Archive for category North Korea
There is this tendency in politics for people to become very concerned about the subjective feelings of their opponents. They do not want an enemy or often someone they disagree with to “feel good” or (a weird phrase) “to be emboldened” by having anything good happen to them. This leads to downright anger of something that might briefly make an enemy “feel” better, often rationalized by claiming it’s ‘legitimizing’ someone (what on earth does that mean in any practical sense?) or has some unspecified political ramifications.
The latest examples of this silly rage come from Libya and North Korea. Yesterday Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, convicted of being part of the terror attack which brought down a jet airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1989, killing 270 people, was released. He has three months to live, and the judge decided he could go back to Libya and end his life there.
OK, one can disagree with that decision. Should a convicted terrorist who killed hundreds be allowed to die at home, or should he be forced to die in jail? We can debate that, I’m not sure what the right answer is, but the Judge who had the power to make that decision chose to let him go home. Once he arrived he was given a hero’s welcome by his country folk. OK, I would never give the guy a hero’s welcome, but I’m sure some kind of warped nationalism was in play there.
Impotent to do anything about it, President Obama harshly condemns the decision to release the prisoner or treat him like a hero, and family members express anger and shock about the events. Pundits both left and right get on the soap box to stir up emotions attacking this action. Yet it is a meaningless and ridiculous anger.
First, this guy is all but dead anyway. So he gets a bit of a chance to enjoy life at the end by being treated as a hero. That may not be fair, but it’s not really anything of consequence. Libya’s political position has moved so far from the days of the Lockerbie attack that this is irrelevant to the politics of the day. Nothing brings back the 270 dead, and in reality this is by far one of the most meaningless stories of the day in terms of any practical consequence. No matter, it can stoke emotions, and thus the pundits all converge, and the President feels compelled express his outrage. I yawn.
Last week it was President Clinton’s actions to secure the release of two American journalists who strayed over into North Korea. The pundits on Fox were especially angry, saying that somehow this “legitimated” Kim Jong-il, and gave him “undeserved recognition.” In other words, this bad guy Kim Jong-il had a moment of feeling good. The fox pundits didn’t like that.
Kim Jong-il’s policies, plans and nuclear programs are not impacted at all by this. He still has his cases of cognac and beautiful female playthings to occupy his time. (I used playthings rather than playmates because I’m sure to him they are just objects). This has no practical impact on North Korea’s situation, policies, or its leader’s options.
But it did get two women freed who had been condemned to 12 years of hard labor. Fox’s Dick Morris poo-poo’d their release saying they should “face the consequences of their actions.” Oddly, in his haste to condemn his former boss’s work to free the two, he treated as legitimate the idea they were arrested and sent to hard labor for just crossing the border. I guess that is a real example of legitimation of the dictatorship — from the mouth of Dick Morris!
Again, the pundits were all aflutter (this time primarily from the right) about how this was a bad thing for the US, and somehow was a favor to North Korea. It could be a politically driven effort to try to downplay the success of President Clinton, a man the right still loves to hate, but I think they may truly be caught up in the idea that the goal of policy is to make sure your enemies do not get anything that might make them feel good.
The psychology of it is simple, politics is reduced to a morality play of good vs. evil, and experienced on an emotional level. Moreover, it is political spectacle, where image is all. Thus the real good done by freeing two young female journalists is irrelevant — they are neither the enemy, nor are they on the side of the pundits. What matters is that Kim Jong-Il is smiling and might even have nice things said about him. That means evil is feeling good about itself, which can only mean that good (in the minds of these pundits, that means the US) somehow is being denigrated. Policy doesn’t matter and the impact on real world issues is irrelevant, it’s all about how the bad guy feels.
Given how much real support the US has given dictatorial regimes over the years, including helping coup d’etats which more than once replaced democracy with dictatorship, the idea that somehow we should be in a huff over a meaningless symbolic act that might make an enemy feel good is ridiculous and hypocritical. Both of these cases did no practical or real harm to the US, nor did they help North Korea or Libya. The freed terrorist is still less than three months from death.
Caught up in politics as emotion, observers simply enjoy righteous rage as the day’s distraction, or a chance to pontificate, attack those they dislike, and sound strong and tough. These stories are symbolic of how the spectacle of politics helps distract us from thinking about and discussing the important issues of the day. Instead it’s emotion, sport, and meaningless rage.
Teaching about the Cold War in my American Foreign policy class has been interesting. Students have a hard time grasping the fact that people feared nuclear annihilation, or that so much effort, money and time was spent in what seems to them an abstract ideological conflict. Given that most students these days were born after the end of the Cold War, the dangers it entailed seem unreal and strange.
Yet the Cold War has one remnant, and that’s North Korea. Back in 1950 North Korea tried to take over South Korea, believing the US would not intervene to hold it, and then the US tried to take over North Korea, believing China would not intervene to protect it. Both beliefs were wrong, and in 1953 an uneasy truce was put in place along the 38th parallel, though no peace agreement was reached. The two sides stared each other down for the rest of the Cold War, and even after the USSR collapsed and China embraced markets, North Korea remains defiant and dangerous.
North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Il, is presiding over a country that cannot sustain itself economically, relying on help from China to continue to exist. The dilemma of the ruling Communist party is clear: if they were to reform and embrace even a Chinese still of market capitalism, their existence would be at risk. Like East Germany twenty years ago, North Korea exists only because it is the Communist Korean state. Any retreat from a hard core totalitarian ideology would create a wave towards unification with the South that would grow stronger each day. Yet if they do not reform, they remain weak, impoverished, and in danger of collapse.
Yet they have found their niche. They can be an arms merchant, purveyor of weapons of mass destruction, and a thorn in the side of the world community. Unlike Afghanistan’s Taliban, they have some protection. First, China doesn’t want North Korea to collapse and either unify with the South or send streams of refugees into China. Second and more importantly, they believe there is little the world can do to stop them. They border South Korea, an important US ally. Any effort to break up their game could lead to all out war on the Korean peninsula which easily could go nuclear and expand. Besides the Koreas themselves, the one place most imperiled by the threat of nuclear war in Korea is Japan — the one country which has already suffered nuclear attacks.
North Korea’s recent bombast threatening war as they test nuclear devices and missiles is designed to assure that the rest of the world takes seriously the possibility that any action against North Korea could escalate out of control. For Kim Jong Il it is helpful to be perceived as a meglomaniacal dictator — the crazier he is perceived to be, the less likely the world will act against him. It probably is a bluff, but it’s not one that the US can afford to call.
The threat that North Korea could sell missiles or nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations or small, radical states is real. That also means that the US can’t sit idly by as North Korea continues to play its racket. Yet Presidents Clinton and Bush each have ultimately done just that — there seems to be no other options. The same brinksmanship game gets played — crisis begets sanctions, which leads to negotiations; North Korea makes promises in exchange for assistance, and then the whole cycle starts over again.
I believe a fundamental error that gets made by those dealing with the North Koreans is to see North Korea as a Communist state, or a Cold War remnant. Bull. Kim Jong Il is a committed Communist as much as Pope Benedict XVI is a closet Muslim. North Korea is no more a true state than was the territory controlled by Al Capone in the 1920s. Kim is a leader of an organized criminal operation, and North Korea is his turf. Just as the mafia doesn’t care about the crack addicts its drug trade creates, the North Korean thugs don’t care about their people — it’s all about power and money.
The only way to deal with North Korea is to treat it like a criminal operation it is. Strip away its sovereignty. Declare Kim Jong Il to be a wanted criminal, a leader of an organized crime syndicate. Take away North Korean statehood. The UN would get de jure sovereignty over North Korean territory until such time as the mafia “boss” is brought down. The Korean Communist party is really just a mafia gang.
This won’t be enough to take Kim down, but without the veneer of sovereignty or the claim to be “head of State,” North Korea and its leaders would lack the protection international law gives sovereign entities. Its territory, air space, and waters would not be inviolate. Their diplomats would not get protection. Their embassies could not operate above the laws of the countries in which they are present. They would lose their voice and seat at the UN.
This kind of action would open up a new level of potential ways to pressure the regime, and to make its criminal operations harder to protect and engage in. It could in fact be a precedent for dealing with other rogue regimes whose leaders worry less about their people and state than their bank accounts and personal supporters. Statehood should not be a given, but something that requires certain minimum conditions be met. Anything else would revert to UN control, perhaps through regional agencies (e.g., the African Union in Africa) to avoid appearances of colonialism.
Sovereignty and statehood has always been given to any leader of a territory, with a host of international rights and privileges handed to whomever controls that land. The leaders in turn create political parties and other structures that can be made to appear ‘governmental’ to the West or other international agencies. In North Korea this involves maintaining a claim to Communist ideology and Cold War traditions.
To be sure, statehood and sovereignty are always just a step away from being an organized protection racket. The difference between organized criminal operations and governments is less practical than legal — governments are allowed to get away with what individuals cannot. Yet by the 21st century the system has evolved to a point where enough states should be able to create a distinction between legitimate government and clear criminal activity — gangs of leaders with no goal but personal enrichment at the expense of anyone, including their own citizens. North Korea clearly fits that category.
We don’t know what the full impact stripping North Korea of statehood and sovereignty would be. I suspect that lack of sovereignty would so hinder their operations as to undermine Kim’s rule and bring the regime down. However, even if we can’t be sure of that, isn’t it time to stop just allowing any thug or criminal capture the benefits, protections and rights of sovereignty just because he or she and a gang of co-conspirators happen to have taken control of a chunk of land? Maybe if we start calling criminals what they are, rather than getting lost in the rhetoric of sovereignty and state hood, we’d find new means for handling rogue regimes. Sanctions don’t work, and war seems to do more harm than good. Perhaps we need to change the rules of the game.