From the Economist

North Korea blasts away hopes of engagement

Oct 9th 2006 | TOKYO
From Economist.com
The isolated state comes of age as a nuclear power, but the consequences could be all negative for Kim Jong Il



FOLLOWING through on a promise it made in the United Nations only last week, North Korea exploded a nuclear device on Monday October 9th deep under a mountain in north-eastern Hamgyong province. The regime of Kim Jong Il immediately declared that its nuclear test would serve to defend “the peace and stability on the Korean pensinsula and in the area around it.” On the contrary, the provocation has brought international condemnation and destabilised regional security, even raising the prospect of an arms race in which neighbours such as Japan and South Korea may consider developing nuclear weapons of their own.

In the near term, North Korea’s nuclear capabilities are more likely to pose a greater risk to North Koreans than to the neighbours. The country is reckoned to have reprocessed enough weapons-grade plutonium to make several bombs (it has also admitted to a programme for enriching uranium). The bombs, however, are fairly crude—in the underground test, the nuclear reaction was probably triggered by a large conventional charge. Such a bomb, in other words, is not easily transportable; North Korea is still some way from being able to miniaturise nuclear weapons to use on missiles or even to drop from planes. Unusual means of delivery, such as a shipping container, would be needed if North Korea’s were to be used in anger. So the immediate threats from North Korea’s new capability come from radioactive leaks into the atmosphere and North Korea’s groundwater.

Yet an early international consequence of the test is likely to be the swift burial of the so-called six-party talks, involving China, South Korea, Japan, America and Russia. These talks, which have staggered on for ages, were meant to forestall North Korea going nuclear, dangling aid and security guarantees before Mr Kim’s ghastly regime in return for a verifiable dismantling of his nuclear programmes. However, the multilateral diplomacy that this forum offered never worked. China, not wanting North Korean problems to spill over the Chinese border, and South Korea, wedded to engagement at almost any cost, feared that putting pressure on North Korea would lead to instability. Meanwhile, the administration of President George Bush, though occasionally sounding tough, allowed the six-party talks to drift, its mind on challenges elsewhere, notably Iraq. Most of all, Mr Kim himself, though blaming America for tensions, had no intention of giving up his nuclear programmes.

Here, Mr Kim, feeling the pinch of financial sanctions and dissatisfied with the region he sees outside his brutalised country—a region that is prosperous, capitalist and policed by American might—may have miscalculated. Rather than increasing North Korea’s advantage, its new nuclear capability may unite opposition. China, already angry at North Korea’s missile tests in July (in an unprecedented step, it signed on to a UN resolution condemning North Korea and imposing limited sanctions), lambasted its nuclear test. South Korea’s “sunshine policy” towards the north now seems very hard to sustain—on October 9th the government halted a shipment of food and put troops on high alert. Meanwhile, North Korea’s provocations have made it much easier for Japan’s new prime minister, Shinzo Abe, to bury longstanding differences on summit trips to Beijing and Seoul on October 8th and 9th. Neighbours now have a common desire to stop the potential instability—economic as well as military—that a nuclear North Korea might bring.

The action will now move to the UN Security Council. Australia has already said it will advocate tougher UN sanctions against North Korea, blocking North Korean funds and limiting the ability of North Koreans to travel. America will certainly push for the tougher policing of ships and planes that might be carrying weapons technology. More efforts will be made to go after Mr Kim’s own business empire, known as Division 39, that is crucial to the dictator for keeping the North Korean regime sweet. Countries with diplomatic relations may withdraw ambassadors. Already, the international attitude towards Mr Kim is turning from half-hearted engagement to what is already being called “malign neglect”.

Life In North Korea

Santions against North Korea

"While I strongly condemn Nuclear development, I think it has become necessary."

"Inevitable" would have done justice to the argument than the word "necessary" in the above sentence. Believing something is necessary while condeming it at the same time is an oxymoron, I think.

I could not agree more with the rest.

Nice to see you back too, Isolated. Though lengthy, it's worth taking time to read some of your thoughts.

My predictions:

The key here will be the suspicion that NK's test was actually nuclear. Thre have already been questions raised about the test's nuclear validity, with some countries like France, saying it was just an extraordinary explosion, but doubting it was nuclear. Unless this can be verified, it will be hard to maintain the unity against NK. It is also believed that despite the tests being genuine, NK lacks the capacity to build larger nuclear misslies. Otherwise, even the perceived enemies would not hesitate to make friends in this case, particularly China vis-a-vis Japan and the US. Nonetheless, this new alliance, I believe will be able to do little, without promising prospects of a military intervention.

