The Korean Crisis: Playing Devil's Advocate

At this point in the latest Korean Crisis, it seems to us in America that North Korea has committed a foul and deserves to be punished. Given the way the North Korean and Kim Jong-Il have been portrayed in the U.S., the crisis seems as if it's been a long time coming. Kim Jong-Il is obviously a maniac and its a matter of time before he triggers world-wide crisis. It's fair to say he's been demonized at least as much as Saddam Hussein.

And such generalizations have some footing as Kim Jong-Il plays a dangerous game, now armed with nuclear weapons and operating a country which has never signed a formal peace agreement with its ideological opponents to the south. In the West, it would appear that Kim Jong-Il is not a rational actor on the stage of world politics and diplomacy.














But perhaps such generalizations are not true. Perhaps Kim Jong-Il is in fact a rational actor and not the lunatic that the American public, and possibly leadership, thinks. From the lessons of history we learn that even the great enemy of America, Adolf Hitler, was not in fact a maniacal leader drunk with power. He acted with a certain rationale that was little understood, especially in the West, and failure to understand it led to massive diplomatic and strategic errors on the part of the Allies, especially Great Britain and France (appeasement) and the Soviet Union (unpreparedness on the eve of Barbarossa). By no means do I argue that war was avoidable, Hitler was intent on that, but the shape and dynamic of the war that occurred was not unavoidable. Simply put, better understanding of Hitler's logic and rationale could have prevented numerous tragedies from occurring and drastically shortened the war; especially considering Mein Kampf spelled it out with little room for doubt.

But does Kim Jong-Il have a 'mein kampf'? Does he spell out his intentions for the West and the world to see? Well, not entirely to my knowledge. It's no secret North Korea is a paranoid and guarded county with little trust for anyone, especially the West. But they have expressed their opinions, intentions and goals publicly (albeit phrased through the Marxist lexicon so familiar since 1917). On one of my more favorite blogs which investigates the Korean Peninsula and relations with the North, 38 North, the author does an excellent job of analyzing the situation and calling for prudence. Kim Jong-Il and North Korea can be understood and it is vital to realize that North Korean actions have a cause and Kim Jong-Il and his state operate according to a rationale. The current crisis is indeed a disaster for peace on the peninsula, but the future is not set in stone.

Here's the article:
Recommended citation: Georgy Toloraya, “Peace or War: Do We Have to Choose?” 38 North, Washington, D.C.: U.S.-Korea Institute at SAIS, Johns Hopkins University, May 27, 2010. Online at: www.38north.org/?p=795.

America's Blank Check?

Today the white house issued their full support for South Korea in its move to take the Cheonan incident to the United Nations in a request for punitive action against the People's Republic of North Korea. The statement reads:

"President Obama fully supports President Lee in his handling of the ROKS Cheonan incident and the objective investigation that followed. The measures that the government of the Republic of Korea announced today are called for and entirely appropriate. The Republic of Korea can continue to count on the full support of the United States, as President Obama has made clear.

"Specifically, we endorse President Lee’s demand that North Korea immediately apologize and punish those responsible for the attack, and, most importantly, stop its belligerent and threatening behavior. U.S. support for South Korea’s defense is unequivocal, and the President has directed his military commanders to coordinate closely with their Republic of Korea counterparts to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression. We will build on an already strong foundation of excellent cooperation between our militaries and explore further enhancements to our joint posture on the Peninsula as part of our ongoing dialogue.

"As President Lee stated in his address earlier today, the Republic of Korea intends to bring this issue to the United Nations Security Council. We support this move. Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice are each consulting very closely with their Korean counterparts, as well as with Japan, China, and other UN Security Council member states in order to reach agreement on the steps in the Council.

"In response to the pattern of North Korean provocation and defiance of international law, the President has directed U.S. government agencies to review their existing authorities and policies related to the DPRK. This review is aimed at ensuring that we have adequate measures in place and to identify areas where adjustments would be appropriate.

"The U.S. will continue to work with the Republic of Korea and other allies and partners to reduce the threat that North Korea poses to regional stability. Secretary Clinton is currently in Beijing and she will travel to Seoul for discussions with President Lee and his senior advisors on May 26 before reporting back to the President on her consultations in the region. Secretary Gates is in close contact with ROK Defense Minister Kim and will meet with him and other counterparts at the June 4-6 Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. President Obama and President Lee agreed to meet in Canada at the time of the G-20 Summit."

One is reminded of the blank check issued by Germany to Austria in the summer days of 1914. It was then that a similar incident, the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne, provoked a similar response from Austria towards its neighbor to the south, Serbia, i.e. an apology and threat of punitive action. However, much is different nearly 100 years after 1914 and history may not repeat itself, but the threat of such a repetition is breathtaking.

Yes, the United States has, as of today, thrown their entire support behind South Korea as required by treaty; a striking parallel to Germany's situation with Austria in 1914. By doing so, Germany assured that a regional conflict between Austria and Serbia would descend into World War. The system of treaties in 1914, designed to prevent war had disastrously resulted in the most terrible war the world had then seen. Does the system of treaties between South Korea and the United States therefore mean America is due for a return to the Korean Peninsula?

Not necessarily.

The primary difference between 2010 and 1914 is that instead of unilaterally attacking their neighbor to the North with the support of a major world power, South Korea is taking the situation to the United Nations. After the UN failed to resolve the Iraqi-American crisis in 2002-03, it seemed the UN was irrelevant to world politics. However, at this point in time, the successor to the League of Nations appears to be working exactly as intended. It has prevented unilateral action on the part of South Korea armed with full American support.

As Sec. of State Clinton corresponds with her counterparts in China, Japan, South Korea and most likely Russia this week, the tragic chain of events that resulted in World War I seem to have been averted. In 1914 the blank check issued by Germany assured Austria would take action against its neighbor which had offended it. In 2010 the same blank check issued by America to South Korea has not assured that South Korea would initiate conflict with North Korea.

But don't celebrate just yet.

The effectiveness of the UN shined forth in the first Gulf War as multinational military action was taken against Iraq, resulting in heavy loss of life on the Iraqi side and a political situation that would be only resolved 12 years later in a long and arduous war. Once it has been revealed where the other world powers stand on the Cheonan incident will we start to see what the future holds for the Korea peninsula and likely the world. Make no doubt about it, South Korea has called for punitive action against North Korea and already has the full backing of the United States. The question that remains is not whether there will be a conflict but what shape the conflict is going to take. The year 1914 shows us the worst scenario that could erupt from such a political situation, let us hope that the lessons of 2010 prove to teach otherwise.

The Militarization of Cyberspace

The US military has appointed its first senior general to direct cyber warfare – despite fears that the move marks another stage in the militarisation of cyberspace.

The newly promoted four-star general, Keith Alexander, takes charge of the Pentagon's ambitious and controversial new Cyber Command, designed to conduct virtual combat across the world's computer networks. He was appointed on Friday afternoon in a low-key ceremony at Fort Meade, in Maryland.

More Here...

Did Kim Jong Il order the attack?

WASHINGTON — A new American intelligence analysis of a deadly torpedo attack on a South Korean warship concludes that Kim Jong-il, the ailing leader of North Korea, must have authorized the torpedo assault, according to senior American officials who cautioned that the assessment was based on their sense of the political dynamics there rather than hard evidence.

The officials said they were increasingly convinced that Mr. Kim ordered the sinking of the ship, the Cheonan, to help secure the succession of his youngest son.

More Here...

Returning to Walled Cities?

I just thought this article was an interesting development of the 'War on Terror.' Apparently, Baghdad is to become a walled city yet again, echoing eras long past. It's not the infidel armies it seeks to keep out, but rather suicide bombers of Islamic origin. I find it interesting to note that as things change very much stays the same.

More here...

Is Bin Laden in Iran?

Osama bin Laden is in Iran, asserts Alan Howell Parrot, the director of The Union for the Conservation of Raptors, who for many years served as a Falconer for the rulers of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and members of Saudi Royal family. In that capacity he was a regular guest in the seasonal Falconry-hunting camps and had access to all participants. Parrot has been offering evidence of Bin Laden's sighting in Iran since November 2004 to a great number of U.S. government officials at the Department of Defense, the FBI, Senators and even to the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Gen. Michael V. Hayden. Government officials who asked to remain nameless confirmed Parrot's contact with the government. Still, no one responded.

More Here...

My Comments: I found this article to be more amusing than insightful on the actual whereabouts of bin Laden. Not to mention, the tradition in the Middle East with falconry was also quite fascinating.

Though if it turned out there was more alleged evidence that bin Laden was in fact in Iran, it would serve the USA well as another reason for military action there.

Fledgling colonial power?

Chinese Navy seeks to Expand its Naval Power

YALONG BAY, China — The Chinese military is seeking to project naval power well beyond the Chinese coast, from the oil ports of the Middle East to the shipping lanes of the Pacific, where the United States Navy has long reigned as the dominant force, military officials and analysts say.

More Here...



The Next Empire

All across Africa, new tracks are being laid, highways built,ports deepened, commercial contracts signed—all on an unprecedented scale, and led by China, whose appetite for commodities seems insatiable. Do China’s grand designs promise the transformation,at last, of a star-crossed continent? Or merely its exploitation? The author travels deep into the heart of Africa, searching for answers.

More here....

My comments: Obviously China is growing in strength and their ability to project force is growing. As many of the pre-WWI colonial powers knew, a state needs a navy to project their power to the far flung corners of the earth. The first article speaks on this and the second follows up on China's commitments and interests in the former colonies of the European Empires.

However, its worth noting that the USA still stands able to project their will across the world and Russia is rapidly approaching their former strength, not to mention the EU picking up former military and economic interests remaining since the wars of decolonization. During the Cold War this great power rivalry resulted in much strife and suffering for the African nations and I expect that with the re-emergence of a multi-polar world, the plight of Africa will resume. I imagine that the US and likely Russia will seek to undermine the gains of their rivals on the continent, leading to coups and civil wars, not too dissimilar to the current state of central Asia and the Middle East.

Points of interest that caught my attention:

The article portrays China as a state better at capitalism than the West. Their offer of loans for development without strings, such as democratic elections and even more importantly Communist rule, is striking.

China isn't giving up ownership of the railroads they build. This is similar to USA ownership of the Panama Canal or British ownership of Suez in that China's national interests are tied to a physical transportation system outside of China. Should rebellion, civil war or a coup break out in one of the host countries, China will likely pressure the government, old or new, to secure Chinese interests. This may result in troops deployed and, potentially, the setting up of a regime friendly to China.

Chinese settlers are a major facet of this neo-colonialism that deserves close attention. At the moment, the article cites 3,000 Chinese settlers in Mozambique, the numbers are minuscule. But it only took less than 10% white settlers in South Africa to secure power for 90 years and racial tensions have long been the source of strife in colonies. The bit on Zambia a two-thirds of the way through the article seems to prefigure some of the potential conflicts.