The unintended consequences of non-proliferation have been horrendous.
The torpedo that a North Korean submarine used to sink the South Korean warship Cheonan killed 46 innocent South Korean sailors. But it also just as surely killed the American policy, pursued for decades, for dealing with North Korea.
Since Clinton, the American and South Korean hope — and that's all it was, a hope — was that if we could just find some combination of incentives and disincentives, carrots and sticks, North Korea — perhaps prodded by its chief backers, China and Russia — would give up its program of developing nuclear warheads and missile delivery systems. The carrots included direct aid to North Korea, and negotiating with them (thus recognizing its status as a "great power"). Sticks have included various kinds of embargoes and sanctions.
All during this period, the North Koreans kept at their nuclear program, and kept improving their missile systems. All along the way, they were only too happy to sell technology to any other rogue state that cared to buy. And somewhere along the way, they got their bomb, and the missiles to deliver it to targets as far away as Hawaii.
All the while, we exercised our power under a 1974 treaty to block the South Koreans from developing their own nuclear weapons, which they could do rather easily. After all, they have 20 nuclear plants, and a tremendous technologically advanced economy. Also, our current mutual defense treaty prohibits them from developing guided missiles with a range over 300 kilometers. The result is that while South Korea's army and navy are more than a match for North Korea's, South Korea is powerless against the North's missiles and nuclear warheads.
Rather clearly, the American policy with regard to North Korea has now been revealed to have been based upon massive misapprehension at best or downright delusion at worst. It was misapprehension or delusion to suppose that the chief backers of North Korea, China and Russia, really cared to keep the North Koreans from developing nuclear missiles.
The Russians, who have also helped Iran develop their nuclear program and guided missile programs, benefit from the continued world turbulence caused by these rogue states — it keeps the price of oil higher than it would be otherwise. Helping the rogue states develop weapons also extends Russia's sphere of influence — and Russia wants nothing as much as the resurrection of the Soviet Empire. And by empowering the rogue states, the chances increase that one of them will successfully attack American interests or even America itself, which the Russians would love to do themselves directly but are deterred from doing by fear of war. If North Korea or Iran gave a nuke to a terrorist group, which in turn managed to get it into lower Manhattan, and destroyed our economic center, we would collapse economically. Russia then would find it easy to achieve hegemony over Europe and the nearby "Stans" (Kirghizstan and Kazakhstan).
The Chinese likewise benefit from a nuclear armed North Korea. It is an anti-American buffer state between them and South Korea, a reliable American ally. Moreover, the Chinese — no less than the Russians — have hegemonic, indeed, imperialistic dreams. The Chinese certainly want to be the dominant power in Asia. They helped Pakistan develop its nuclear missiles as a way to threaten their long-standing rival, India. A nuclear armed North Korea directly threatens not just the Chinese economic rival South Korea, but longtime military and economic rival Japan.
What would a new American policy on North Korea — one that is based on seeing reality as it really is, rather than what we dream it to be — look like? In essence, it should be a policy of empowerment for South Korea. This policy of empowerment would involve at least two concrete measures.
First, it would involve the immediate ratification of the U.S./South Korea Free Trade Agreement. This deal was negotiated under Bush, and would greatly enhance trade between us, the world's largest economy, and the South Koreans, the world's 11th-largest economy. This is compelling on economic grounds alone. But it also makes sense strategically: it would increase the ties between our countries, and increase the stature of South Korea in the region.
Of course, the key impediment to passing the free trade agreement is the opposition by protectionist Democrats in Congress and lack of support from Obama, easily the most protectionist president since Hoover.
Second, a policy of empowerment of South Korea would explicitly and publicly remove our constraints on South Korean weapons development. Let them start developing nuclear missiles as well.