Military intervention can be virtually ruled out simply because US cannot afford it at this time. And without such an intervention, sanctions will have little effect on the government of NK, despite them affecting the people on the grounds. NK's government has proven their capability to survive without international or domestic support -- such is the nature of totalitarian regimes. Sanctions which might have tremendous effect, such as oil embargo, would be opposed by China in particualr, because it wouldn't want to destablize NK either -- China is having to thread a precarious balance of containing nuclear NK and, at the same time, ensuring such efforts won't herald berserk outcomes.

In short, the complexities of the situation/power relations, as I understand it, will prevent a full-fledged. strongly united response to NK's claimed nuclear test, even if it proven to be genuine. Nk would probably go on to aquire smaller Nuclear weapons (they lack the capacity to build larger ones), and the world would would have lived on. Even prospects of sanctions, so strongly advocated right now, would have faded in time.

Capitalist "America", Socialist Korea

Poonte, I don't like it, but it has become a necessity. There is nothing wrong with NK trying to develop Nuclear Weapon because it feels insecure, and it is necessary to strike a balance especially when US and UK are deliberately procuring highly sophisticated mother of all bombs. Hence, both inevitible and necessary. I agree.

Interesting inputs! I plaudit most of the arguments, albeit some are too much of speculations to be believed.

Isolated freak, my views are mostly in unison with yours.

"The key here will be the suspicion that NK's test was actually nuclear. Thre have already been questions raised about the test's nuclear validity, with some countries like France, saying it was just an extraordinary explosion, but doubting it was nuclear. "

Since 2002, NK has vacillated between affirming and denying that it already has nuclear weapons. So yes, it cannot be affirmed this time around as well. But just lately, in July of this year, they have conducted a series of seven missile tests. Among them was a test of the long-range Taepodong-2 missile, reportedly capable of reaching Alaska. The missile failed shortly after its launch. All of the other missiles, thought to be short- and medium-range models, splashed down in the Sea of Japan.

Moreover, they have the fourth-largest army in the world with an estimate of 1.2 million armed personnel, compared to about 650,000 in the South. So they surely do have potential to threat Japan, US or EU for that matter. However, over the last several years, NK has moved more of its rear-echelon troops to hardened bunkers closer to the demilitarized zone (DMZ). Given the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ (some 25 miles), South Korean and U.S. forces are likely to have little warning of any attack. US and South Korea continue to believe that the U.S. troop presence in South Korea remains an effective deterrent.

Bush has described NK as part of an "axis of evil" (Iraq and Iran also are part of it). So I guess NK would be eyed upon by US as a north east center of terrorism threat. What happened to Iraq, may well happen to NK. Kim has regularly used threats and hostile acts to try to wring aid from the international community, but it was difficult to decipher how he expected to accomplish his aims, economic aid and a safeguard against U.S. attack, through such brinkmanship.

China's position would be key as far as i believe. As a matter of fact, the fulcrum of balance of power between north east and west lies in china. Although, China may blatantly support US for the nuclear non-proliferartion treaty reason, I don't think they are dumb to not to be able to see US hidden motives to shun down communist regime in the north east.

LooTe

As a matter of fact, the fulcrum of balance of power between *north east and west lies in china

read that as *north-east and west

LooTe

I am not at all a fan of US hegemony, and I think the present US administation deserves to be condemned for its complacency and arrogant attitude vis-a-vis the North, but to argue the North needs nuclear weapons is a bit ridiculous in my opinion. Besides Kim Jong Il and his inner coterie no one really benefits from this.

I think this could be the begining of the end for North Korea. Turning points in history sometimes go unnoticed for a while, and I feel this could be one such case, and this will, over the years, lead to the dismantling of the regime in Pyongyang and possibly even the reunification of the Koreas. A unified Korea, if and when that happens, with the economic might of the South and the military might of the North will be a force to reckon with in the regional if not global stage.

That may be a long shot but with these test it has become a distinct possibility.

What about reunification of china and NK, captain? That would be even more interesting, innit? economic and military might of China plus military might of NK.

LooTe

Yes, but that's not on anyone's mind I think. Besides yours of course :)

I don't understand ..why some moron nepalese are so much against USA and specially in the issue with NK...In one side these people come here and say People need Loktantra and crap , feeds in US economy, will cry if they will be deported from US and yet there hypocrite are so against US.

