Friends, if you're like me you've been pondering the mess we're in with North Korea for a long time. It's by no means easy to figure out what we should do, because, whatever option we choose, it could (literally) blow up in our face. Nevertheless, I believe the time for action has arrived -- military action, if needs be. Here is my latest article (the long version). See what you think, and I welcome your comments and/or criticisms.
Time's Up for North Korea
Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy, Associate
Professor of History, SUNY Alfred, blogs at: waddyisright.com
For decades, North
Korea's hardline communist regime has flouted international norms and
international law, threatened its perceived enemies with terrible
violence, violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its
neighbors, kidnapped and assassinated foreign nationals, engaged in a
wide range of criminal activities, and built up its military,
including nuclear weapons and missile programs, in violation of U.N.
resolutions and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The North
Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, who embodies this national tradition of
iconoclasm and provocation, has repeatedly taunted the United States,
reveling in the possibility of turning U.S. cities to “ashes”
with his nuclear weapons.
Recent
pressure from China, which has been encouraging North Korea to
abandon its confrontational tone, as well as its nuclear and missile
tests, seemly has achieved nothing. The North Koreans are as
belligerent as ever, and their first test of an intercontinental
ballistic missile, conducted on July 4th
(so as to cause
maximum annoyance for the United States), confirms that they are
nowhere near backing down.
And
why should they? For decades, North Korea has thumbed its nose at
the entire world, and the response has been tepid, at best. In 2010,
North Korea sank a South Korean warship, and South Korea protested
but took no meaningful action. The U.S. reacted with similar
restraint when the U.S.S. Pueblo
was seized in 1968.
Over the years, North
Korea's nuclear program has invited condemnation and a progressive
tightening of sanctions, but for a country that enjoys attention,
even negative attention, and which engages in stunningly little trade
with other nations, these measures are more a demonstration of
international impotence than they are an effective set of
countermeasures. President Obama addressed this impasse with a
fruitless, toothless policy of “strategic patience,” which only
emboldened the North Koreans, and led them to escalate their rhetoric
and their military buildup.
This is the mess
that the United States finds itself in, and which President Trump
must somehow resolve. Acceptance of a nuclear-armed North Korea,
with the capacity to strike against U.S. cities, is an unacceptable
outcome, because Kim Jong-un's rationality is in doubt, and his glee
at the prospect of vaporizing American cities and their inhabitants
is palpable. The Soviets, by contrast, may have been ruthless, but
they were never reckless. One way or another, therefore, North Korea
must be disarmed of its nuclear weapons and its long-range missiles.
Since there is little prospect of achieving these goals by continued
posturing and issuance of sanctions, there are only two ways that
President Trump can make the world safe from North Korea.
The most
desirable outcome would be one that disarms North Korea peacefully.
The only way that this can be done under present circumstances is by
delivering an ultimatum to Kim Jong-un. For instance, President
Trump could demand that within 30 days North Korea will decommission
its nuclear reactor, hand over its nuclear weapons, welcome U.N.
nuclear inspectors, cease all work on long-range missiles, etc. in
return for prompt negotiations on a peace treaty to end the state of
war that still technically exists on the Korean Peninsula. In
effect, we would be proposing to legitimize and accept the Stalinist
regime in Pyongyang in exchange for enfeebling it militarily. My
guess is that such an ultimatum would only work if it was accompanied
by dire threats to use massive military force against North Korea if
it refused to cooperate.
The second course
of action that could result in the removal of the North Korean threat
involves direct military action. North Korea could be blockaded as
a preliminary step, but ultimately its nuclear and missile
development facilities, nuclear reactor, missile launching sites,
etc. would probably have to be destroyed by bombing. To suppress
their conventional retaliatory capabilities, North Korea's air
defenses and its artillery forces might also have to be targeted on a
large scale. The best case scenario would then be one in which the
North Koreans quickly realize that they have bitten off more than
they can chew, and to save their own skins they accept the demands of
the international community. They might even overthrow Kim Jong-un
and choose more responsible leadership. The worst case scenario,
however, would be one in which North Korea retaliates against U.S.
forces in the region, and probably against civilians in South Korea
and Japan. Although there would be no question of North Korea
prevailing in the ensuing conflict, and in my opinion very little
possibility of Chinese intervention, casualties could be high.
Understandably,
many in the U.S. and throughout the world are advising caution, given
the high stakes involved. The problem, though, is that caution and
forbearance have been the basis for policy towards North Korea for
several generations, and the North Koreans have gotten the message,
loud and clear, that they can do anything, to anyone, and get away
with it. President Trump faces such a difficult challenge in North
Korea precisely because previous U.S. and world leaders have been
unwilling to accept the risks of confrontation. Now we have no
choice.
President Trump:
avoid unnecessary bloodshed if you can, but above all face down the
North Koreans and eliminate the threat that they pose once and for
all. The alternative could be as apocalyptic as the darkest
fantasies that dart through the warped mind of Kim Jong-un.