This policy of empowerment will likely have one of two beneficial outcomes. One would be that, as South Korea tests ever more accurate missiles, Russia and China will calculate that they would be worse off with a new nuclear power allied with the U.S. close to their borders than they are now. In that scenario, both powers — especially China — would then force North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for the South Koreans halting their nuclear program. China might even allow re-unification, if North Korea then collapses economically, though that would still be unlikely — buffer zones are comforting things to authoritarian regimes.
The alternative beneficial outcome would be that the North Koreans keep their nukes, but realize that the neighbor they so delight in harassing not only has a superior army, navy and air force — but now has superior nuclear missiles as well. The North Koreans then would be less likely to arbitrarily sink their neighbor's warships — as they carefully avoid sinking our warships.
One might worry that in the few years it would take for the South Koreans to acquire advanced weapons, North Korea would become even more belligerent, perhaps even go to war. The likelihood of this scenario occurring seems remote. To begin with, any war would (by treaty) bring us in, and that North Korea deeply fears — remember, we still have plenty of nuclear warheads.
But an even more obvious point suggests itself. North Korea can hardly be more belligerent than it already is. The game decisively changed with the sinking of the Cheonan: this rogue state just sunk another nation's ship in open waters, unprovoked, killing a large number of sailors, in a naked, nay, flamboyant act of war.
Obama seems simply clueless with this crisis. In fact, he doesn't see it even as a crisis. He seems to be indifferent to the whole situation. Late word has it that he has dispatched the aircraft carrier USS George Washington to the Yellow Sea for joint maneuvers with the South Koreans. Such a limp response betokens impotence, which is a sure way to induce further aggression from the North Koreans. They seem now to have the feeling that they can do anything with impunity.
The policy of non-proliferation is dead, and it died years ago. It was well-intentioned: keep the club of nations with nuclear weapons a small one. But the unintended consequences have been horrendous. The only nations kept out of the nuclear club who could be there are the decent ones — the democracies, the non-imperialistic states, and the states most inclined to abide by international agreements. They stand naked before their enemies, while the North Koreas, Irans and Pakistans of the world build nuclear weapons with abandon.
Gary
When you say “and Russia wants nothing as much as the resurrection of the Soviet Empire” it makes me doubt your whole article. That statement may be true, but it rings with the cold war alarmism typical of the so called right wing. Maybe you could supply some references that support this assertion.
This article is just a bit on the chicken little side of things. These loser states possessing nuclear weapons only deters us from an actual invasion. It does not really help their international standing at all.
If any of these states were to actually USE a nuclear weapon, it would be over for them so fast it would be unbelievable. A non nuclear state has but to dial up the US, Britain or even France for retaliation. Any of these nations could trivially destroy the nations mentioned.
Nothing North Korea does is a “crisis” because Kim Jong is bat-shit crazy. He could do anything at any time. He could sink a boat and then do nothing. Or do nothing then fire artillery at Seoul. Or kidnap Lindsay Lohan and THEN fire artillery at Seoul. Or just have more plays written to talk about how great he is. There’s never a crisis with North Korea, because its always a crisis.
There is no point in criticizing “not being tough” with a nation whose leader doesn’t respond to logic. Who knows what the right move with North Korea is?
Gary
At the point when you first argue that the US should let the South Koreans develop nuclear weapons, then I have started to doubt your entire article.
You do not know geopolitics very well – If SK develops nuclear weapons, then NK would most certainly provoke all-out war since it would only be a matter of time when the balance of power shifts towards S. Korea if she developed nuclear weapons since SK would have superior firepower, tech, and nuclear weapons.
I cannot believe you would mention such an highly unlikely possiblity.
First; there are only @ 28,000 US troops stationed on the DMZ between North and South Korea. Not enough to function as much more than a ‘trip-wire’ if an incursion from the North ever happens.
Second; North Korea has enough conventional firepower focused on Seoul to turn that city into rubble before much could be done to interdict them.
Add to this the fact that the author stated; that having the rest of the region concentrating on North Korea gives Russia cover in its desire to reconstitute its empire and also makes it easier for China to throw its weight around in th4e region (i.e. Taiwan & Tibet).