It is not about Republician or Democrat ..there is very slight diference in Foreign policy.It is different that idiot bush does things little differently.

To jutisfy that Nk needs Nuclear is just like justifying Nepal needed KING after the Coup.Get it!!!!!

Poonte dai

Before moving on, let me tell this: I have really enjoyed talking IR issues with you here. You being my senior (not only in age) with a somehow above average cranial capacity, I have learned a great deal from you whether debating about Iran or China...but when it comes to our own pyaro Nepal, well.... you know..:-(

Now back to business:

You wrote:


"he key here will be the suspicion that NK's test was actually nuclear. Thre have already been questions raised about the test's nuclear validity, with some countries like France, saying it was just an extraordinary explosion, but doubting it was nuclear. Unless this can be verified, it will be hard to maintain the unity against NK. It is also believed that despite the tests being genuine, NK lacks the capacity to build larger nuclear misslies. Otherwise, even the perceived enemies would not hesitate to make friends in this case, particularly China vis-a-vis Japan and the US. Nonetheless, this new alliance, I believe will be able to do little, without promising prospects of a military intervention. "

According to this week's Newsweek web exclusive filed by Melinda Liu from Beijing and somebody else from somewhere else, its the size of the explosion we should worry about most because the Osama Binladen clique will prefer smaller weapons than the bigger ones. There's no doubt in where I am atleast that NK did test nuclear weapons. Forget France, its way way way too far to exactly measure the seismic waves and all that scientific mumbo jumbo. I would rather believe the Russian reports.

"Military intervention can be virtually ruled out simply because US cannot afford it at this time. And without such an intervention, sanctions will have little effect on the government of NK, despite them affecting the people on the grounds. NK's government has proven their capability to survive without international or domestic support -- such is the nature of totalitarian regimes. Sanctions which might have tremendous effect, such as oil embargo, would be opposed by China in particualr, because it wouldn't want to destablize NK either -- China is having to thread a precarious balance of containing nuclear NK and, at the same time, ensuring such efforts won't herald berserk outcomes. "

I agree with some reservations because what you are implying is (if i didn't misread you), that China would be more concerned with the destable NK than NK developing even more bigger and powerful nulcar weapons. No, I don't think so. What I think is ( and I am not challenging you in any way) China would rather have a destable NK and accept some NK refugees than have a NK with advanced nuclear capabilities. So the Chinese will once again show their pragmatic attitude and either absent from the security council voting on China -- or support the American led sanctions. "Foreign policy is out of necessity, not out of sympathy"-- we learn this in our IR 51 class, hoina ta poonte dai. Ideological allies have to be sacrificed to make sure your nation stays safe :-), ho ki hoina?

Also let's not forget: The NK people are like you and me.. they also want a better future for their children and things like that.. so you know, they might show their middle finger to that Juche (Self reliance and be poor) philosophy of KIm and rebel against the present regime... we never know. But one thing is sure: Binas kaley biparit buddhi.. it was the worst time to test nuclear weapons.

Captain Hadock wrote:

" A unified Korea, if and when that happens, with the economic might of the South and the military might of the North will be a force to reckon with in the regional if not global stage. "

It will not happen for atleast 50 years from now. The SK actually don't wnat reunification because an united KOrea mean a huge no. of unemplyed, poor, hungry and angry people. What the SK wnat now is that the NK regime opens up a bit and starts focuisng on economic reforms. SK is not wiling to unite, and NK is in the hands of a .. well.... you know what I mean. :-)

I take my earlier words back: Carlsberg is still the best beer in the worl.. la ja ta!

and finally to nell,

"power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" (I am ashamed to write this but the guy who uttered these words was recently awarded an honorary PhD degree by my department in my alma mater.. k bhanne kaliyug!!) But we all know in Kaliyug, its the not-so-great ones that are powerful, well...maybe you are right too. Who knows NK's going nuclear might actually lead to a lasting peace in NE Asia..

