What should we do about North Korea?

[KRC]

How about NK provoking something with Japan, claiming some type of Japanese assault, 

and arranging a limited strike on JPN without the ROK involved. The Japanese would probably respond with something limited-including a submarine blockade of NK.

 

This type of standoff could be used to recentralize power in NK and enflame anti-japanese sentiments across Asia.

 

Some amount of US cooperation with JPN would be a plus for the NK.

 

This would not be a nice senario for the US.

612975[/snapback]

 

They could attempt to claim Japanese assault, but how many people are going to buy it? The Japanese position on non-preemption would be a tough sell to the outside world. I know that some members of the Japanese Parliament want to change that and increase the Japanese military capabilities, but that would require a constitutional change, correct?

[X. Benedict]

They could attempt to claim Japanese assault, but how many people are going to buy it? The Japanese position on non-preemption would be a tough sell to the outside world. I know that some members of the Japanese Parliament want to change that and increase the Japanese military capabilities, but that would require a constitutional change, correct?

612992[/snapback]

Article IX. yes.

 

I am not saying that they could sell it. But what would be most important would be the domestic reaction in NK and ROK - and then China's prattle about US hegemony. No I don't think it would be a perfectly rational act, but then it is NK we are talking about.

Edited February 27, 2006 by X. Benedict

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

They could attempt to claim Japanese assault, but how many people are going to buy it? The Japanese position on non-preemption would be a tough sell to the outside world. I know that some members of the Japanese Parliament want to change that and increase the Japanese military capabilities, but that would require a constitutional change, correct?

612992[/snapback]

 

Correct. Japan pretty wholeheartedly abandoned militarism post WWII...the idea that they'd suddenly up and attack NK isn't going to be bought by too many people.

 

However...it's likely to be believed by the people the DPRK wants and needs to believe it, which I think is the more important point. The North Koreans don't feel particularly compelled to make sense to us, just to themselves.

[stuckincincy]

How?

612971[/snapback]

 

KJ whatever made a mistake. Got into the world stage - the world noticed. He exposed his cadre to outside influences. A bit of rust at the bottom of a fender slowly travels; not always making the metal fail, but the overlaying coating begins to be compromised. One day, it falls off, in quick fashion. Some substantial metal remains.

[KRC]

Correct.  Japan pretty wholeheartedly abandoned militarism post WWII...the idea that they'd suddenly up and attack NK isn't going to be bought by too many people.

 

However...it's likely to be believed by the people the DPRK wants and needs to believe it, which I think is the more important point.  The North Koreans don't feel particularly compelled to make sense to us, just to themselves.

612999[/snapback]

 

If all KJI needed to do was convince the North Koreans, he could have attacked years ago. The problem he has is convincing countries like China that he needs to launch the attack.

[X. Benedict]

If all KJI needed to do was convince the North Koreans, he could have attacked years ago. The problem he has is convincing countries like China that he needs to launch the attack.

613005[/snapback]

 

I don't think they could. It would have to be something as quick as blowing up a few frigates, or something where they acted without Chinese knowlege in an immediate response to some fabricated trasgression.

[KRC]

Article IX. yes. 

 

I thought it was something like that, but I was not sure.

 

 

 

I am not saying that they could sell it. But what would be most important would be the domestic reaction in NK and ROK - and then China's prattle about US hegemony. No I don't think it would be a perfectly rational act, but then it is NK we are talking about.

612997[/snapback]

 

There is no problem selling it to the DPRK populous. They have already bought into the rhetoric about the Japanese and the U.S. being monsters. The ROK is a different story. While there is the hatred of the Japanese, I do not see them buying into a Japanese pre-emptive attack on the DPRK. They would buy a U.S. pre-emptive attack, but not Japanese. China is a different animal. They know that Japan would not strike first. The problem is convincing them that the U.S. did not order the strike. I would think that we would consult with China before launching any attack and I think the Chinese know that. Once the stuff is in the air, though, all bets are off and it is going to get pretty ugly.

[KRC]

I don't think they could. It would have to be something as quick as blowing up a few frigates, or something where they acted without Chinese knowlege in an immediate response to some fabricated trasgression.

613018[/snapback]

 

That is always a possibility. Something small. More to provoke than to create a lot of damage.

[X. Benedict]

That is always a possibility. Something small. More to provoke than to create a lot of damage.

613022[/snapback]

I think a provocation that intends to produce some type of standoff, draws additional US military assets into the theater, with the intentional of exploiting any riffs this may create.

 

Most Japanese believe that the SDForces have the right to respond to, but not initiate war. Such an act of agression would result in some type of Japanese reponse (they have some surprising capabilities), but most likely would result in a blockade of everything but humanitarian aid, the freezing of all N. Korean assets, (which are considerable in Japanese banks), and some right wing rhetoric. (which the Koreans would try to exploit).

[Mickey]

I think a provocation that intends to produce some type of standoff, draws additional US military assets into the theater, with the intentional of exploiting any riffs this may create.

 

Most Japanese believe that the SDForces have the right to respond to, but not initiate war. Such an act of agression would result in some type of Japanese reponse (they have some surprising capabilities), but most likely would result in a blockade of everything but humanitarian aid, the freezing of all N. Korean assets, (which are considerable in Japanese banks), and some right wing rhetoric. (which the Koreans would try to exploit).

613041[/snapback]

Would China really buy any of that?

[KRC]

Most Japanese believe that the SDForces have the right to respond to, but not initiate war. Such an act of agression would result in some type of Japanese reponse (they have some surprising capabilities), but most likely would result in a blockade of everything but humanitarian aid, the freezing of all N. Korean assets, (which are considerable in Japanese banks), and some right wing rhetoric. (which the Koreans would try to exploit).

613041[/snapback]

 

Therein lies a contradiction. Here is the exact wording of Article 9:

 

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

 

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

 

On its face, having the forces is a violation of the Constitution (at least Article 9). I know that there is a movement afoot to change this, but just maintaining any sort of military force is a violation of their constitution. Their Supreme Court said that they can maintain a "self-defense" force, but not everyone is buying that interpretation.

 

As far as the blockade and freezing assets, that is plausible and highly probable. They will have the U.S. make any sort of military gestures.

[X. Benedict]

Therein lies a contradiction. Here is the exact wording of Article 9:

On its face, having the forces is a violation of the Constitution (at least Article 9). I know that there is a movement afoot to change this, but just maintaining any sort of military force is a violation of their constitution. Their Supreme Court said that they can maintain a "self-defense" force, but not everyone is buying that interpretation.

 

As far as the blockade and freezing assets, that is plausible and highly probable. They will have the U.S. make any sort of military gestures.

613102[/snapback]

I think the last politician of any stature that advocated the strict position was Tomiichi Murayama, who was elected Prime Minister in a coalition government and backed off the strict Socialist party interpretation.

 

The Japanese are highly adept at systematizing any such contradictions. They are a pacifist country with a kick ass Navy.

[Pete]

interesting North Korea video-

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1UORlYm69k&search=korea

[Scraps]

Here are possible scenarios to address the DPRK nuclear situation and my opinions of each option.

 

DIPLOMACY

Continue with multi-lateral discussions

IMO, the best move. There are signs of real progress here. I know that people do not like Bush’s foreign policy, but I have to say that Bush has handled this situation beautifully. There have been a few stumbling blocks, namely with a few things Condi Rice has said, but overall things have progressed very well. Unfortunately, success/failure of this situation will not rest with Bush, but with the next administration. Long-term solutions need time. Bush is going for a long-term solution. This will take things into the next administration. I will be paying very close attention to the presidential candidates to see how they would handle the DPRK issue.

 

As I mentioned, Bush is looking at the situation long-term. The first 3 years was dedicated to correcting the mess created by the previous administration. The DPRK knew that all they had to do was throw a hissy fit and the U.S would bribe them to keep quiet. Then Bush took office and the attitude drastically changed. With previous U.S. foreign policy moves, they thought that they could just make things ugly and the U.S. would not have the spine to see things through. Bush proved them wrong, but it took a while for it to sink in.

 

As the DPRK realized that they were not going to receive bribes to keep quiet, they needed to make some modifications to their tactics. The fundamentals remained the same, but overt tactics needed to change. Everything they tried to toss at the U.S. failed to some degree. The only thing they really had going for them was the ROK. As discussions progressed and the DPRK ratcheted up the rhetoric, the ROK became more afraid of what the DPRK would do in retaliation. As a result, the ROK took a few pages from the Clinton administration and started tossing bribes towards the DPRK in hopes that it would spare them. As usual, the DPRK took full advantage of this and are raping them. The end result of the ROK bribes: the DPRK asking for more. This is what they do. Once they receive one concession from their opponent, they continue to press for more. If the answer is no, then they turn up the rhetoric to instill fear. If that does not work, they threaten to walk away from negotiations. If that does not work, they actually walk away. The DPRK just needed the fear angle to get the ROK to cave. They still have plenty of room to work on the ROK.

 

Currently, most of the negotiating partners are on the same page. They all want a resolution to this issue and they want it done diplomatically. They do not want military action, they do not want sanctions by the U.S. and they do not want the U.N. involved. The differences remain in how far things go to get the DPRK to comply. All realize that the Agreed Framework was a failure. The ROK is scared and they are the weakest of the negotiating partners. Special attention needs to be paid to them to keep them on board. China is growing more intolerant of the DPRK and has stepped things up. Russia has been quietly supporting the U.S. position, as long as sanctions are not applied. Japan has been firmly on the U.S. side, including the use of sanctions and referral to the U.N. There have been a few differences in opinion from Japan, but they are solidly behind the U.S.

Switch to bi-lateral discussions

Bad move. It failed under Clinton and will continue to fail under any other administration. You need the strength of the multi-lateral discussion format in order to put the DPRK in their place. What you may gain in speed to an agreement will be drastically undercut by the speed at which the DPRK will break the agreement. The talks in 1993/1994 and the Agreed Framework are a model of how not to negotiate with the DPRK. See above for why you need multi-lateral instead of bi-lateral discussions.

Abandon the talks and use other methods

Other methods here include PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative), UN sanctions, U.S. sanctions and anything else I cannot think of at the moment.

 

PSI-There have been real successes with this program and it is making things more difficult for the DPRK to conduct their business. It has not stopped everything, but the program is still pretty young. Give it a little more time and you will see it become more effective, especially as more countries sign on.

 

U.N. Sanctions – This will never happen. The U.N. has already shown that they do not have the guts to address this situation. When it was mentioned a few years ago, all the DPRK had to say was “any action by the United Nations will be considered an act of war.” After that statement, the U.N. could not run away fast enough. Even if the U.N. were to take this topic up, China would veto any action, thereby making the U.N. useless and irrelevant on this matter.

 

U.S. Sanctions – The U.S. needs to be careful here. They can very easily tick off the other negotiating partners and lose their support. This would have to be the last option and it would take a while before things would get to this point. As I mentioned, China is growing tired of the DPRK and wants this to end. At some point, they will support more drastic measures like sanctions, but not now. If China bought into it, then Russia will buy into it. Japan is already on board. The problem gets back to the ROK. I do not see them ever supporting sanctions relating to the nuclear program. They did support the sanctions over the money laundering and counterfeiting, but they do not support it over the nuclear program. They want to stick with diplomacy and bribes. Hopefully, they will see the light soon. They have already shelled out billions to the DPRK in bribes with no effect. They cannot afford to give them much more.

MILITARY ACTION

Pre-emptive strike on nuclear facilities

The ROK has stated that they will not support any military action against the DPRK. Polls have been conducted in the ROK and most of the young people in the ROK would support the DPRK if the U.S. were to strike the DPRK. You would lose the support of China and Russia. Japan would probably support this, but they would want security assurances from the U.S. before signing off on anything. Any strikes against nuclear facilities in the DPRK would result in retaliation against the ROK and/or Japan. Of course, any retaliation against either of those two countries would suck the U.S. into full-out war.

Full-out war with North Korea with the U.S. striking the first blow

I cannot see anything positive coming out of this move. The DPRK will strike back with everything they have (nukes, chemicals, bio-weapons, etc). They will not roll over like Iraq. This will be extremely bloody and nasty. As mentioned previously, the ROK will not support any military action against the DPRK. Japan will not support anything without security assurances. China would fight against the U.S. Russia would probably stay out of it for a little while, but would get sucked in and fight against the U.S. Basically, the ROK and Japan would be decimated by the DPRK.

MISCELLANEOUS

I think I covered the main options, but feel free to add anything I may have missed. My personal preference is to combine multi-lateral discussions with PSI. During the multi-lateral discussions, bi-lateral sidebars work. From the beginning, the DPRK wanted bi-lateral discussions only. The reasoning is that this puts them on an even negotiating plane with the U.S. This is obviously not a good thing. Having bi-lateral sidebars gives a small concession to the DPRK, while still keeping the DPRK on a lower negotiating plane from the U.S and the other negotiating partners.

 

Sanctions relating to the nuclear program will cause strife with the other negotiating partners. The U.S., however, has used sanctions for other issues. Currently, the U.S. is imposing sanctions for money laundering and counterfeiting of U.S. currency by the DPRK. This has gained support from all other partners (including the reluctant ROK). Even China has stated that the DPRK cannot try to tie the current sanctions to the nuclear talks.

Thoughts?

612478[/snapback]

 

Military options are out of the question as long as we are bogged down in Iraq, unless the administration takes a radically different stance and builds up our military by few divisions.

 

The multi-lateral discussions seem best but I see it as little more than kicking the can down the road. Nothing substative has really come from this course of action.

[KRC]

Military options are out of the question as long as we are bogged down in Iraq, unless the administration takes a radically different stance and builds up our military by few divisions.

 

The multi-lateral discussions seem best but I see it as little more than kicking the can down the road.  Nothing substative has really come from this course of action.

613514[/snapback]

 

Agree on the first point, strongly disagree on the second.

 

First point: there is no question we do not have the capabilities for military action at this time. That does not, however, prevent us from talking about possible options. Since diplomacy is working, there is no need to advance things to the military options.

 

Second Point: I strongly disagree about progress with the multi-lateral talks. When they first started, the partners were not all fully on board. They saw it as more bluster from the Bush administration. Now, all partners are on the same page regarding the goals. The problem now is how to achieve those goals. The ROK seems to be the last holdout regarding getting tougher with the DPRK. The rest of the partners have grown tired of the DPRK and want to step things up a little (even China). Long-term solutions take time. The process has been moving in a positive direction for a while now and real progress is being made. Just because no deal has been signed does not mean that real substance has not been achieved.

[Scraps]

Agree on the first point, strongly disagree on the second.

 

First point: there is no question we do not have the capabilities for military action at this time. That does not, however, prevent us from talking about possible options. Since diplomacy is working, there is no need to advance things to the military options.

 

Second Point: I strongly disagree about progress with the multi-lateral talks. When they first started, the partners were not all fully on board. They saw it as more bluster from the Bush administration. Now, all partners are on the same page regarding the goals. The problem now is how to achieve those goals. The ROK seems to be the last holdout regarding getting tougher with the DPRK. The rest of the partners have grown tired of the DPRK and want to step things up a little (even China). Long-term solutions take time. The process has been moving in a positive direction for a while now and real progress is being made. Just because no deal has been signed does not mean that real substance has not been achieved.

613523[/snapback]

 

As long as DPRK is free to enrich uranium and develop a bomb, I find little solace in most of the partners coming to believe Bush isn't just blustering. What progress has really been made?

[KRC]

As long as DPRK is free to enrich uranium and develop a bomb, I find little solace in most of the partners coming to believe Bush isn't just blustering.  What progress has really been made?

614791[/snapback]

 

China was staunchly in the corner of the DPRK. They are now on our side as long as it does not involve sanctions. We have kept Russia on our side. Japan has stayed on our side. This pressures the DPRK into backing off of their current stance and it has worked. You cannot proceed until minsets are changed. Mindsets have been changed. People who were against us are now with us and helping to achieve common goals. I see that as major progress.

 

The U.S. was seen as the stumbling block to everything. That is no longer the case. It is now extremely apparent that the DPRK is the one holding things up. China has even admitted as much and have been pressuring the DPRK to live up to the agreement from September. All partners (including the ROK) see that agreement as progress and are blasting the DPRK for failing to live up to the agreement. This isolates the DPRK even more and applies more pressure on them to comply.

 

Again, long-term solutions require time. This is why I am extremely interested in the 2008 elections as they will determine future courses of action on this issue. This issue will last beyond 2008. Even though Bush would like to see a resolution before he leaves, he knows that it probably will not happen.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Thanks, gents, for an enlightening and non-flame-ridden thread. Keep up the good work.