If both South Korea and Japan were to take a more active role in their own defense, it would certainly give both Russia and China reason to re-think strategy.
I would advocate a ‘drawing down’ of forces over the next five years while assisting both South Korea and Japan in developing their defensive arsenals.
While all this does seem to make a degree of sense; I don’t think we can trust the current crop of the ‘gray pants’ crowd over at the State Department to pull this off. Indications are that the Obama Administration would be more likely to abandon the South to the North than to help stiffen their protective umbrella. Just ask the Israelis.
While all this does seem to make a degree of sense; I don’t think we can trust the current crop of the ‘gray pants’ crowd over at the State Department to pull this off. Indications are that the Obama Administration would be more likely to abandon the South to the North than to help stiffen their protective umbrella. Just ask the Israelis.
I think the US would be much more motivated to defend the South Koreans than the Israelis. The South Koreans are a much more important trade partner and face a much more dangerous situation than Israel. I would be really upset if the South Koreans were abandoned.
Martel 732,
First off; South Korea is not the only democracy in the region as Israel is in their region. Second; there are not several other nations that surround South Korea that have made the extermination of all South Koreans topic number one in the weekly sermons delivered from their mosques.
Bill
You call 93 degrees close? A quarter of the way around the globe?
First off; South Korea is not the only democracy in the region as Israel is in their region.
Ever hear of Turkey? Oh wait, Israel pissed them off too.
Second; there are not several other nations that surround South Korea that have made the extermination of all South Koreans topic number one in the weekly sermons delivered from their mosques.
All these nations combined are not as crazy as Kim Jong. He’s the threat. Besides, Israel is the one with the nukes in their little stand off and South Korea is FACING the nukes. Quit being Israel’s tool.
Turkey isn’t likely to side with the US against the rest of the Islamic nations in a situation involving Israel vs. the Arabs. Especially since they’ve had the opportunity to find out just how wobbly Obama’s backbone is. Israel is the only ally the US can count on in the region. As I sadi in a previous post; North Korea has enough conventional firepower pointed at Seoul blast that city to rubble before any other nation could make a move to stop them.
Granted, Israel has a much better chance of defending themselves against the second-rate Muslim nations; but that is because we’ve deliberately retarded South Korea’s ability to construct defensive weapons because of our Treaty to take over defense for them. This may have been a good decision in the fifties; but things change. South Korea should be allowed to develop missile technology beyond their current limit of 300 km and should be allowed to develop nuclear warheads as well. That is what would make both the Chinese and the Russians stand up and take notice. Then they would rein in their mis-behaving dog.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Rachel Alexander. Rachel Alexander said: Intellec. Conserv.: Time to Let South Korea Defend Itself http://bit.ly/bRlBYX [...]
[...] NewsA Capitalist Enclave in North Korea SurvivesNew York TimesGlobal Security Newswire -Intellectual Conservative -Xinhuaall 485 news [...]
[...] NewsA Capitalist Enclave in North Korea SurvivesNew York TimesGlobal Security Newswire -Intellectual Conservative -Xinhuaall 485 news [...]
[...] NewsA Capitalist Enclave in North Korea SurvivesNew York TimesGlobal Security Newswire -Intellectual Conservative -Xinhuaall 485 news [...]
[...] Time to Let South Korea Defend Itself « Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy Dora the Explorer Videos Check out these Dora the Explorer videos that you can watch online. Published in Koreas, Backers, Carrots, Cheonan, Decades, Embargoes, Incentives, Intellectual Conservative Politics, Missile Delivery Systems, Non Proliferation, North-Korea, Nuclear Warheads, Power Sticks, sailors, sanctions, South Korean, South-Korea, Submarine, Torpedo, Unintended Consequences, Warship [...]
[...] Intellectual Conservative | July 07, 2010 [...]