Well, as I'm sure many of you will be profoundly not surprised about, North Korea has admitted it's got nukes. North Korea has suspended the...oh so successful...multilateral negotiations being touted by Dubya, et al, during the elections as the solution to this problem. This "outpost of tyranny", as Ms. Rice put it during her confirmation hearings, has stated its nukes are to protect itself against a US attack.

1. Does this revelation represent a failure in US foreign policy for North Korea? What might this imply about US foreign policy in general?

2. In light of recent "incursions", do you believe North Korea is justified in being afraid of US attack?

3. South Korea continues to state that it is unacceptable for its neighbor to the north to have nukes. If so, what does "unacceptable" mean?

1. Does this revelation represent a failure in US foreign policy for North Korea? What might this imply about US foreign policy in general?

This failure has gone back a decade. It was the US that provided the technology to North Korea. We trusted them not to use it to build bombs. We trusted them to use the technology to help the people of North Korea. We were foolish.

2. In light of recent "incursions", do you believe North Korea is justified in being afraid of US attack?
What incursions? North Korea launching a missile across the bow of Japan?

The US doesn't want a ground war (or any other kind of war) with North Korea. However, the US will not leave itself vulnerable to attacks from that country either. And given the evidence that North Korea has already sold this technology to other countries (including Libya), there is a huge proliferation angle here.

North Korea is being led by a madman who starves his own people so that he can build up his military. He is paranoid beyond words. It is North Korea bringing us to the brink of conflict.

3. South Korea continues to state that it is unacceptable for its neighbor to the north to have nukes. If so, what does "unacceptable" mean?

Diplomatic mumbo jumbo. Obviously, South Korea is in no position to do anything about it. The US has been protecting that country for 5 decades. The South Korean government obviously hopes that the US will stand with them, as we have for these many years.

The world needs to get together and remove Kim Jong Il.

Forget the whole nuke issue. How can a whacko nutcase be allowed to run a country and torture and murder innocent people??

Imagine if a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer was allowed to run a country?

It's totally unnaceptible.

If I had the funding, resources, and any chance of success, I'd personally go over there and take out that Kim Jong Il bastard.

The United States, China, Japan, South Korea, the Easter Bunny, or anyone else willing to take any action against the evil North Korean government has my full support.

1. Does this revelation represent a failure in US foreign policy for North Korea? Well, we didn’t want N Korea to obtain nuclear weapons, and they have. This would indicate we failed to stop them. It does not indicate that we necessarily had a feasible choice in the matter.
What might this imply about US foreign policy in general? Uh....That we don’t always get what we want? I don’t think there was anything we could have done differently, by the point Bush first stepped in to office, that would have prevented the DPRK from obtaining nuclear weapons. He likely had them in the 90s. Kim didn’t even stop his nuke program after agreeing to a 5 billion dollar light-water reactor deal to do so in 1994. If the world turned a completely blind eye to the starving and simply let the population die without aid whatsoever, that might have had some impact. Of course, if the UN had issued sanctions, it might have made a difference too.

2. In light of recent "incursions", do you believe North Korea is justified in being afraid of US attack? The US removed all forces from the DMZ, and is actively in the process of withdrawing 20,000 from the south korean peninsula, mostly from Seoul. Troops do not typically withdraw in preparation for aggressive attack. Of course, Kim could interpret a withdrawl as preparation for attack (he has stated as much publically). He could also kidnap his favorite south Korean actress and keep her a prisoner for eight years (which he did). He might kidnap Japanese beachers for their language skills, or order an attack on a south Korean boat on the same day he sends a letter to their president congratulating them on their World Cup performance. He could swig 600 dollar a bottle cognac while over 2 million of his people starve, and use our food aid to feed only his army. What we do (correct or incorrect) does not necessarily have anything to do with what Kim thinks. He has displayed demonstrable irrational tendencies in the past.

3. South Korea continues to state that it is unacceptable for its neighbor to the north to have nukes. If so, what does "unacceptable" mean? I don’t know. I’d guess that by unacceptable they believe that nuclear weapons in the hands of a government which has aggressive and schizophrenic tendencies, and very likely has an elaborate system of underground tunnels (four have been discovered) dug all the way through Seoul, is a dangerous proposition for them.

1.Does this revelation represent a failure in US foreign policy for North Korea? What might this imply about US foreign policy in general?
No. Nothing but N. Korea wants something for nothing.

Have you ever looked at how we got where we are with this nuclear stuff? It was in the Clinton administration the nuke deal was made. Check this out we give N. Korea 33 trillion barrels of oil and they give us the key materials to make a nuclear bomb. Guess what? We delivered the oil and the ships came back empty. The stuff for nukes was packaged and ready to be removed but the ships came back empty. Clinton’s Sec. Of State even went there personally giving more stuff to N. Korea and the ships came back empty with the stuff needed to make the bombs setting on the docks. It is a very good read and if you doubt I will get the links but the whole mess of N. Korea and nukes was a state department failure of the Clinton administration. I mean they could have hauled the stuff away on the decks of empty tankers as we dumped billions of US tax dollars of oil into N. Korea. It was packed and ready to be sent to a destruction site and oil kept going and the nuke stuff kept sitting on the docks that were the reason for the oil to keep coming.

2. In light of recent "incursions", do you believe North Korea is justified in being afraid of US attack?
Are you speaking of the missile firing over the ocean near Japan? N. Korea has always been provocative.
3. South Korea continues to state that it is unacceptable for its neighbor to the north to have nukes. If so, what does "unacceptable" mean?
Nothing, S. Korea would prefer N. Korea didn’t have nukes. S. Korea has a conventional army capable of taking out N. Korea at any time it should care to. The very old and the young college students would like nothing more than a reunification of the N. and S.

1. Does this revelation represent a failure in US foreign policy for North Korea? What might this imply about US foreign policy in general?


I agree that this failure goes back 10 years (that's why I wrote US foreign policy) . Keep in mind, however, that light water reactors cannot create weapons grade fissionable material (which was the Clinton era solution). Let's be honest though: North Korea's intransigence is playing out now under Dubya all while warning signs were there to see.


You may be right, Mrs. P. However, I'd still like to believe that sufficient engagement would have prevented this. Or rather, I'd like to believe that had a fear of being invaded not had some justification (Iraq) that North Korea could have been reasoned with. If North Korea's acquisition of nukes were indeed inevitable, then I wonder why there was any attempt at diplomacy at all.

2. In light of recent "incursions", do you believe North Korea is justified in being afraid of US attack?


You're just being coy with me, aren't you Amlord?


I agree with you all the way up to the last sentence. I think the US plays some role here in exacerbating North Korea's already ample paranoia. You think being labeled a member of the "axis of evil" and the US invasion of two countries in the past 4 years doesn't have something to do with this?


Both you and Amlord seem to emphasize Kim Jong Il's irrational behavior. While I don't dispute that he has displayed irrationality, I think in this case his behavior is quite rational. He fears invasion and wants a deterrent. He wants a place at the bargaining table. He wants to be in a position of power. What better way than to have nukes? It is a supremely rational decision -- a megalomaniacal decision but rational nonetheless.

3. South Korea continues to state that it is unacceptable for its neighbor to the north to have nukes. If so, what does "unacceptable" mean?


So you're basically saying that South Korea is toothless. I agree with this. The logical next question is: does the US think it is "unacceptable"?

1) I don't know what it says about US policy in general - it seems to me that the US has generally adopted different strategies for different situations. The multilateral talks were probably the best choice to make, but in the case of somewhere like North Korea, choices are necessarily constrained.
Yes, it is a failure in that North Koreas has a bomb, which no-one wanted. However, I think China has far greater cause for regret than the US, as China has always exerted most control in the region and did not do enough to prevent North Korea going nuclear, something it has always stated it does not want.

2) If you mean Iraq and Afghanistan, then no. Again, the US takes different paths depending on the situation. Invading North Korea involves fighting an army composed of 1.2 million North Koreans. It involves alienating many South Koreans, who will object to seeing North Koreans being killed by Americans. It risks a military confrontation with China - and the few military confrontations between the US and China have generally been pretty horrendous.

3) 'Unacceptable' means that South Korea will have to consider developing their own nuclear technology, if they haven't already. Alternatively they could just do what North Korea did and buy a bomb or two from someone else.

I think a more important lesson from all of this is that the NPT doesn't work and that all our attempts to prevent nuclear proliferation are not going to work. Depressing and pessimistic, I admit, but perhaps this will encourage everyone to engage a bit more in diplomacy (under the old assumption that the politest towns are the ones where everyone has a gun!).....perhaps

I think if he's rational, he likely noticed our troop movements AWAY from his country, and our military preoccupation elsewhere. Kim has been working on a nuke program since before the 80s. This isn't new. It's hard for me to buy that he was acting in desperation due to our recent 'incursions', when we had nukes in south korea pointing at him only 14 years ago. Surely the situation was more "desperate" then? We removed the nukes in exchange for NK’s declaration that it would sign a safeguards agreement. Very shortly after (I think just the following year) the IAEA discovered they were receiving incorrect data, and there was evidence of subterfuge. The DPRK never intended to honor its promise. There is over 30 years of subterfuge here. The Soviets gave them four reactors to begin with, but only if they signed the NPT. They signed it, received the reactors, and didn't comply with the inspection policies.

The biggest problem with all of this of course is not simply that Kim has nukes, but that Kim will sell the nukes. THe MAD doctrine only works when (stable) countries hold the button. There is no such effective detterent for a terrorist bomb arriving not by missile but special delivery.

You mean can the democrats start taunting..we told you so we told you so? That does after all seem to be their defining role in foreign relations as of late.

North Korea basically did this last year "North Korea did not comment on the alleged admission that it possesses nuclear weapons. In the past it has denied similar US reports, merely stating it has "the right" to have such weapons.
link
Does not seem like much has changed. I think the current failure in resolving this issues lies with many parties. I don't understand the push for bilateral talks because I don't feel this is only America's problem to deal with.



Thank you Ptarmigan this is the heart of the failure isn't it? Obviously we can see the NPT is not working as both North Korea and Iran were signees of it. We can also see that the UN's enforcement of the NPT is a failure too. In regards to North Korea over a year ago ...The IAEA passes a resolution demanding that North Korea readmit UN inspectors and abandon its secret nuclear weapons programme "within weeks", or face possible action by the UN Security Council. And nothing has happened in the UN..no action has been taken. On Feb of last year..The IAEA finds North Korea in breach of nuclear safeguards and refers the matter to the UN security council. Still nothing.
link

I feel the nuclear situation with North Korea is so clear cut..far more than it is with Iran and even with a situation such as this..where NK is a clear and admitted violater we have taken no course of action and the NPT seems to be meaningless.

This is what North Korea threatens us with the most..complete admission on the world stage that the NPT is a failure and nuclear proliferation can too be in your future!

I think we need to all step down from negotiations and at least try to give the NPT an opportunity to work. Take NK to the UN....we have delayed it long enough.

Be careful here. Just because China said they didn't want it doesn't mean that was the case. How does China suffer if N. Korea have the bomb? Personally, I think it benefits them. Since they are perceived as the country with the most influence on N. Korea....with N. Korea being a bigger threat, this raises China's importance in the matter. It's not like N. Korea would even think of threatening China with it. There is a potential downside for China, in that now N. Korea is probably less manageable.



Invading N. Korea is not a preferred solution at all. Basically, military options are out..except in response to N. Korea attacking S. Korea. A long air campaign, like what was used to soften up Iraq, wouldn't work....N. Korea would simply immediately attack S. Korea...and probably successfully. We simply couldn't get the needed manpower and equipment there in time to stop it. N. Korea is a MUCH different situation than Iraq...the two should not be compared.




Yes...capitalism and free markets trump treaties every single time. If someone wants something and has the ability to pay for it...someone will eventually give it to them. It's simply a matter of time. The good news, as you say, is that maybe is will make everyone more apt to get along....one of the reasons N. Korea probably found willing sellers is because of anti US sentiment amongst them.

Indications from China's foreign policy over the last decade suggests that it favours peaceful economic growth in the Asian region and has deployed around 150,000 of its soldiers along it's border with North Korea after concerns about imminent economic collapse there. China is not concerned about North Korea attacking it, but it does not want to see armed conflict in it's part of the world. Controlling North Korea is not easy and controlling a nuclear North Korea even harder. And controlling a nuclear North Korea in the middle of an economic meltdown would be particularly difficult!
And as for raising China's importance in the matter? I wouldn't have thought they needed it, they are already recognised as the regional superpower.

And, well, can China really assume that North Korea wouldn't threaten it with a bomb? The thing is, no-one has an effective defence against a nuclear missile strike (as yet), so if North Korea really didn't care about the consequences, then it could stike at a couple of Chinese cities, sure - Pyongyang would be obliterated and the country invaded - but they could still kill a lot of Chinese people first.

First off, regarding N.K.’s admission they have nukes – well, like DUH!!

Does this revelation represent a failure in US foreign policy for North Korea? What might this imply about US foreign policy in general?

A year and a half ago, there was speculation that the US was the big roadblock to negotiations with North Korea.


South Korea also felt that the US needed to compromise.

But, we all know the president does not feel the need to compromise with anyone. I felt at that time we ignore North Korea at our peril, and the chickens have come home to roost. What if the administration had made some efforts to sit down with NK and hammer out an agreement? Alienating and ticking off a whacko like Kim Jong Il is a dangerous thing to do, particularly with his nuclear capability. There was a time when it was possible to ameliorate the crazy leader. That time might well be past. In 2002, supposedly NK declared a willingness to satisfy all U.S. security concerns in direct talks. I guess they were turned down.

So, yes, it can be considered a failure. I think the US has to be a lot less arrogant and a lot more diplomatic. Pardon the expression, but the "cowboy" mentality is a century out of date.

On a lighter note, Rice’s response that the US would have to “consult our allies” cracks me up. Wasn’t one of the big attacks on John Kerry about the same thing? I think Bush’s said something like this: "Senator Kerry says that we need a permission slip and consultation with our allies before we defend ourselves. We don't need any permission slip". Cheney used the term “permission slip” frequently and with scorn.

In light of recent "incursions", do you believe North Korea is justified in being afraid of US attack?

Yes, of course. As I’ve stated before, past behavior determines future acts.

South Korea continues to state that it is unacceptable for its neighbor to the north to have nukes. If so, what does "unacceptable" mean?

It means they’re scared poopless? If you had a heavily armed, psychopathic neighbor, wouldn’t you be just a tad apprehensive?

1. Does this revelation represent a failure in US foreign policy for North Korea? What might this imply about US foreign policy in general?

From reading all of the posts, I agree with Amlord here. Our policy towards North Korea has always been a failure. We either offered them something in exchange for not builting nuclear weapons or believed that through islolation they will just give up. Obviously, neither strategy has worked. Kim Jong-IL is a man that cannot be trusted and in my opinion, you can't negiotate with a mad man. With that said, if we look at the consequences of allowing North Korea to continue to build nukes, we are staring at a confrontation that is inevitable and tragic.

However, the Bush adminstration's double standard policy of attacking Iraq and ignoring North Korea, who has flat-out said they have Nuclear weapons, is a failure in itself. According to the Bush doctrine we should be loading up missles and preparing to attack, but when faced with a real problem it goes to the backburner.



2. In light of recent "incursions", do you believe North Korea is justified in being afraid of US attack?

North Korea isn't afraid of the US, they're plyaing this bully vs nerd game with the rest of the world. They are actually daring the Bush administration to come and attack them with their rhetoric. If the US decides to pursue sanctions against North Korea, then the North has already said that would be an act of war.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/22/koreas.un/




3. South Korea continues to state that it is unacceptable for its neighbor to the north to have nukes. If so, what does "unacceptable" mean?

Good question, why is it acceptable for the US, China and Russia to have nukes?
I don't understand the logic the US and other countries use when they say its unacceptable for other countries to have nukes, but ok for us, China and Russia.
All I can say is, there is a lot of hypocrisy going here with the US attitudes toward North Korea vs. Iraq. A lot of it.

Well, in an ideal world (for the US) only the US would have nukes. In a similarly ideal world for my country, only Britain would have nukes!

In terms of real politik, those who have nukes want to retain the monopoly on nuclear capability. It is okay for China and Russia to have nukes only because they went ahead and got them, regardless of what the US (or anyone else) would like.

Even so, it is still in everyone's interest that the number of nuclear countries is as small as possible, simply because it reduces the risk of nuclear warfare.

Besides, Saddam Hussein or Kim Jon Il were/are not accountable to their populace. US administration is...IMO this makes an American government far less likely to use a bomb offensively (i.e. first) than the old Iraqi government or current North Korean one.

NK declared its "willingness to satisfy US security concerns" at least 20 times in the past 10 years. Each time it either backed out or did not fullfil its obligations. This has been a giant stall tactic. DPRK never intended to relinquish its nuke program, hoped to get many goodies while obfuscating (and did!), and fully intends to use nuclear blackmail to its utmost advantage now that it has admitted to having them.

2. In light of recent "incursions", do you believe North Korea is justified in being afraid of US attack?

With George Bush at the helm, I can understand why they're worried, although building nukes will just make them seem like more of a threat to America.

3. South Korea continues to state that it is unacceptable for its neighbor to the north to have nukes. If so, what does "unacceptable" mean?

It makes sense for South Korea to not want North Korea to have nukes. If you're living next to a potential attacker, you want them as weak as possible. When they say "unacceptable" I doubt it means they're planning on taking any direct action against North Korea's nuclear capabilities

We'd been down this path already, and look where it got us. I believe Bush was correct in refusing to have unilateral talks with N. Korea. Such an agreement would never be enforceable, as N. Korea would have no pressure to comply. In fact, violating such an agreement would likely result in them getting more 'stuff' to come back to compliance. So, this path had no forseable desirable outcome, unless you were willing to place blind faith in Kim Jon Ill's goodwill. If so, please provide any reasoning as to why that would be a reasonable assumption...nothing in his past that I'm aware of indicates that such trust would be well-placed. So, to answer your question directly...if they had done that we would have:

1. Allowed a belligerent country to scare us to the negotiating table, setting a dangerous precedent, and encouraging others to become nuclear..
2. At best, produced a completely unenforceable document, and one that would be setting the table for future 'blackmail' for compliance.
3. Excluded both the parties most directly threatened (S. Korea and Japan) and those most able to assure compliance (China).

I really don't see the benefit of that at all. Bush made the proper call...one that in fact repudiates the 'cowboy' image, as a 'cowboy' would be the very one who would have gone ahead with unilateral talks and handled the issue without any other input.

