Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Beyond Simplistic Perspectives

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, June 19, 2009

Anyone who doubted that North Korea would present one of President Obama’s first and critical dilemmas can hardly deny that fact today. Nuclear detonations, test launches, and the harsh sentencing of two U.S. journalists accused of illegally entering the country have demanded the attention of the United States and the world.

The troubles with North Korea are far from the only ones facing this young administration. The Taliban is presenting a threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iran continues to present a debacle as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently “won” a “reelection” as President. We are still mired in a violent occupation of Iraq. Our domestic economic struggles remain a looming ordeal and promise to be one for most of the current term of office.

Thus, the question of how to solve the problem of North Korea becomes even more critical because it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. There is much speculation about how to handle it, and since the Obama approach has not yet fully materialized, there remains some question about what shape that approach will take.

Early commentary has characterized the Obama strategy as too soft or too hard-line – depending on the audience or the critic. Invoking a confrontation with North Korea may be seen as too risky in light of other foreign conflicts. Others predict diplomacy will fall short of containing the unpredictable North, and that South Korea will be unlikely to provide much assistance in negotiation.

Part of the problem is dictator Kim Jong-Il. The use of the term “loose cannon” is often generous in comparison to some of the other names Kim has been called. Most often the terminology is centered around his perceived mental instability, with words like “madman” and “nutcase” used to describe the leader. Despite where his critics fall on the political spectrum, most would call him unpredictable at best. This perspective reinforces the perception that North Korea is a grave threat to peace and security.

It also introduces an interesting element into the discussion of how to deal with that threat. Faced with an uncontrollable enemy, there is a certain amount of liberation from responsibility. If all one’s options are undesirable, one is released from some of the blame when a failure occurs. For example, the Bush administration got a pass for appeasing North Korea with bilateral talks after vowing not to negotiate with “evil” actors.

Another part of the problem is the oversimplification of the situation from various viewpoints. Dismissing the provocative actions of Pyongyang (North Korea’s capital) as craziness overlooks other potential motivations that might serve a certain logic. The fact that the nuclear and missile testings were announced indicates that North Korea was seeking global attention. This isn’t the first time it has played this game. Over the past several years North Korea would provoke the international community in order to reap rewards. This strategy has been remarkably successful. During 2006 and 2007 displays of defiance were answered with concessions and diplomacy. There is reason to believe that the current behavior is an invitation for the Obama administration to pay off in kind.

Among other motivations could be that Kim Jong-Il, still recovering from a stroke and looking to cement power, is simply interested in political posturing. It is important for Pyongyang to exhibit military might in order to ensure that the eventual transition of power goes from Kim to his third son Kim Jong-un.

A simplistic approach to North Korea also narrows the options one might pursue in response. In the past there have been only carrots and sticks applied in similar strategies across multiple U.S. administrations. North Korea would provoke the United States who would lure the rogue state to the negotiation table to temporarily avert conflict. Or, conversely, the U.S. would demonize Pyongyang and give empty threats of unilateral aggression.

There are other courses of action to be pursued. Most importantly, we must recognize that while the United States is a superpower, there is more at stake than our interest. This international concern presents opportunity as well. Multilaterally approaching North Korea with the backing of the global community means greater power and influence over the North. South Korea has obvious interests in the outcome but they are counterproductive when it comes to meaningful negotiations. However, Russia, China and Japan can become powerful tools in thwarting North Korean aggression. The United States can also make use of the U.N. – effectively for a change – instead of choosing to marginalize its importance as it has done in the past.

North Korea’s recent behavior does pose a serious new problem for the Obama administration. It is unclear what the solution will be, but it will inevitably require an international effort if it is to be successful.

No comments: