Recent inter-Korean tensions have rekindled debate over methods for moving the North Korean government away from weapons development. If an upcoming United Nations human rights report can establish a framework and funding mechanism to assist refugees who have crossed the border into China, it might be more effective than either sanctions or traditional engagement.
In the current crisis on the Korean peninsula, the Obama administration is virtually repeating the 2004 Bush playbook, one that derailed a successful diplomatic agreement forged by the Clinton administration to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Only North Koreans can change North Korea. Attempting to impose a solution from outside – whether from Beijing, Seoul, or Washington – will just not work. North Koreans are a proud people, even more so after several decades of austerity and government-sponsored nationalism. Like Afghans and Iraqis, they will not take kindly, to say the least, to military invaders. And they know the limitations and leverage points of their society better than any outside political missionary bent on a softer version of regime change.
The “Pacific pivot” of the United States is nothing new. At the same time, it doesn’t really exist. And yet, even though it doesn’t exist, this pivot is partly responsible for the escalation of tensions in and around the Korean peninsula. How can all three of these statements be simultaneously true? Such are the paradoxes of the U.S. shift in attention toward the Pacific Rim.
The stability of the Kaesong operation is considered a bellwether for the state of affairs between North and South Korea.
It’s easy to forget that Seoul lies only about thirty miles from the Demilitarized Zone.
News about North Korea falls into two categories: the comical and the frightening. Examples of the former type of story abound, but unfortunately, the news from North Korea has of late been of the frightening variety. What the North Korean leadership is hoping to achieve by its belligerence is anyone’s guess, but the aggressive U.S. response has only escalated tensions.
A major game changer is needed to break the silent stalemate between the United States and North Korea. And it’s going to take more than Dennis Rodman’s trip to North Korea. It will require the United States to take greater responsibility and leadership to end the Korean War, as well as a feminist, anti-militarist approach to achieve peace and justice on the Korean peninsula.
With all eyes on North Korea since its third nuclear test, remarkably little has been said about how we arrived at this crisis point. Inadequately contextualized as North Korea’s response to fortified UN sanctions, the latest nuclear test bespeaks the failure of U.S. diplomacy toward its historic enemy. As he enters his second term, Barack Obama must confront the role of strategic patience as a central driver of the simmering crisis in Korea.
It’s time for the Obama administration to start withdrawing the American military from Korean soil. Not only would such a move save billions of dollars annually ($15 billion, according to a 2006 article by the Cato Institute’s Doug Bandow) at a time when the cost of maintaining America’s global garrison is coming under increasing scrutiny, but it would shift the impetus for negotiating solutions to the long-running dispute squarely onto the shoulders of the key players in the region.