Not to be belligerent, but what other option is there? More sabre-rattling? More stubborn "I'm not gonna until you [whatever]"? War? It would seem we're at an impasse. Granted, maybe the US can't do anything in regards to North Korea; but making arrogant, smart aleck remarks like calling them part of an "axis of evil" and an "outpost of tyranny" is hardly conducive to solving the problem.

I believe such statements do have a purpose. I think we can all agree that the solution to this issue cannot rest on North Korean cooperation, because there is none.

The attempts to characterize DPRK's government (which by the way are pretty darn accurate) are shock treatment to unite the world against them. American officials feel that if they can communicate the horror of the Korean regime our allies would stop playing this game of treating the situation as if North Korea's actions were somewhat justified.

They were not, the build-up must have started before any mention of the "axis of evil" and we have made rather public moves to de-escalate the situation including the withdrawal of large numbers of troops.

Two things can fix this, overwhelming international pressure or war.

Current language from the administration are an attempt to mobilize the former.

1. Does this revelation represent a failure in US foreign policy for North Korea?

Yes, but there's no surprise there. I don't believe the USA is actually capable of excellence in diplomacy anymore. Its my understanding that the art of diplomacy requires a higher level of empathy than the current US establishment understands, or is capable of.

I believe that the USA (& Europe too) have become prone to buying solutions to problems rather than making mutually beneficial deals with diplomatic counter parts.

Or in more brutal words, we've all been screwing other countries for so long we've forgotten that we're actually raping them.


What might this imply about US foreign policy in general?

What indeed? Its amusing that when he worked at ABB, Donald Rumsfeld was one of the men who gave nuclear reactors to North Korea.

The implication is, that no matter how big, bad and hard core you are... the world is a lot bigger.


2. In light of recent "incursions", do you believe North Korea is justified in being afraid of US attack?

Yes. Because if North Korea was not so overwhelmingly aggressive and paranoid, then it would have been attacked already. Its their understanding of how America would respond if they weren't strong thats led them to developing their nuclear muscle.


3. South Korea continues to state that it is unacceptable for its neighbor to the north to have nukes. If so, what does "unacceptable" mean?

It means that South korea is probably doing all it can to get its own nuclear arsenal in order to defend itself.

Better get those GI's out of the place ASAP

I think this is a misunderstanding, North Korea still isn't strong in terms of withstanding an American attack. Certainly no stronger than they were before the announcement. It is not America that they pose a direct threat to but South Korea and Japan.

If we did not care about said allies, the US could lay waste to North Korea with impunity.

So why worry? I mean if we don't invade they pose no threat right?

Wrong, we now have an impoverished dictatorship with incredibly dangerous tech they can sell off to the highest bidder.

Nor is this development a direct response to US action, the progress is the program indicates DPRK has been developing these weapons long before Bush came to office. They knew precisely what they were doing. Making a bargaining chip for more economic aid/benefits while holding South Korea hostage. All while they neighbors to the South defend their actions and seek after peace.

...this is an ugly one alright.

Well every superpower has made a few big mistakes..especially during the cold war. Passing out nuclear information to those China felt would help dilute America's own nuclear power in Asia is China's biggest.
I think you are both right in a sense..NK would not dare threaten China directly but she is threatening China's own relationship with the US with all this nonsense. Also this does in a backwards way benefit China because it gives her a little more weight on the bargaining tables with the US and she does have a few issues in debate with America (Taiwan, and arms embargo) but not if NK continues the way she has been.



In that artilce you linked to it also says.. The Chinese official rejected a view held by some members of the Bush administration that North Korea's main goal was to possess nuclear weapons.
Maybe China was wrong about her speculations ?
Also that article is over a year old and China has taken a strong stance against NK recently..hinting that some in China are tiring of this relationship claiming NK is ungrateful, disruptive and poorly governed. I loved reading about it.
Article May Signal Shift in China-North Korea Relations




It is just words..sticks and stones..I think actions matter more. How is this less conducive or even more provocative then how the past admin handled NK? Wasn't it in Clinton's reign that the US was accused of carrying out simulated nuclear strikes against North Korea? Did the past admin make any attempt to show a desire to demilitarize the Korean peninsula? Exactly which American president did feel the need to compromise with NK?

I still advocate the US doing nothing right now in regards to NK. Take a holiday..everyone needs a vacation from the grind now and then. Stop stepping up to the stage and playing the international muscle and allow the international community to do their job.

I'm sorry to be catching up late with this debate... anyway, here's my take on the topic :

1. Does this revelation represent a failure in US foreign policy for North Korea? What might this imply about US foreign policy in general?

I don't think we can talk of failure at this point. I mean, what evidence do we have that the N. Koreans aren't bluffing? I may be utterly wrong, but it seems to me that they came about with the idea because they're running out of arguments in the current negociation that's taking place.

Perhaps they've sensed that they won't obtain what they want unless they appear more dangerous than they are. I'm sure you've all heard of animals using this tactic in order to save their own life when confronted with predators - this is called intimidation.

The eye of the media has been focused a lot on the Middle East lately, as many diplomatic missions have too. N. Korea is afraid to be 'forgotten' by negociators, or considered only like a secondary objective. And if they're secondary, they'll win less from the negociation!

N. Korea is very isolated among its neighbors. No one stands on its side (maybe Cuba?). It can only rely on itself now. If the quarrel between the US and N. Korea was only ideological, the two parties would never have agreed on trading technologies against oil in the first place. No, I believe N. Korea is trying to get a little more from negociations, to prevent the regime from collapsing totally.

Diplomats have to be just a little more patient. And stay firm. N. Korea is about to fall.

2. In light of recent "incursions", do you believe North Korea is justified in being afraid of US attack?

Like it has been said before, the US is obviously removing its troops from South Korea, which goes against the idea of an invasion of North Korea, at least in months to come. Now, in his address to the nation, Bush made it clear that N. Korea belongs to the few 'tyrant' regimes that the US will keep watch of.

Now, if N. Korea has nukes and decides to use them, what would happen? They're likely to be struck by nuclear fire themselves... that would be a dangerous strategy for a regime that's desperately trying to stay alive, wouldn't it?

They could have the bomb and decide not to use it. They could choose to sell it to Al'Qaeda instead to get the money they need. But once again, if this is known, they loose their power in the negociation. It's doesn't seem very likely to me.

3. South Korea continues to state that it is unacceptable for its neighbor to the north to have nukes. If so, what does "unacceptable" mean?

Maybe they don't like the idea of N. Korea having nukes if they don't! More seriously, I believe they would say something like that to calm their own public opinion down.

1. Does this revelation represent a failure in US foreign policy for North Korea? What might this imply about US foreign policy in general?

Yes. Just a few months ago during the Presidential campaign, G.W. Bush specifically rejected the idea of bilateral talks with North Korea, all but ridiculing his opponent John Kerry for suggesting it. He adamantly promoted the idea of multilateral talks, and now North Korea asserts that it has nuclear (not "noo-q-ler"*) weapons and is unwilling to engage in multilateral negotiations with China, Russia, etc. So Bush's strategy obviously didn't work.

What is the United States to do now?


2. In light of recent "incursions", do you believe North Korea is justified in being afraid of US attack?

How is a country to feel when the leader of the Free World labels it as "evil" and says that evil must be eradicated for democracy?

3. South Korea continues to state that it is unacceptable for its neighbor to the north to have nukes. If so, what does "unacceptable" mean?

If the hostile country to the north of you has powerful weapons that you do not possess and there are regular, edgy confrontations on the border you share, why would you not consider it unacceptable?

But I suspect that South Korea calling the situation unacceptable will not have much impact at all on the situation.

*Unless you pronounce nucleus "noo-q-luss" as well.

Such an enlightened and useful post, PE. You've managed to reduce a discussion of a truly important and dangerous issue into a joke about President Bush's diction, or lack thereof. Good going! Nice representation of the left side of the aisle lately. And they wonder why they are the minority party........



Not to step on the punchline here, but it might be useful to interject a little history into this debate, specifically about what happens when the US and NK engage in "bilateral talks". There's a rather extensive timeline laid out here. One will notice there are a number of agreements that were negotiated between the US and NK throughout the 90's, including one "deal" reached by Jimmy Carter. One will further notice that while NK was signing agreements and making promises, they were breaking them right and left. Plain and simple, Bush was right, bilateral talks don't work, they haven't worked and they won't work. I think a big reason for that is that US sanctions don't really hurt NK very much, we're hardly a big trading partner of theirs. Their only real support comes from China. That makes China a key partner in any negotiations with NK. NK breaking their word with the US isn't a really big deal to them, but if they get the Chinese angry with them, that's a whole new matter.



Well, it's not the country that's been labeled "evil", it's the "government" of Kim. And he is. His government is one of the most oppressive and viscious regimes on Earth. Now, I suppose PE would have us believe that saying something along the lines of "Kim isn't really such a bad guy, he just lacks a sense of fashion" would make all this go away? Suddenly the lights would go back on in NK and the people would dance in the streets?

It seems to me that China is really the key to all of this and the US should be spending the majority of our diplomatic efforts working with them on this problem. It is in China's best interests to do this, this problem directly impacts their region of the world, moreso than the US. A nuclear conflict in that region would devastate China's economy and any progress they've made whether they were directly involved or not. Not that it would be real healthy for the rest of the world either, but to that region.......

Look at a map.....

Probably a lot of better ones than this one, but it suits the purpose. NK has long range artillery and other weapons' systems massed on the border with the South. As one can see from the map, within easy range of Seoul. A first strike from NK could pretty much level Seoul and throw the South into chaos, and that's a conventional strike, not a nuclear one. So, one must ask themselves why does NK think they need nukes? What are they going to use them for? Against the US in case we respond to an attack on the South? Not likely, not directly anyway, their ability to reach the US is questionable at best. Against Japan? Why? Japan isn't going to retaliate against them for an attack on South Korea. Japan doesn't have nukes.

So, why does NK need a nuke? Certainly not for their own defense, that's not going to help them if they devastate the South.

Two answers come to mind.......

Number one - Blackmail. They are a backward country, the economy and infrastructure is in shambles, their system bankrupt. No sign of it getting any better anytime soon, especially not under Kim's rule. So, they ask for assistance from China, Japan, the US in return for them not destroying a few billion people and the world's economy. Crazy I know, but consider who we're talking about.

Number two - Commerce. I wonder how much a nuke is worth on the world market. I bet quite a lot. Why not sell them, make a little cash, keep Kim in his jammies. Heck, they could even offer them to the US with the idea that they could sell them to bin Laden if we didn't pay for them and that takes us back to number one.

So, despite PE's quite clever jokes about the way President Bush talks, I think this problem is a little more serious than that. I would hope that at least some on PE's "side" in Washington would agree with me and work on this as a non-partisan issue. Frankly though, not holding my breath.

Touched a nerve there, I take it.

I will continue to characterize Bush as the person he projects when he is not being so closely handled, Aquilla. This ex-governor from Texas had no foreign policy experience before he became President, and I do not see any evidence of statesmanlike diplomacy on his part. He has alienated traditional allies while jumping into a war with inadequate, indeed scurrilously inaccurate information, even when the CIA told him that the uranium plot was bogus. We are clearly not talking about a great mind or a diplomat here, a man who said of Gail Sheehy, "That woman who said I have dyslexia, I didn't interview her."

But you're right--just because the nation didn't choose the brightest puppy in the litter is no reason to lay the blame exclusively on Bush's doorstep.

Now let's talk about another Republican in power. Didn't Donald Rumsfeld grant nuclear technology to the North Koreans and it wasn't just Jimmy Carter who was willingly taken in by these guys? Seems to me that is part of history as well. And now Rumfeld is the War Secretary--excuse me--that's now called the Secretary of Defense, isn't it?

My fear is that George W. Bush will continue to brazen it out until a button is pushed somewhere and a few hundred thousand people are vaporized. This man was being accurate if not P.C. when he called his effort a "crusade," and he has exploited the jingoism in this country to back his cause. No matter that the military is spred so thinly that there are U.S. soldiers being shipped away from South Korea for what looks like Bush's next pre-emptive strike on a middle east nation, Iran. Bush will have his way, negative consequences be damned. He has the fervor of an Ayatollah in this regard.

Yes, I will continue to diss the President for his inability to correct himself on the small things, let alone the big ones. The President fancies himself a Reagan type, but there are big differences. He does not possess the charm or the intellect, and his so-called mandate is nowhere near what predecessor Reagan had. But he figures God is on his side (I don't remember who said that it's not that God is on our side, but that we hope we are on His side!).

When a politician so light on diplomacy skills, so credulous, and heretofore unwilling to meet with his anti-terrorism chief decides to practice brinksmanship with a paranoid leader with nukes, I worry. I worry especially when his Secretary of State is an ideologue who echoes his every sentiment and does not provide alternative viewpoints. This man has surrounded himself with yes men and women, and this does not bode well for our country.

It might well be that this country will be attacking North Korea if things do not go well. You made the distinction that it is the leader, and not the people of Korea, who is evil. Rhetorically speaking, it is good to draw that distinction. However, JUST WHO do you think is going to die if and when George W. Bush decides to rid the world of one more tyrant? The little people who are always the victims.

Rumsfeld "granted" nuclear technology to the North Koreans? Er.... Bill Clinton was the President at that time, his administration negotiated the deal, PE. You claim Bush has "handlers", what in the hell does that mean about Clinton? You thinking Rumsfeld told him to make the deal? Rumsfeld sat on the board of a Swiss Company named ABB which won a contract to supply North Korea with parts for two light-water reactors as part of the deal negotiated by the Clinton administration with NK.

Here's the "truth" about this...... (At least as far as Rumsfeld's relationship with ABB is concerned)

So now this is Rumsfeld's fault.......

Ok. trying to get back onto the topic here....

As I said previously, I think China is the main player in all of this, not the US. They are most likely happy to sit on the sidelines on this one of the US caves, but I don't think we can allow that to happen. If there are going to be any bi-lateral talks in all of this, they should occur between the US and China.

So let's consider for a minute what China will do (or Russia) if North Korea doesn't decide to play along with them, as Kim Jong-Il and Company have recently said they won't:

So what does China do? Invade North Korea? Will that make South Korea any safer?

Why is it in the best interest of the Chinese to oppose North Korea selling nukes to the Islamic fascists? Is it any skin off their nose if the terrorists attack the United States with these nukes?

But I did have an epiphany of sorts about it--perhaps Bush feels that he and his people could not negotiate successfully with Kim Jong-Il; therefore it would be logical for him to leave that to China, Russia, Japan, et al. If that is Bush's rationale for the multilateral talks, then I should probably commend him.

It is a perilous situation. I'm sorry if you felt that I was treating it too lightheartedly based on my criticism of the President's verbal skills, Aquilla.

(An aside: I just figure that a man (so far) who occupies that position should have an impressive resume, a clear service record, erudition and eloquence. Apparently 51% of the country didn't care enough about these things for it to make a difference. This week, my daughter was tested on the countries in Africa and made 100% on her sixth grade Social Studies test. She knows more about these countries at her age than Bush did when he was running for President in 2000.)

1. Does this revelation represent a failure in US foreign policy for North Korea? What might this imply about US foreign policy in general?

NK says it has nukes, and we've suspected this for years. So far, I've not seen any reports about an NK nuke being tested, so I'm assuming that the viability of the alleged weapon is theoretical. Computer models simulate testing these days, so most nukes are theoretical weapons. That probably puts pressure on the international community to do something nice for NK.

Don't think this would be failure as much as business as usual.

What does it say about US foreign policy? Not much -- it was NK's move, and now the ball is in the US court. What happens next will say something.

2. In light of recent "incursions", do you believe North Korea is justified in being afraid of US attack?

The question is to the liberation of Iraq, I'm assuming. Sure, any nation is justified in being afraid of a US attack since it has happened, and the Bush Doctrine supports preemptive strikes/liberations/invasions. Perhaps the announcement is a bluff to keep ideas of invasion off the table?

3. South Korea continues to state that it is unacceptable for its neighbor to the north to have nukes. If so, what does "unacceptable" mean?

Not much. I can say something that could or could not be a reality is unacceptable, but what that really means is that I don't approve. SK does not approve of NK nukes. The statements are just hyperbole.

Overall, NK's announcement looks to me as a preemptive propaganda strike, possibly a bargaining chip for getting help. It's similar to launching missles to show range. If NK does not continually present itself as a threat, it won't get any help from other nations.

How China fits into this is an interesting subject, but out of scope.

How US politics fit into this is also out of scope.

The next move with NK will tell the story on how expansive the Bush Doctrine really is. I don't think it is and was invented specifically for Iraq.

China is the largest provider of aid to the DPRK. They have a lot of bargaining power, as the DPRK government would likely tank without their direct support. They have had a vested interest in seeing that Kim does not succeed in the nuke program because Kim has stated that he would consider sanctions, and/or a naval blockade an act of war in violation of the 1950s ceasefire agreement. He claims he will attack in such a case. This is why China never agreed to sanction NK through the UN, though they have told Kim he'd be on his own if we attacked. Now that he has admitted to the nuke program, we have no choice but to set up that blockade, in order to ensure Kim isn't exporting his nuclear materials. China does not want millions of DPRK citizens fleeing to its borders. War in the DPRK would be bad for them, too.

So far, everyone has either defended Bush as the defender of all that’s good, or criticized present or past actions by other presidents. What I haven’t seen is an alternative. Turnea says

What purpose? Ticking the dictator off? What the heck good does that do? Get him mad enough to launch a nuke? What, then we look good? That makes absolutely no sense to me. This is akin to the whole torture argument in Iraq; torture doesn’t work but we’ll do it anyway and hope something comes out of it.

All the posturing and accusations about who is to blame, Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr. doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. What is happening NOW is what matters and laying blame solves nothing. (interestingly enough, Clinton has admitted he made an error in not going to NK in ~1994, something our own dear leader would never do)

There is no argument that Kim Jong Il is a bizarre, ruthless and dangerous dictator. But I did find this interesting snippet about whether or not he’s as crazy as he is portrayed.

So now we have a smart, somewhat demented ruler with the third largest army in the world with nukes to boot, against a person of, let’s say, limited intelligence and zero diplomatic skills. If it comes to a game of nuclear poker, I don’t have a lot of faith in our “champion”.

Paladin Elspeth has a point about how his regime is reacting when

In my opinion (humbly not that of an economist or war strategist), the US should not dismiss the possibility of bilateral talks with North Korea. What other alternatives are there? Cut off all financial aid and the people of North Korea suffer. Get into a peeing contest with an unfriendly nuclear power and we all suffer.

This was written by a former journalist and current management consultant who lives in South Korea being interviewed about his biography of Kim Jong Il.

This may be because it is a misrepresentation of my position, though I'm going to guess you already know that seeing as I explained it the post you quoted.

The point is not to anger North Korea, as if they will launch the bomb just because we call them names

The point is to cut through the kind of rhetoric we've seen in this discussion, which has now basically taken hold of European opinion.

