the Security Council could react firmly, constructively and prudently with regard to this challenge." This is a far cry from Bush's reaction that a nuclear North Korea is "intolerable."
U.N. Resolution on North Korea
So what did the U.N. Security Council decide to do? It voted unanimously for sanctions, after some equivocation from China, but these sanctions may leave the general public wondering what good the U.N. is in the first place (or the second place, perhaps?). Let's go through the measure.
First, it says that North Korea (the DPRK) shall stop all nuclear tests and weapons production along with the abandonment of "all other existing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile program in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner." That's straightforward enough. And then there are the sanctions, which can be divided into three categories.
- Transfers to and from North Korea. No member country shall sell conventional arms, technology and/or advice that may relate to nuclear weapons or luxury goods to North Korea. And North Korea cannot export any of these things, either.
- Frozen assets. All economic resources owned or operated by anyone or any company or government that supports nuclearization of North Korea must be frozen. The Security Council determines who these people are.
- Travel to and from North Korea. People involved in North Korean weapons are prohibited from traveling to and from the country.
These sanctions are enforced by searching all necessary or suspected entries into and out of the country. And the resolutions do not apply to anything that is for humanitarian or for basic expenses. This last part is a good thing, and it gets at the underlying problem with these kinds of U.N. sanctions.
Why this Approach?
There's a new term for this kind of sanction, which may or may not be a misnomer: smart sanctions. The goal is to force North Korea to disarm under international scrutiny, but what sort of sanctions could move toward this goal without strangling the entire area? Some hawks may say that strangulation is the only method that will work, but there are problems with this approach. First, the general public of North Korea has nothing to do with nuclear armaments. Do they deserve to be punished just because their leaders have defied international will? Look at the havoc such sanctions created in Iraq: Saddam was living grandly while his people suffered intolerable hardships. Is that what we want with North Korea? Kim Jong Il is not going to step down from power because his country can't import goods. He will still get his bon bons. Instead, it's the people who will do without heat this winter.
So the U.N. is forced to target the regime itself, which is difficult. Notice, first of all, that most of the sanctions have nothing to do with North Korea's nuclearization but with proliferation in general. A nuclear North Korea is fearful in itself, especially when North Korea's ambassador storms out of the U.N. saying that "[if] the United States increases pressure upon [North Korea] persistently, [it] will continue to take physical countermeasures considering it as a declaration of war." That's scary stuff, and I don't like it. North Korea is nothing to sneeze at, not with over 1 million active and 4.7 million reserve troops. It sounds like a lot, and it is: the U.S. only has 1.4 million active troops, for example.
But another real problem with a nuclear North Korea is that it may make nuclear weapons available to anyone, including more staunch U.S. enemies who wouldn't scoff at detonating one inside U.S. borders, or anyplace where a U.S. presence exists. That's why all of the stuff about technology and advice in and out of North Korea's borders. It's a Tom Clancy scenario waiting to happen, and we don't like it one bit.
But the part that makes me laugh is the part about "luxury goods." It's as if they're trying to keep Jong Il from getting his bon bons! That's what is aimed at the regime. "No more caviar until you give up nuclear weapons, Kim Jong Il." Or for North Korea, it seems to be "No more Hennessey and expensive European watches!" That's what the Security Council is trying to tell North Korea. Whether it will work or not is a different story, because I doubt whether he will be going through any hardships no matter what we impose on him.
Is there an alternative? There is, but it's not really any better. I'll discuss it in a future entry.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
This post has 9 feedbacks awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment