After the Nuke Test, the US and North Korea Should Keep Talking

Just in time for the stock markets to open in Asia, Kim Jong-Il's North Korea conducted another nuclear weapons test, according to Reuters.

Much noise will be made by conservatives all week that President Obama's weak foreign policy is emboldening Kim and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the weird missile test some weeks back and now this bomb test prove that he's moving America on the wrong track.

My reaction:

1. Kim did these things under President Bush, too. Failing to negotiate with the North Koreans didn't stop any of this from happening back then, either.

2. There's a pretty decent likelihood that the 2006 bomb test was a 'fizzle,' i.e. a weapon that didn't properly go off. Building plutonium-based bombs is hard. We're not even sure how well most of America's (or Russia's for that matter) work under non-test-circumstances, we just take it on principle that they'll go off as expected after more than a thousand test explosions. North Korea's first test didn't go so great, showing that any state that wants to go through the complications of building a plutonium-based bomb has some difficult work to do. So while North Korea may have a nuclear capability, it's actual nuclear war-fighting powers have yet to be proven.

3. President Bush and team's pig-headed refusal to negotiate with North Korea actually made nuclear testing possible. North Korea's plutonium supply was under IAEA seal for years after the negotiation of the 1994 Agreed Framework. When the Framework was suspended, due to the allegation that North Korea was enriching uranium, North Korea kicked out the IAEA and re-claimed the plutonium it had extracted from spent nuclear fuel in previous years. A physicist I once spoke with told me that the North Koreans didn't manufacture enough electricity NATION-WIDE to enrich enough uranium to develop a credible nuclear deterrent.

So I say, keep talking. History is not on North Korea's side, and ensnaring the hermit state in negotiations establishes some possibility of reining in its behaviors.

But hey, I'm just a former nuclear nonproliferation analyst, what do I know? What do you say? Does President Obama need to get tough with North Korea and refuse to negotiate with Kim Jong-Il? Or should he stick with it, and try to negotiate a solution? Answer our poll at True/Slant and tell us what you think.

Comments

[Nina Williams]

To deal with N.Korea, I believe the US should go back to realism 101. Because of anarchy in the international system, the only mean to survive is by having more hard power than the other. Japan may be one of the richest country in the world compare to N.Korea, but if one of those nuke hits the center of financial or industry (like in 1945) the it will send the rich country back to the stone edge. N.Korea knows this and that's the incentive for them to have nuclear weapons. China knows this, therefore to let N.Korea bandwagoning with China, will certainly shift the Balance of Power in the region.

If the US or the current administration is really ignorance or just couldn't deal with such a big magnitude of this issue, then nothing will stop N.Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. It's only a matter of time. But i think we have not come to the point of no return, and all options are still on the table meaning surgical military attack(s) will have to be use.

I think it is still enough time to launch an attack that will prevent N.Korea from having nuclear weapons. This will have a great impact also towards Iran, and Syria.

[VenisejbA]

Nina Williams. I don't wish to be pedantic but, I think North Korea has been in possession of nuclear weapons for some time. After all it was March 13, 1993 when Pyongyang announced its withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. One of the main reasons they did this was they had no wish to subject themselves to the International Atomic Energy Agency checks on what they euphemistically called 'non-nuclear military installations'.

I would like to recommend 'Under The Loving Care of The Fatherly Leader' by Bradley K Martin, New York 2004, with your interest in North Korea, I would be surprised if you don't find it riveting reading.

[lungfish]

Our engagement of NKorea has appeared hypocritical at best so I don't think they really have any sense of a need to negotiate. The last Administration in particular had no case to argue against NK on most fronts. Bush neutered our position on human rights and a host of ideological principles and NK understood that very, very well....that is why they became so confidently shrill...
The questions that I have is "are they sharing their knowlege and their technology with countries that would attack us if they had the chance? Is there any chance they will do it in the future? Have they done similar things in the past"? The short answer to all of the above is "yes".
If we took out Syria's nuclear reactors and carted off their enriched materials because of a percieved threat then we have already set a precedent for dealing with NKorea.
Perhaps we need to destroy their nuclear capacity. By doing so they have one less source of threat and one less belicose talking point. My fear is that someday they, or someone they are allied with, will smuggle one of their nukes into our country.
I am not even sure why NKorea is even tolerated to exist as a country other than its a football between the US and China. In the end both the US and China could regret ever supporting that regime in any way, shape or form...

[Nina Williams]

It is naive to blame previous administration for the failure in dealing with N.Korea nuclear problem, since the issue with NK's search to master nuclear technology and ultimately nuclear weapons has been going on since mid 1960s. Although in 1985 under the international pressure, N.Korea signed the NPT, they refused to sign the safeguard agreement with IAEA, which is crucial to the monitoring on the use of nuclear for energy purposes. Again, N. Korea showed that they can play with this diplomacy and international pressure game by signed the safeguard agreement in 1992, but then withdraw from the NPT one year later. Then another game played again by N.Korea by signing an agreement with US in Geneva in 1994 to freeze their nuclear program.

Interestingly, "Pyongyang KEDO has reached an agreement on the provision of the light-water nuclear reactors by 2003, and, in return, North Korea has frozen its nuclear program. South Korea, which has promised to bear the lion's share of the reactor project cost estimated at US$4.5 billion, is asking the United States to put up at least a symbolic amount. The US administration, however, has said it can make no contribution to the construction cost as Congress has not appropriated the necessary budget. An official in Seoul, however, said that South Korea cannot drop its demand simply because of domestic problems in the United States. The US Congress has been delaying approval of the cost for the reactor project "

[Neanderthal5]

Why should N.Korea listen to the thugs here in America. They have no shame, they are criminals, and they ignore all international laws regarding Peace. The N. Koreans know the landscape and know how they have been screwed by America.

To begin with, Article one of the UN Charter requires all disagreements be settled in an amicable fashion through Dialog? Instead, our presidents threaten, ignore, refuse to talk, and label Kim as an insane dictator. That is the nice thing they say. Then they wage economic war against the state. And finally, when they make deals with N. Korea, they welsh on the deal. N. Korea destroyed it's reactor by agreement but what did George do in return. He gave him the finger. Like Stalin said of Hitler...who would make another deal with a guy who had a history of breaking treaties. So it is with the US. Their word is worthless to North Korea. Their threats are just as meaningless. They can bully all they like but the US will not get out of the hole they dug.

[Daniel D 68]

Yes we the USA might have many reasons we should be talking to North Korea, but what is one reason North Korea needs to get the USA's approval?
They do have the backing of one of the most powerful countries in the world, China. China is the only country that can influence Korea’s behavior.
The USA along with the UN have warned and sanctioned North Korea for years. What if anything has that accomplished? The USA has managed to remain at WAR with North Korea and arguably keep South Korea safer.
I have said earlier that this is a test of our new President, it is not a test, it is a continued ramping up of aggression.
We can condemn their actions and the Security Counsel can tell LiL Kim they are really disappointed in him.
But what power and influence does the UN, or the USA really have?
Without China we are utterly powerless against NK.

[VenisejbA]

MIchael Roston. Thank you for revealing that America does, in fact, have some writers who know what they're talking about-in the sense of North Korea.

Regrettably your President Obama has been woefully misled by his advisers, on this and overseas comment in general.

Please Mr US President, don't let the hoary old chestnut of reunification come creeping back into US thinking. Nations adjacent to North Korea want reunification as much as they want amoebic dysentry, or leprosy.

Better the repugnant person you do know than the repugnant person jostling for power, in the background.

[ranchomerced]

or send to Honolulu harbor in a container

[cupcake65]

Let's all keep in mind that there are other very interested parties in this situation, two of which just might take action - S. Korea and Japan. Nuke warheads and a 1000km missile look a lot more threatening to them, I'm pretty sure. And don't be surprised if they decide NOT to include informing the U.S. of their plans.

[cupcake65]

Of course. Keep talking. It's always worked in the past with the N. Koreans.

[Gunga-Din]

Keep talking is a true Chamberlain doctrine,,,,

[hglassberg]

We think President Obama should both talk and get tough. What should he say? First, we believe he should tell Kim Jong Il that he understands North Korea's desire to have the bomb. We have it. The Pakistanis have it. The English and French have it. Why shouldn't they have it? Because they're a rogue state? Who says? Because they're too small to have it? On the contrary, the bomb is the great equalizer. Because Kim is psychotic? Given our last administration... We feel the President should make friends with Kim, invite him to a shuttle launch, take him on a tour of Disneyworld, THEN ask him to give up the bomb.

If this doesn't work, President Obama should get tough. But how? North Korea's population is already starving, so we can't starve it. The country has no exports, so we can't stop buying them. They can't afford imports, so why blockade? We suggest, given North Korea's impoverishment, that President Obama give them something that they'd be afraid to lose, something like a tv variety show-- North Korean Idol, or North Korea has Talent--which would distract the population and upset it if it suddenly vanished. Imagine how Americans would feel were American Idol pulled from their tv screens for political reasons. North Koreans would react as intensely and Kim Jong Il, unable to ignore such a reaction, would become that much more compliant.

Yours sincerely,

The Playdo Institute
Handel Glassberg, President

[VenisejbA]

Good one! But the poor bast--rds are only allowed to watch one channel which the government has thoughtfully hard-wired into each viewer's TV set. I imagine thoughtful views of The Greater Glory of Kim Il-Sung followed by ditto of Kim Jong-Il. Not to mention operas with titles like North Korea saved by boiler-makers son-in-law: a glorious tribute to Kim Jong-Il's springtime. (Try watching something like this at lunchtime) But hey, I love the idea of propaganda via Australian/American/English Idol.
Cheers V

[UUDDLRLRBASelectStart]

Michael,

First off, 66.67 percent of your reaction involved Bush-blaming. Stop pillorying the past and focus on the future. Our kids and grandkids will thank you later.

Second, I'm surprised you didn't detail the UN's role in policing North Korea's nuclear ambitions, especially after the 2006 test. Do you think the UN handled the matter effectively? Should the UN share any culpability? Should it play a greater role now? Unlike Bush, the UN is still around to deal with this.

Third, I find your concluding analysis laughably naive: You want to "stay the course" with six-party and/or direct negotiations even though Kim has a track record of violating the terms of every major agreement North Korea's ever negotiated with the U.S.?

You also fail to consider that negotiations might be Kim's desired end game: By drawing out talks, Kim gets to maintain his power, continue weapons development, and demand additional economic "blackmail" rewards in exchange for not conducting future tests. If he can drag out negotiations long enough, Kim might indeed be able to attain "actual nuclear war-fighting" status during Obama's term.

To use some oft-repeated Obama mantras, "The situation is getting worse. ... We have to act and act now." Unfortnately, I worry that Obama lacks the necessary experience and fortitude to come up with an "act now" solution, and instead will pass the buck to the UN and/or State Department to rehash "tired and failed policies of the past."

[apexfork]

The fear is not that they will develop "enough uranium to develop a credible nuclear deterrent".

The fear is that they will develop even one working device to sell to an insane stateless entity.

[VenisejbA]

They've already got a track record for selling all forms of weaponry to the Middle East.