Namely the mistaken assumption DPRK developed nukes in response to US aggression, which is just silly. The development of these weapons must have started years ago (you know during the time in which they promised not to do so) way before any mention of axes of evil.

This is not the fault of the US, it should be laid squarely at the feet of North Korea.


Amen to that, sadly it seems this is the only thing people (and governments) are interested in.

That is not the least bit true and if you had really read through all the posts made in here you would know this. I have stated what I thought would be the best "alternative" to this bilateral nonsense...twice.

What I haven't seen is any reasoning or explanation as to why bilateral talks would be the better alternative. Those here who seem to oppose the Bush admins. multilateral approach seem far more focused on their opposition based on their knowledge of partisan politics than anything to do with foreign policy.



You said yourself...Yes, of course. As I’ve stated before, past behavior determines future acts. And I agree I think how these relations have evolved is important..history is important but fine let us talk about what is happening now.
Now the US and China have a far friendlier relationship...since Clinton stopped blowing up their embassies. Do you think this has further evolved our relationship with NK? Do you perhaps believe that it is more important to focus on mending and pursuing better relations with China (who has always been the main supporter and provider for NK) than it is with NK? Has this current admin done just that? Yes they have. For all the complaints that the Bush admin ignores or has no interest in diplomacy it seems that one of our most recent and important diplomatic successes is being overlooked.

This is probably a major turning point for foreign relations in that region..as China appears to finally be readying herself to admit publicly that she prefers her ally the US over the NK. I hope everyone won't be too busy belittling to take notice.

Chinese News Media Critical of North Korea

Kim Jong Il is or is not: irrational, paranoid, an opportunist. If he is irrational, then there is no point in diplomacy: multilateral or bilateral. Diplomacy assumes a level of rationality in order for treaties and agreements to be meaningful. If he is paranoid, then acknowledging and/or lessening his paranoia is the only way in which to prevent (or at least decelerate) conventional/nuclear military escalation. If he is an opportunist, then agreements need to be "gamed" in such a way that his best choice of action is the one we desire (easier said than done to be sure).

So, if Kim Jong Il is indeed irrational, then the only solution to North Korea is military. That is, he must be either contained or defanged. If Kim Jong Il is rational, then there is some hope that diplomatic, cultural and/or economic engagement will work. Where I differ from a number of posters in this thread is that there is little reason to believe Kim Jong Il is irrational. I think paranoid (not schizophrenic-level paranoid) opportunism coupled with a deep megalomania sufficiently explains his actions. But, enough of my armchair psycho-analysis .

Given that I believe in a rational leadership of North Korea, I propose that the reason diplomatic efforts haven't worked is not because they can't work but because we haven't tried hard enough or, more accurately, we have been too inflexible. Obviously, there is only so far we will bend. There is only so far any state actor should bend. You can't get everything you want nor can you relinquish everything. If a state actor has something North Korea wants and that state actor wants something from North Korea, then it must negotiate for it (or take it by force). Negotiation never works very well by proxy.

I do not doubt North Korea has nukes. Even if North Korea is bluffing, there is sufficient reason to believe they could have them and that should be enough for us to realize that the stakes have been raised significantly. I also do not doubt that North Korea has been pursuing nukes for a while, however they could have had them much sooner. It was diplomacy that slowed down (or even temporarily stopped) development. But, let's face it, in the past few years our eyes have been "off the ball". North Korea is like a willful child who requires constant attention. With our attention directed elsewhere, this child has found the gun in the lockbox (pardon the metaphors ). In my opinion, there's no excuse for this.

1. The failure occurred when America failed to get the North to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was more than a decade ago. What this implies is that waving your stick too much can have unintended consequences.

2. Remembered the "Axis of Evil", look at what happened to Iraq. I would be VERY worried if I were Kim Jung-Il.

3. "Unacceptable" means South Korea will try harder to persuade the North to give up its nuke. How? Probably nothing different from what SK has been doing.

North Korea joined the NPT in 1985, but formally withdrew in 1994 after they had been caught by the IAEA in violation of the treaty. Simply getting them to sign something doesn't seem to have much of an effect.

First, I think it is important to understand what the threat really is. Is NK going to launch a nuke somewhere? What would they gain from that?...it would only lead to their invasion and certain defeat. So, as far as nukes go, there is no reason not to play the waiting game (proliferation being a different story). Eventually, KJI will have to realize he'll get more by cooperating than by bluffing.

Now, what makes this a dangerous game is that KJI might get forced into such a dire predicament that he decides conventional invasion of South Korea is the only recourse. In this scenario, his nuclear capability becomes a more powerful weapon. We would have to be measured in our response to prevent him from using it..ie, it serves its purpose throught its mere existence, not its use. Again, though, he would know that if he did indeed use it, it would lead to his certain downfall. So, in either scenario, his use of nukes is unlikely, and eventually he should realize he has more to gain by cooperation.

Finally, I must point out the irony of the criticism leveled against Bush in this matter. For the most part, the very group complaining that Bush acted unilaterally in Iraq is now complaining about his acting multilaterally with N. Korea. While I see valid grounds for the reverse (supporting both the unilateral action on the one hnd and the multilateral on the other, with the first being an act of self-defense)...I cannot see any reason to wish Bush would act in the very fashion you had just criticized him for. Without debating his other actions, where there is indeed valid room for criticism, I think Bush is indeed taking the right course here (with the debatable exception of the axis of evil remark). Bilateral talks with N. Korea would be bad on two counts...first, they seem to have little hope of producing anything workable, and second, it would set a very bad precedent of being forced to the negotiating table. Kim Jong Il is attempting to play a game of chicken...I think it is important not to be the one who blinks first, becasue all that would lead to is another game in the not so distant future. Unless Kim Jong Il shows signs of a complete change of heart, multi-lateral talks are the only way to achieve a workable solution. It might be interesting to ask yourself why KJI wants bilateral talks so badly? The only answer being that he feels they would be in his best interest. That alone should be reason enough to support the other option.

NK threatened to withdraw from the NPT in 1993, sent in the withdrawl notice but suspended the withdrawl at the last minute. All these happened before the "Agreed Framework" talks, so it would have been possible to get them to sign it again in 1994. The point here is, NK did follow procedures at that time and getting NK to sign the NPT again would have given everybody 3 months warning and time for diplomacy if anything happens.

North Korea didn't formally pull out of the NPT until 2003 (roughly, I'm not sure of the exact date, but it was within the past couple of years). We did attempt diplomacy and agreed to a multibillion dollar light-water reactor deal (via Carter). DPRK did not live up to its obligation of abandoning its nuclear weapons pursuits. They did get some free oil and other monetary perks in the meantime, though.

Edited to add: It was January of 2003.

Well, you have the right to think that everyone else has a hidden agenda, but here's some facts, in the two days that followed NK's announcement, Li Shaoxing, China's Foreign Minister, called Condie Rice, the FM of Japan, SK, and Russia; and Wang Jiaxuan, the Chief of Communication of the CCP will be travelling to NK next week. If this does not say dedication, I don't know what does.

I don't know why some people on this forum keep thinking that China has a hidden agenda in this issue. Is it because of different ideology, or is it just pure ignorance?

Well, perhaps showing everyone on this forum what some Chinese think about the issue will give you our perspective. The following excerpt is from the forum of the largest Chinese magazine about naval vessels, I am posting the link to the specific topic here as well:

http://jczsbbs1.sina.com.cn/cgi-bin/view.c...20050216&page=1

------------------------------------
Copyrighted material removed - Please see §B.¶V. of the Rules for clarification.
-----------------------------------------------

Hopefully, the above perspective will help everybody here better understand China and the Chinese people's position on the issue. If anyone's interested, I can translate the rest of that post into English.

Without placing the blame, I would like to point out that North Korea claims that the US breached the contract first by not providing enough fuel aid for electric generation. Given the facts that China remained the major donor of food and fuel aid to NK through out the late 90s and the fact that the US has pledged aid to others and not follow through before, I'd say there may be some validity to NK's claim.

So you both did something bad, now sit down and talk like adults.

Indeed, we "breeched our agreement" after Kim admitted that he did not halt his nuclear weapons program that was in late 2002....after nearly eight years of delivering the promised food and energy aid. We did our part, he did not do his part.

So, to review, NK signed on to the NPT in the 1980s in exchange for nuclear reactors from the Soviets. It did not abide by the NPT inspection policies. In the 1990s, NK again signed a safeguards agreement in exchange for our removal of nuclear warheads in South Korea. The IAEA discovered shortly after that NK remained in violation in spite of that agreement. In 1994, we signed an agreement to give Kim two light water nuclear reactors and a large amount of food and fuel aid. We pulled the plug on that deal in 2002 after Kim did not comply by the terms. Notice that neither the 1994 deal, nor the earlier deal (think that one was in 1992 or thereabouts) should have been necessary if Kim had abided by the NPT to begin with? Why did we owe him food and fuel aid anyway? The DPRK made the agreement when it received the first reactors and parts, by signing on to the NPT in the 80s.

My, my, it would appear KJI has changed his mind yet again, now agreeing to sit down to multi-lateral talks. Further, it should be noted that such talks come about due to pressure from China, showing their importance in the negotiations. The article sites KJI as reaffirming his position on denuclearizing the Korean penninsula. Now, I don't want to place too much faith in KJI's statement of the week, but this does sound promising.

1. Does this revelation represent a failure in US foreign policy for North Korea? What might this imply about US foreign policy in general?
This question is ambiguous. The fault lies with Kim Jung Il. He has neither been realistic about negotiations nor interested in adhering to the terms of the negotiations. He does not have nuclear weapons. This is a cry for help. 2. In light of recent "incursions", do you believe North Korea is justified in being afraid of US attack?Based on our position they should be afraid but our situation dictates that we will not attack them anytime soon. We will be better served if we left them alone and watched them crumble from within.

3. South Korea continues to state that it is unacceptable for its neighbor to the north to have nukes. If so, what does "unacceptable" mean?I do not know what unacceptable means, but I do know what it does not mean, unacceptable does not mean military action, at least not from the S. Koreans.

Well, NK's version of the story is that the US has never provided them with enough fuel, and that the two light-water reactors that was promised had been repeatly delayed. I don't have enough statistics to proof either side wrong. Maybe you can point me to some US State Department records that shows the shipments made each year?

Quick news flash, the European Parliament has expressed interest in joining the "six-party talks" regarding NK's nuclear weapons programme. And China and South Korea have both expressed support for the idea. So we may soon see "seven-party talks."

I course I cannot. They might be available somewhere, but I am not that internet savy. I was able to find a General accounting office report (It's a PDF file), which was a testimony before the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, on the status of the Heavy Fuel Oil Delivered to North Korea Under the Agreed Framework. The report is dated October 1999, so it encompasses the first four or five years of the program. According to this, as of July 31, 1999, 1.9 million metric tons of heavy fuel oil had been delivered to North Korea at an approximate cost of $222 million.

1. I do not think so. Foreign policy is more of a headliner for war. All foreign policy does it dictate the terms by which war is to be fought. All this implies is that American policy with North Korea was not as air-tight as people may have thought. Failure cannot occur when no attempt was made. True, over the ways American presidents may have sent emissaries to North Korea, may have extended a couple of birthday congratulations phone calls but I do not think we had a thriving dialogue with which to base and real policy off of. So, no. I do not think our foreign policies will be/have been affected.

2. If I were in North Korea and had access to any form of international news I would be shaking in my boots. While the war in the Middle-east may seem pretty far removed from us because we are the aggressor, I would be changing my last name and fleeing to a new homeland if I were in North Korea. I think every action taken during a war by any nation is justified. Just because they are on the offense does not mean they are going to host a preemptive strike- to do so would represent a kind of death wish on the part of the North Korean hierarchy. We may not consider the fact that other nations may perhaps be smarter than we are but I don't think North Korea is dumb enough to launch a first strike.

3. Well now the tables have turned due to international tensions. If I were in South Korea I would be shaking in my boots under this current set of circumstances. The North and the South have been divided by Communism and freedom for a long time, these tensions have inspired bitter relations. I do not doubt the agenda of North Korea: 1.) eliminated the South, 2.) remain on the offensive. How could it not be their belief that the North wants to conquer them? In their eyes it is unacceptable because they know for what purpose the North may try to use the weapons should America ever close its eyes for more than a second. Perfectly understandable that they have ill-feelings against their neighbors at this point. There have never been nuclear weapons in the North, so this is a whole new means by which North Korea may have an upperhand in internal affairs.