creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Austin Bay
Austin Bay
23 May 2012
Greece: Mulligan Election, Mulligan Economy

Greece wants two mulligans — like a golfer demanding second chance, a do-over tee shot, times two. The … Read More.

16 May 2012
Chicago Summit: Showcase for a 21st Century NATO?

The last two decades have demonstrated that NATO's post-Cold War death notices reprised a classic Mark Twain one-liner.… Read More.

9 May 2012
China's Dilemma: Berlin Transition or Tiananmen Destruction?

The 23-year-old photograph is a stunning record of Chinese courage past and an insight into China's present … Read More.

The Korean War Continues

Share Comment

Why did North Korea lace a South Korean island with artillery fire this week, then threaten further escalation? Because sensational attacks are a vicious form of advertising that reap significant political and economic dividends. Deadly fits of violence followed by diplomatic tantrums advance the interests of North Korean tyrant Kim Jong-Il and his Stalinist regime.

Since the Cold War ended, Pyongyang has played a calculated game with South Korea and its allies, Japan and the United States. The North launches a military attack or terrorist foray, which is followed by vicious bluster.

As time passes and the blood cools, North Korea signals it is ready to talk and perhaps discuss the possibility of, oh, ending its nuclear weapons program? However, the North insists on incentives. South Korea, Japan and the U.S. are urged to provide economic and political carrots so North Korea will drop its military stick.

Consider the pattern over the last two decades. After his father, Kim Il-Sung, died in 1994, Kim Jong-Il threatened violence while conducting nuclear negotiations. The U.S. agreed to supply the North with fuel oil. In 1998, South Korea began its Sunshine Policy, which included support for business ventures. Yet the North continued to test ballistic missiles. In October 2006, North Korea detonated a nuke. The same routine of tantrum then talks followed.

2010 has been a big year for Kim's dangerous game. This past March, North Korea sunk a South Korean naval vessel and killed 46 sailors. South Korea considered a military response. Over the summer, tensions eased. This fall, the South shipped food to the North. Now artillery shells rain on a South Korean shopping center.

The game is obvious, yet South Korea and its allies have consistently rewarded Kim's armed tantrums with economic candy. Despite tough rhetoric, both Democratic and Republican presidential administrations in the U.S. have acceded to North Korea's extortion racket.

Four deep concerns give South Korea and the U.S. pause when considering military action to topple the Kim regime.

The global economy is a huge consideration. Kim's missiles target valuable economic territory. The destructive consequences of all-out war in one of the world's most economically productive regions, East Asia, are thus far judged too great to risk waging one. The possible use of nuclear weapons adds another grave dimension.

China's reaction is another concern. China does not want a war on its border. That is bad for business. North Korean refugees might flood China. But what would China's generals do if they see U.S. and South Korean armies (much less aided by China's historical enemy, Japan) advancing north of the DMZ? China is capable of responding with a range of economic, diplomatic and military efforts. The fact that Beijing, to its discredit, still supports North Korea's communist state is not a good indicator.

A dynastic change is brewing in the North. Kim Jong-Il has a favored son, but a war of succession involving other relatives and military factions is possible. The effects of an internal struggle are difficult to assess. The next generation may prefer negotiations, or it may be raw, obstreperous and more prone to desperate action.

A bitterly ironic consideration further tempers South Korean policy. It took West Germany a decade-plus to pay for East Germany's communist failure. Given the North's dismal poverty, it could take five decades to make the wretched place habitable. Many South Koreans do not want to bear that economic burden.

Yet North Korea intends to acquire a nuclear arsenal, and this week revealed a sophisticated enrichment facility. A nuclear strike on Seoul also presents South Koreans with a heavy economic burden, along with heavy casualties.

A terrible day of decision is approaching — the day North Korea deploys its nuclear warheads. The dangerous game then becomes more dangerous, and South Korea may no longer enjoy the luxury of avoiding war. Until that day arrives, North Korea's continued belligerence demonstrates that the allies' economic incentives are little more than acts of cyclical ineptitude. Rewards for murderous behavior must end. Let wealthy China pay all of North Korea's bills. Who knows, investment-savvy Beijing may finally tell Kim to quit wasting money on nukes.

To find out more about Austin Bay, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Why doesn't the West simply cut-off the food and fuel aid to North Korea? If the hermit state launches any further military provocation, let South Korea deal with the situation themselves. They have a standing army of something like 900,000 men (compared to the Norks' 1.1 million) and thanks to the US, the South has equipment 20 years ahead of the North's. The US, meanwhile, should simply call Kim Jong-Il's bluff. "Oh, you're going to fire more missiles, launch more artillery, etc, if we don't bribe you with more food and fuel? Try it, and find out the consequences." North Korea may have a few small nuclear weapons, but it knows that if it fires any of them, the US will turn the place into a parking lot. The Norks aren't stupid enough to trigger an all-out war, though admittedly sinking that warship was a pretty serious provocation - though it's interesting that the North still insists they didn't do that, rather than proudly claiming credit. While it's regrettable that the North Korean people would suffer more if foreign aid were cut off, doing so might have the desired effect of bringing down the regime from within. They wouldn't be able to feed their army or have fuel to conduct military activities, either. Let the regime starve. South Korea needs to make its own decisions on how to respond to the North's threats and bluster without the US treating it like a puppet state. It's long past time to get past the paternalist attitudes of the 1950s. The only other option I see is using economic and diplomatic means as leverage - not against North Korea but against China - aimed at getting them to put a leash on this pit bull.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Matt
Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:59 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Austin Bay
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

13 Apr 2011 Into the Fourth Era of Space Exploration

3 Jan 2007 "Look On My Works, Ye Mighty, and Despair!"

21 Feb 2007 The Real News Behind "The Surge"