And loote kukur,

IR is all about speculations...so speculative imaginative and even hypothetical stuff are not to be dismissed just like that. :-)

I agree with some reservations because what you are implying is (if i didn't misread you), that China would be more concerned with the destable NK than NK developing even more bigger and powerful nulcar weapons. No, I don't think so. = I agree with some reservations because what you are implying is (if i didn't misread you), that China would be more concerned with the destable NK than NK developing even more bigger and powerful nulcar weapons. However, I I think ( and I am not challenging you in any way) that would rather have a destable NK and accept some NK refugees than have a NK with advanced nuclear capabilities. So the Chinese will once again show their pragmatic attitude and either absent from the security council voting on China -- or support the American led sanctions. "Foreign policy is out of necessity, not out of sympathy"-- we learn this in our IR 51 class, hoina ta poonte dai. Ideological allies have to be sacrificed to make sure your nation stays safe :-), ho ki hoina?

and to IMi

NK isuse is not only abot America--democrats vs. republicans.. its a matter of global concern. Why? And this is why-

If Japan decides to go nuclear it will cut down on its ODA (Official Development Assistance). That means our pyrao Nepal will be receiving less development aid. Since Japan is one of our largest donors, we will be directly hit by the shift in Japanese policy. Which means, we will not have government schools, health post running in villages, which in turn means, the anti-govt. forces getting more recruits... which in tur n means, well, you are in a college in the United States, you can think for yourself..

and if you are studying IR,

what Japan going nuclear means (although Shizo Abe has vowed to not to go nuclear) is it will trigger an (nuclear) arms race in Asia. Its not a good sign. And don't forget we live next to two nuclear armed countries.

Iso,

Some of the powerful and important members of the Alliance against NK, particularly China and Russia, seem convinced that NK's nuclear test was a threat, but not a major one, at least not yet. Given the dubious nature of the test itself and NK's incapacity to build meaningful nuclear weapons as of yet, I believe it will still be hard to bring particularly China on par with US' aspirations. We are already seeing differences among the nations against NK, with US having to concede on many levels to other countries in drafting the UN resolution. This is precisely the kind of seeming disunity among the countries against NK that I believe will abet a weak resolution, and implementation thereof, on sanctions against NK.

As of now, I believe China would be more concerned about millions of NK refugees on it's soil than the prospects of nuclear-armed NK, for reasons stated above.

If and when it becomes absolutely clear that NK is capable of producing meaningful nuclear weapons, then only, I believe, will the world stand firmly together in embracing strongest means to minimize the NK threat, not sparing the option of military intervention. Such is not the case now, though.

Poonte dai,

Rhetorics are deceptive.. I will not be so certain and interpret all the press statemests being released in Moscow or Beijing as brahma bakya. Both Moscow and Beijing despite their anti-washinton rhetorics have give a leeway to Washignton in the UN in many instances.

Its a wild wild world, if you want to live, take good care. In the Hobbessian jungle that we live in today (for a realist like me), its the question of survival and influnence that matter the most than "sauta ko reesh le poilai polne/marne.. of course Russia and China would not want a US dominated NE Asia, but they also don't want a nuclear armed NK. The question of effectiveness and power of nuclear weapons do not actually matter at this point. what matters the most is that whether you want it or not NK is a nuclear power, mero bichar ma..

Again I could be all mistaken too..NO one said we should be correct all the time. :=)

Again I could be all mistaken too..NO one said we should be correct all the time. :=) - we have to.. I am an ESL student hai/.

Isolated Freak,
I was just trying to analyse NK's status (military+nuclear) and its potential as a threat for other countries with the likes of US, SK, Japan, Russia and China. It's quite obvious that the shallow economy of NK mostly due to famine and draught during the ninties will not support them in the long run to solely fight against any of these nations, hence Kim Jong II have to make sure NK is seamlessly supported financially as well as morally to be able to stand out.

I don't think any of their allies will lend support to them if they keep on violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and/or stand by dubiously on their stance. However, China is not a big fan of US's hegemony and double standards. As of now, they are acting as a mediator between US and NK to solve the differences. Lately, China have asked US to not to bump into their internal issues, be it political, economical or bilateral relations with other countries. Because of China's position, the balance shifts towards NK hence US attack is out of question, even in the long run, unless China starts condemning NK blatantly, which is higly unlikely.

And no, I did not take and IR classes. I am a completely different major that deals with circuits and equations between nodes and not between different countries and their idealogies . :)

LooTe

hami ta india ra chaina ko bich ma chau hai .. tara ahile hami lai sabai tira bata nuclear weapon ko basna aauna lageko cha..

here we go...
india, pakistan, china,japan,korea,iraq,iran,isreal,russia.and many more...

eehehehe
I don't criticize US and UK for it.. but you know what none of the nation got the power to fight terrorism else these 2 country.. at first till today... then comes other folks... i mean other countries....