The Strangulation Approach
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published October 17, 2006, 1:14 pm in News, Military / Foreign policy.
In a previous post, I discussed the U.N. resolution regarding the nuclearization of North Korea. This time, I will talk about an alternative approach and why the U.N may be on target.
Onoe alternative is the strangulation approach, the favorite of most hawks. Many people have been calling for these kinds of extreme sanctions, rather than the "smart sanctions" of the resolution itself. These extreme sanctions would call for China especially to stop exporting food and fuel to North Korea. The endgoal of this approach is the "cut off the head and the body will die" , but the effect is the opposite: "kill the body and hopefully the head will die." What do I mean?
What most people want in North Korea (DPRK) is regime change. Get Kim Jong Il out of there and establish a fair and credible democracy in the DPRK. Many people feel that the people of the DRRK can assert the kind of pressure on the government to cause it to collapse, citing the fall of communist states in the late 1980s. But then the question becomes how to make the people rise up against their oppressors, as it were. The strangulation approach says that you make the people suffer so much that it has no choice but to rise up. Or more idealistically, the people suffer so much that the regime feels bad about it and decides to step down. But the people have been suffering for a long time anyway. And this strangulation approach may have unwanted consequences.
Undermining Asian Stability
First of all, China and South Korea will probably oppose such sanctions, and they're key players here. If the goal is to create a stable area, strangling the DPRK won't accomplish that end, at least not in the short term. Sure, it may eventually lead to regime change and democracy (presumably, that is), but things may get messy in the meantime. I know, I know, you have to break a few eggs to do yeah, yeah, yeah. But we're not talking about eggs or chess pieces here; we're talking about real peoples' lives.
The strangulation approach would create chaos in the region by forcing the people of the DPRK to become desperate. I know if my family were deprived of any necessity-food, water, shelter, heat (and in Houston, where I live, air conditioning)-then I would seek that sustenance elsewhere. If Mexico had it, and I didn't it, I'm going across the border and taking everyone I loved with me. And I know a lot of people who would do the same. As much as I love the U.S., if my family could not get what it needs here, I would try to find those necessities wherever possible. I would perhaps try to deal with the government to get those necessities, but when that became futile, I would turn elsewhere. Likewise, if strangling the DPRK were actually tried, the borders of China and South Korea would most likely become inundated with refugees. Look at every other war and you will see what I mean. Refugees are not an easy problem, and no one wants to take care of all of the "poor…huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore…the homeless, tempest-tost," as our Statue of Liberty so eloquently puts it. China and South Korea may fear the refugees fleeing out of a strangled DPRK so much that they will not agree to such measures.
The U.N. could help set up refugee camps for these people fleeing their deprivation, but I don't see any country jumping at the bit to fund such an initiative. And the effects of such refugee camps are long-lasting. Look to Palestine or even our own Hurricane Katrina, and you will see what I mean. It's not just a temporary provision, where after a brief respite, the refugee goes back to a happy place. It just never works that way.
A Desperate North Korea
Besides making the people of the DPRK desperate, the strangulation method may make the leaders desperate. Consider this, for example: Japan is in the position to be the DPRK's first nuclear target. Japan does not have nuclear weapons right now (although they will probably be pushing to get some now). Wait, wait. Let's make it a simple analogy. Imagine a playground full of kids. One bully has a big rock, and he wants everyone else to give him a piece of candy. Whoever doesn’t give up their candy will get hit in the head with the big rock. Where I am in the group of kids will determine my response, whether I want to give up my candy or not. If I'm in the back, I have a good chance of running away before the bully can beam me with the rock. However, if I’m right in front of the bully and I have had trouble with this bully before, I'm probably going to smile nicely and hand him my candy instead of having my face smashed. The fact is that no one wants to have their face smashed, and those who feel that they're a good candidate for the face-smashing are probably going to give in much more readily than those who think they can turn face and run and grab their own rocks to smash the bully with. In this scenario, the bully goes down, but not before some poor schmuck gets his face smashed.
Yes, I understand that the analogy is simplistic, but it identifies the fundamental problem with nuclear weapons. A friend once told me that the best kind of nuclear weapon is the one that never has to be used, and that makes perfect sense: nuclear armament is meant to create balance, or at least it was during the cold war. The Soviet Union had nuclear weapons and the U.S. had nuclear weapons. If one ever dared to fire on the other, the response would be just as devastating. So no one fired their weapons because they didn't want to be fired upon.
But a strangled DPRK currently controlled by a reclusive socialist despot is a wild card. Even if the DPRK wants to remain a viable state without being pulverized by a nuclear whirlwind response from every nuclearized nation, I fear what a suffocating DPRK is capable of. And would I support such a response if the DPRK did fire a missile at Japan? Does all of North Korea deserve to be blown to bits because the crazy regime fired on a country? Maybe, but I'm not sure. The international community would probably support such action, but it would no doubt be looked down upon as a rash response by future generations.
So I fear that strangulation is not the answer.
But then I'm left with a bomb in a bag. I have identified it as a bomb, and I have pointed out the dangers the bomb represents. But now I still have the bomb, and I don't know what to do with it.
Maybe I can figure that out by my next post...
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
Leave a comment