« Five Years | Main | Civility »

October 12, 2006

North Korea

With the recent test of a North Korean atomic device (it is still in question whether it was a nuclear device or not, as well as whether or not it was a fizzle), the North Korean situation is the big issue on the international scene. Slate's Fred Kaplan has listed four possible outcomes of North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons, all of them dire. In these grim times, the course of action for the United States seems very clear: get out of the game.

At first glance, this idea may seem crazy. Kim Jong-Il has the bomb; who knows what he'll do with it? As Kaplan points out, North Korea with nuclear weapons creates the possibility of a lot of bad things. Kaplan's four possible outcomes are as follows: Kim might sell nuclear devices to the highest bidder; this could spur an arms race in southeast Asia, as Japan and South Korea go nuclear and China, India, and Pakistan all expand and improve their arsenals; Iran will see North Korea's success as a tacit admission that, should they get the bomb, they will be untouchable; the region might descend into war. None of those outcomes is particularly good, but none of them are necessarily as certain as Kaplan suggests.

Could North Korea sell nuclear devices to terrorist groups? Certainly. The hermit kingdom is already a pariah, and it needs money badly. A few nuclear devices could raise a lot of money. On the other hand, selling nuclear devices is a bit more likely to draw unwanted attention than doing, well, just about anything else (other than using nuclear devices, that is). Let's posit that Kim Jong-Il wants to survive, a thesis that should be reasonably uncontroversial. If North Korea sells al Qaeda an atomic bomb that subsequently detonates in an American city, what are the odds of Kim surviving to celebrate his next birthday? Even as proliferation continues apace, the number of sources for a nuclear detonation are limited. It seems safe to assume the bomb would not have come from the arsenals of Britain, China, France, India, or Israel, as they all maintain good security over their weapons and none of them have any reason to provide nuclear weapons to a terrorist organization. Russia does not guard its stockpiles as well as it might, so there is some chance of al Qaeda getting a device there. Pakistan could conceivably provide a device to an Islamic terrorist group, but Musharraf certainly would not countenance that, and the ISI seems smart enough to know not to cross that particular line. That only leaves one culprit. And while Kim is many things, I think he is smart enough to know that any bomb he sold to a terrorist group would become his death warrant. It is by no means certain that he wouldn't risk it, but I think it is far less likely than people might believe.

An arms race in southeast Asia would be a bad thing, if it happened, and it is in our best interests to prevent that. But escalating tensions in the area could produce that outcome just as surely as North Korean possession of a few nuclear devices. Japan and South Korea would only develop their own nuclear arsenals if they believed they required them to counterbalance the North Korean arsenal. The best way to prevent that is to reduce the threat of the North Korean nuclear weapons by reducing tensions in the area.

Iran is certainly a problem, but allowing a fear of how Iran will view our actions to dictate a decision on North Korea would be foolhardy. Ultimately, the only way to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal of its own is by bombing them thoroughly enough to destroy their technological base. This would result in at least tens of thousands of deaths, and probably many more. Smaller attacks might delay development of an Iranian nuclear weapon, but it is difficult to say by how much, and such attacks would both spur Iran to work harder to obtain their own weapons and would induce them to strike back at the West via increased terrorism. Assuming we are not willing to wage all-out war on Iran ,our only options are to negotiate with Iran to induce them choose not to continue developing nuclear weapons, or learn to live with an atomic Iran. It is unlikely that our actions with North Korea will change this calculus.

The threat of war is a serious one. But I think it is less serious a specter than people believe. There are only five nations that could theoretically initiate a war on the Korean peninsula: China, North Korea, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. I think we can very safely rule out China and Russia, and be pretty confident that South Korea doesn't want to start a war that would devastate them either. That leaves North Korea and the United States as potential instigators. If North Korea starts a war, it will lose, and Kim Jong-Il will either die or end up in hiding or in jail for the rest of his life. If the United States starts a war, North Korea will lose, and Kim Jong-Il will either die or end up in hiding or in jail for the rest of his life. North Korea, therefore, has a number of very good reasons not to actually start a war, or go so far as to push the United States into starting a war. Therefore, as long as the United States does not overreact, I think we can discount the threat of war.

This is not to suggest that North Korea having nuclear weapons is not a bad thing. While I think the scenarios I have outlined above are accurate, there is no way to be certain that Kim might not, in fact, be insane, or stupid enough to push the situation over the brink. And, as our own experience with nuclear weapons during the Cold War reminds us, it only takes one error for things to get very bad, very fast; nuclear weapons remove a lot of the margin for error when it comes to crises.

Nevertheless, I think that we are better off accepting the risks of a nuclear North Korea than doing something that will, with certainty, kill many thousands of people. And I believe there are some steps we can take in order to reduce tensions and the risk of any of the bad scenarios from occurring.

First, let's get out of Korea. American troops have been stationed in South Korea for more than fifty years. There was a time when that was necessary, but that time has long past. The ROK Army is quite capable of dealing with North Korea in the case of open hostilities, particularly long enough for us to move forces back to the peninsula in the case of open war. Pulling all American forces out of South Korea would remove a perceived threat to North Korea. To us in the United States, the idea that Kim might be concerned about an American invasion may seem crazy, but from his perspective, seeing those troops on his border along with the memory of the conventional battle for Iraq are probably quite enough for Kim to consider an American invasion a real threat. By getting our troops out of South Korea, Kim might prove a bit more tractable on other issues. It would also remove our troops from harm's way, preventing Kim from using nuclear weapons to make them virtual hostages.

Next, let China, Japan, and South Korea take the lead in negotiations, with the United States agreeing to back their decision. Our goal in Korea should be stability. An agreement that gains the support of the three directly-involved parties would almost certainly achieve that goal while allowing the powers who are directly affected to play the key role. China, in particular, wants to be at least a regional superpower; letting them take the lead on the North Korea issue would give them a chance to demonstrate their ability to do so. Due to strained relations between those parties, the U.S. could not wholly disengage from the process, but defering to their goals and suggestions would not only increase the chances of a regional settlement, but would help build some better diplomatic bridges between the U.S. and those powers.

North Korea wants attention. They tried to get some last summer by launching a near-ICBM, but that test failed. Now they're trying again with this nuclear test. Rather than reward them for their foolishness, the U.S. should back off and leave this as a regional problem. Make it clear that use of North Korean nuclear devices, even by third parties, will result in massive retaliation, get our troops out of the line of fire, and let the regional powers work out a deal. It's about time the United States step away from the role of world policeman and shift gears to becoming a partner with allied nations without always having to be the senior partner.