Yesterday I pointed to an article by Nicholas Eberstadt in Policy Review which made the case that North Korea is attempting to organize its economy around arms exports and is creating instability where it can, in order to create demand for its products. Eberstadt does not rule out reform in North Korea, but his article makes it clear that the regime is deliberately pursuing a course in which military R&D and arms sales are central -- and therefore, not likely to be open to negotiation.
Today's headline from the Khaleej Times illustrates the way in which the NORK regime attempts to keep the pot boiling:
Bellicose North Korea warns UN “sanctions mean war”(AFP)11 October 2004
SEOUL - North Korea warned Monday any move by the United Nations to impose sanctions on the communist state to make up for stalled diplomacy would spark a “merciless war”.
The warning came after US officials last month hinted at bringing North Korea to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions if it continued to cold-shoulder talks on the country’s nuclear weapons drive.“Sanctions mean a war and war does not know any mercy,” said Pyongyang’s official Korean Central News Agency monitored here.
“If the US applies more sanctions to the DPRK (North Korea) by putting the UN in motion, the DPRK will promptly and resolutely react to it with self-defensive war deterrent force.”
The agency said the United States would “be wholly responsible for all ensuing fatal consequences” if war breaks out.
Two years into the nuclear standoff, hectic diplomacy has yielded little.
North Korea failed to show at a fourth round of six-party talks scheduled to open in September in Beijing, saying it was staying away because of the “hostile” US policy towards Pyongyang and reports of secret nuclear experiments in South Korea.
The United States, the two Koreas, Russia, China and Japan met for three inconclusive rounds of talks in Beijing prior to the North Korean boycott.
Some analysts have said Pyongyang may be waiting out the US presidential elections on November 2. But North Korea says it does not care who is US president, and will resume talks only when the United States drops its “hostile” attitude.
RTWT for more background. How on earth can negotiations succeed when one party is simply not engaging in any give and take?
UPDATE: This Washington Post article today illustrates move of the same sort of deliberately anxiety-producing behavior.
"How on earth can negotiations succeed when one party is simply not engaging in any give and take?"
Thats an easy one. Bribery and appeasement.
Was tried. Didn't work.
No, no, no.
If negotiations have not brought about a successful conclusion, it means that they haven't been attempted with enough diligence. Or intelligence. Or good faith on our part. Or something else.
Negotiations always work.
We need a summit.
Nothing to get too excited about. Threatening war and other acts of flagrant silliness is simply their rhetorical style. It's also very easy to threaten war over sanctions when you know said sanctions won't be put in place with China there to block 'em.
"Sanctions mean a war and war does not know any mercy."
Unfortunately for N. Korea, war knows no victory, either, which you'd hope would keep them from going off the deep end. Despite the regime's (to some extent, intentionally self-generated) reputation as something of a nutcase, the DPRK does behave rationally, albeit based on a somewhat different logic from most of the rest of the planet. What scare me, quite frankly, is that the U.S. let what was supposed to be a "red line" get crossed without so much as a peep, which might lead Pyongyang to believe that a red line might not in fact exist. I'm pretty certain (although by no means 100% so) that the DPRK would never start a war it knew it couldn't finish. What I'm also certain of it that it might provoke one accidentally by crossing another line, believing (quite understandably) that the U.S. would not attack. Unlike a lot of the Kerry folk, I believe the six-party talks, rather than bilateral negotiations, are the best way to go, but the problem with the Bush people with N. Korea is that they've made it extremely unclear where the real "line" is drawn (perhaps because the administation itself has yet to decide where it's drawn), and given N. Korea's inclination to find out exactly where such lines are, this could lead to a very dangerous -- and potentially tragic -- situation.
"How on earth can negotiations succeed when one party is simply not engaging in any give and take?"
Maybe the State Department can pick up a copy of Getting To Yes? :)
North Korea is going to get 'merciless' punch of
a button if not careful. BOOM!
I agree with Marmot that most of Pyongyang\'s behavior is extra style looking for the other to blink. Once one starts following through on this course of thinking, one really has to ask what the other players want from this unusual display of simian-esque human tactical behavior.
Pyongyang has always played the weak hand, and Seoul is protecting it from the consequences of losing for sheer greed and the land grab. For 50 years all the parties in the region have adapted to a very dysfunctional arrangement. I don\'t think Moscow and Beijing want it to end, or Beijing would spend less time dealing with Taiwan. Seoul has reverted to its old game of playing big countries off one another to keep the hammer from falling squarely on it. Tokyo is the only player which makes sense most of the time.
One has to forget about the peculiar civility of the region, and just keep each player off-base enough to rattle Pyongyang\'s tightwire act. I\'d switch negotiators every six months, create completely new policies out of the blue on alternating six month periods, interdict shipping, hold exercises twice as often, slap Seoul down hard, restrict intelligence even more, and cut aid.
I recommend a bombing campaign.
Indidel, you speak too bluntly to wear the State Dept.'s bespoke pinstripes. But how I wish you were representing Uncle Sam at the X- (six-? two-?) party negotiations with the Glorious Leader's flunkies.
Come to think of it, Bush seems to have replaced some of Albright's Teletubbies Let's-All-Get-Along fantasies with your sort of realism. And it's that change that has sparked Kerry's criticism of Bush on this score.
Plus ca change.