Joshua Micah Marshall thinks about Bush Administration policy toward North Korea over the past two years, and bangs his head against the wall:
Posted by DeLong at January 05, 2003 10:40 AM | TrackbackTalking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: ...The White House called the Clinton policy craven and dishonorable. That policy was essentially to pay the North Koreans to behave and hope that in the medium-term a better solution -- perhaps a soft landing in the North -- would arise. Not pretty certainly, but it was a difficult situation. The Bushies told the North Koreans that they either had to shape up or we'd take them out. Now the North Koreans have called our bluff. And the administration -- as signalled by Powell's comments over the weekend -- has caved, enunciating a policy which is now substantially more dovish than the Clinton policy.
Tough talk sounds great until your opponent calls your bluff and everybody sees there's nothing behind the trash talk. Then you look foolish. That's where we are right now with North Korea. As Nelson says, no doubt the NKs are the bad guys. And this is an extremely complex problem with no easy solutions. But the Bush administration has pursued a keystone cops policy on the Korean Peninsula for two years now, mixing think-tank braggadocio with feckless inconstancy. Now we're all going to pay the price...
North Korean strategy is simply to drive the largest possible wedge between the United States and South Korea. When Washington was trying the macho solution to all of the world's problems and Seoul was embracing the Sunshine Policy, the North saw inflamming the Americans as a useful ploy. For awhile, this worked splendidly, as US-South Korean relations deteriorated sharply, with the Americans looking increasingly warlike and the South Koreans hoping for peace.
The appropriate US response to further North Korean attempts to inflame tensions by polishing off Pyongyang's nuclear program was standing down from its aggressiveness and aligning its approach to the North with South Korea's approach to the North--which we seem to be doing.
The first American policy--mindless machoism--was indeed problematic. The current US approach--aligning with South Korea--is appropriate. Let's not lose sight of this while we lament the first policy error.
Posted by: Jim Harris on January 6, 2003 06:23 AMRegardless of whose fault the North Korean problem is, I wonder if China isn't getting a sizable geopolitical lift. China took a serious regional knock when al-Qaeda's attack against the US pushed Pakistan squarely into the US camp, with some of Pakistan's neighbors falling in, as well. Putin seemed to realize this very quickly, and made a virtue of necessity, supporting the US war on terrorism pretty much whole-heartedly.
Now, China has the chance to win back some lost ground. To the extent that North Korea is anybody's client state, it is China's. If the US wants to pressure NK, China can help. China is pretty smart about these things. What price will China ask for help in keeping a nuclear-capable nut-job from making enough nukes to (as Tom Friedman suggests in Sunday's NYT) use a few and sell a few?
Russia seems in a vaguely similar situation as regards Iran, though providing technology rather than a protective mantel. We don't seem to be making much headway there, despite the obvious risks of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Posted by: K Harris on January 6, 2003 08:46 AMOw! Pardon the weak editing job on the prior post.
Posted by: K Harris on January 6, 2003 09:18 AM