Trump and North Korea
Question: What elements of DIME (Diplomacy, Information, Military,
Economic) do you believe will gain the United States the most leverage in changing the current
situation with North Korea?
Leading Like a Gardener
Q. Do you agree/disagree with the concept of "leading like a gardener?" Explain your answer.
I think the author's ideas on economic solutions are the most realistic. Continuing to punish the DPRK with sanctions and (useless) UN resolutions will only keep our countries in their current path.
ReplyDeleteOffering to reduce sanctions in return for a reduction in nuclear development would be an excellent deal if it was possible. Creating a deal that brings the DPRK into the world marketplace would eventually lead to them being as dependant on foreign trade and investment as every other world power. The more they are dependant on those outside influences the more stable they will be. Right now, the DPRK is not dependant on the free world market so they have no incentive not to rock the boat.
However, I also think the author is looking at the DPRK with rose-tinted lenses. Kim does not want the protection of the US, he wants protection from the US. He has made it clear that he sees us as an enemy. Offering him military protection doesn't make sense, because it's not what he wants. I also think the goal of getting the DPRK to suspend development of ICBMs and nuclear technology is wholly unrealistic. No country that has developed nuclear weapons has ever destroyed all of their stockpile. Also, it is in our best interest for the DPRK to not have ICBMs, but not theirs. Their economy is growing and Kim's economic policies appear to be working, and that makes me think that the author failed to ask a critical question during their analysis: If the DPRK is not dependant on the world free market, is experiencing economic growth, and has a rising standard of living, why would they suspend development of ICBMs and nukes? If I were Kim, I would complete the ICBM program before starting talks so that I have a stronger position at the negotiating table.
Ultimately I think that reducing economic sanctions in return for better human rights, greater freedom for aid programs, and an opening of borders is our best course of action. Sure, we can put "no nukes" and "no ICBMs" on the table, but realistically, those are never going to happen.
I just learned that there was one country that developed and built nuclear weapons, and destroyed their entire stockpile. South Africa built 6 nuclear weapons in the 1980's and voluntarily destroyed them in 1989.
DeleteWhile interesting, learning this has not changed my opinions on how to handle the DPRK.
If the current measures are not making a difference then, in my opinion, I would say that other opportunities to build positive relationships should be pursued. I feel that it would be worthwhile to consider means of diplomacy as the author suggested. President Trump is in a great position to facilitate this. I agree with 1LT Sobel. I do not feel that North Korea would be as acquiescent in their nuclear affairs as the author suggests. I believe they see us as the enemy. There are several state economic powerhouses that surround North Korea. War would be felt worldwide. Obviously, to avoid it would be the best course of action.
ReplyDeleteThis article is so hard to get though. The diplomatic route (A.K.A. Appeasement) is very seductive. It is usually the course of action of academics and intellectuals. Unfortunately their Western Liberal Myopic thought does not comprehend the "Groupthink" of the North Korean Regime. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the intellectuals and academics claims that we can resolve this on political levels I leave you with a quote from Alfred in the Dark Knight:
"Some men aren't looking for something logical like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."
While this is not a simple situation, there are some relatively simple factors (assumptions) to keep in mind:
ReplyDelete1. Kim Jong Un is not crazy, he has a play book that his father and grand father used and the main endstate of that play book is to keep their family in power. Although there was a time that NK talked of reinvading the South and unifying the pennisula under one communist Gov., that time has past and NK is focused purely on survival of the Kim dynasty.
2. The North Korean Gov does not believe it can defeat the US & S. Korea in a war, but they also know that the US and S. Korea do not want to fight a war against N. Korea, so they can poke the Bear when they want our attention, as long as they don't attempt to kill the bear.
3. However, North Korea does know that if they cross certain lines (sell Nuclear Weapons to another country, use a ICBM or WMD against the US or a US ally in the region), the US and S Korea will fight back and the Kim Regime & the rest of the Gov will loose power. Thus, most experts believe that N Korea's Nuke program is strictly a deterrent (no matter what the NK Gov. Media says).
4. Although a war against NK is winnable, the cost of that war would cost S Korea Millions of lives and trillions of dollars. It would also cost the US 10s of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in trade, investments, and military expenses. Using the Diplomatic & Economic route might make us look like we are getting played by the North, but it is far less expensive in blood and treasure than an all out war.
5. North Korea has a history of getting what they want from us (the US and S Korea) and giving very little in return (1994 Nuke Power Deal, International Business Complex, SK Resort in NK). However, from 1994 to 2002, we had nuclear inspectors in NK who helped slow down NK's program and gave the international community a toe hold in NK.
6. If there are US military options that can intimidate NK into giving up their program without starting a full scale war, then great. However, most experts believe that the only situation in which they believe NK would use a Nuke on the US or a US ally is if NK truly believed that the US was going to attack the North. If this option is true, if we want to avoid a point of no return to all out war, the US and SK should only use the military option as the last result.
In conclusion, using Diplomatic efforts to increase dialogue and encourage the North to be more open can help. Using information operations with the NK Gov, the NK people, and the surrounding countries could cause the North to focus more on their economy and quality of life than prepping for a war with the US and SK. Finally, provide economic support, but insist on conditions that allow the outside world into NK in order to increase the probability of cultural diffusion of outside thought. The NK people with continue to follow the Kim family until they are able to hear and see how their are far better options in the world.
Finally, under no circumstances, should the US launch another pre-emptive attack on a country who has no intent to expand its borders or that could lead to another unnecessary all out war.
I appreciate the feedback everyone!
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most interesting about this article is that it was published approximately two months prior to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announcing the Trump Administration's policy toward North Korea. The two positions are remarkably similar. In many ways, I think this article gets at how the Trump Administration will be moving forward with the North in the months/years to come.
The Trump Administration has made clear that their stated position with North Korea is not regime change or the collapse of the North Korean government, but rather the de-nuclearization of the North. This focus creates the requirement for a different approach.
In terms of leverage with North Korea, I see the United States' greatest opportunities to be Diplomatic, Economic, Informational and Military, in that order.
It seems the primary reason the focus of the policy has shifted to denuclearization is that it provides the greatest opportunity for a diplomatic opening. The Chinese, Japanese, and South Koreans all agree that a nuclear Korean peninsula is not in their best interest. These partners are key to gain any kind of concession with the North, especially China. Additionally, announcing that President Trump himself would be open to meet with Kim Jong Un is a step not taken in any past administration and may provide an opening down the road.
The article makes a number of points regarding the potential for Kim Jong Un to be open to economic concessions made through diplomatic means. This provides a number of opportunities for the region as well as the North Koreans themselves.
Information regarding the focus on denuclearization will be key in ensuring that goal is not lost as diplomacy and economic incentives are pursued.
In terms of military leverage, this will always be the "backstop" of our effort, but in and of itself, it will never compel the North to denuclearize. As the article points out however, there may be some concessions that could be offered. The ballistic missile deterrent recently introduced by the U.S. in the South has given cause for concern to both the North and China. It make be a critical bargaining chip moving forward.
Despite all of these efforts, I do not believe that the North will ever actually denuclearize. I believe the best that the U.S. could do in the foreseeable future is to get nuclear inspectors on the ground and possibly to halt their nuclear and ballistic missile tests. While that's not achieving the goal of denuclearization, it would certainly be a step in the right direction leveraging the primary elements of power of the U.S. government.
Keep the comments coming!