North Korea, Koreas Update

On the North Korean front:

Nothing exciting to speak of as North Korea really is running out of things to do, firing missiles on July 4th has been done before and no missile came close to Hawaii. Kangnam I safely returned back to North Korea. But, what has recently begun appearing on the news is if the North Korean succession story is for real or just to grab Hillary Clinton’s (United States) attention. More on this later.

South Korea – Japan held a summit. Of course, nothing came of it since still the dominant relationships in East Asia are still the bilateral relationships with the United States. Of course, what should be interesting for Korean nationalists, whose national psyche or “han” has not fully healed yet, is how they react to the trilateral meeting between the United States-China-Japan that will be held shortly. Previous overtures by China on such a meeting were declined on the part of the United States to assuage South Korean insecurities. However, with the financial crisis the United States consented this time.

With this in mind, South Korea’s foreign policy priority number one should still solely be on unification and nothing else. Ideas such as being a neutral or balancing party (former South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun) or of building closer ties with ASEAN (South Korean President Lee Myung Bak’s New Asia Initiative) might seem great, but it’s just fanciful(wishful) thinking on the part of a confused half nation. This has been a repeated theme in this blog. Zhiqun Zhu writes:

“Korea's dream to become a leading player in international affairs will also likely be wishful thinking if the nation remains divided. Nevertheless, Lee, just like Roh, is commendable for his attempts to enhance South Korea's international profile and to contribute to peace and development in Asia” (South Korea in a new Asia initiative Asia Times).

China is NOT the key to North Korea

I'm actually in the middle of studying for a make up test later today, so I have a flight in a few hours, but this editorial caught my eye. To be honest, it’s flimsy editorials like this one that make me want to write this blog. I can’t find exactly who the author is, but somehow it made to the Los Angeles Times.

"North Korean leader Kim Jong Il decided long ago that nuclear weapons were his best protection against an external threat of regime change" ("China is the key to North Korea" Los Angeles Times).

A couple posts down, I describe why South Korea’s foreign policy is held hostage at least with respect to North Korea due primarily to the location of Seoul. But, what I didn’t mention in that post was how while the United States could attack North Korea without much risk to being attacked at home, U.S. foreign policy too is held hostage to the fact that there are still about 28,500 U.S. soldiers in South Korea. An invasion by North Korea with or without nuclear weapons would not only destroy Seoul, but kill most of those U.S. soldiers overnight. Former President George W. Bush was told this exact same thing by former Saudi Ambassador and Crown Prince Bandar (Check out Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III ). If twenty thousand U.S. soldiers died overnight from a North Korean invasion, then there would be no need for a congressional or public debate about the need for a U.S. invasion of North Korea. It would be done (Another reason why as I wrote earlier that Extended Deterrence was solely for propaganda purposes).

If North Korea has artillerly that can flatten Seoul and kill 28,000 thousand American soldiers and about twenty million living Koreans overnight, then this should be enough to protect against a "regime change." Then which country would have the most to lose if North Korea actually developed a full-fledged nuclear program? So, it’s not the U.S. and it’s definitely not South Korea. Japan, maybe? Recall the United States decision to notify Japan only twenty minutes before taking North Korea off the list of states sponsoring terrorism. The only terrorists North Korea actually harbored were those of the Red Army (Communist Japanese Terrorists). And, moreover, if Japan feels it “necessary” that to protect against North Korea that Japan too needs nuclear weapons, when of course, the country doesn’t (remember, Extended Deterrence covers Japan as well), then who loses?

China.

So, if China would lose out the most if North Korea developed nuclear weapons and China is not doing too well as the more North Korea backtracks the more China’s lack of power shows (i.e. failure of six party talks, continual and unending foreign aid from Beijing), then does China really have the power to do anything in North Korea?

Perhaps. But, what if North Korea had let’s say dozens of nukes that couldn’t go thousands of miles, but could fit on its Rodong missiles that could hit Beijing?

So, no. It is to protect the North Korean regime from a China rather than a United States and China does not have the power to change North Korean policy and will see the country’s ability to do anything at all get smaller and smaller as North Korea’s nuclear program matures.

Anyways, I will be taking a break for a few days – unless I see articles like this again, and I will actually be flying on July 4th with more than a slight bit of irony to London to attend summer school there for the next 6 weeks.