Obama has more foreign policy luck. The first was a dramatic hostage situation on the high seas that ended with a Rainbow Six-style sniping of three Somali pirates. Now comes the reliably pugnacious Kim Jong-Il, using his signature saber-rattling (though admittedly somewhat heightened rhetoric, even for his standards) to shift the international focus from Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Sri Lanka back onto the Hermit Kingdom. However, following its initial hullabaloo, the current standoff may be a foreign policy windfall for the Obama administration by uniting typically disparate regional players. The developing situation appears increasingly like an Axis and Allies scenario, but with an Axis of only one who may have finally overstepped.
As I wrote earlier this week: "Although many news sources are emphasizing North Korea's recent nuclear test as a "3:00 A.M." moment for President Obama, it is just as much the case for China as it grows into its nascent international role." And indeed, as the standoff continues, pressure on global players other than the US has increased even further, especially in Beijing and Moscow. This is because the US response is more or less preordained, leaving the ball in China and Russia's court. There is an established US protocol for responding to North Korean aggression that includes, but is not limited to: calling for stricter UN Security Council sanctions; freezing North Korean assets and blocking its access to foreign financial markets; and enlisting the cooperation of the problem state's closest allies. In the current situation, it is this final protocol that matters most.
The London G-20 Summit in April this year was a diplomatic chumfest that at times reached the level of farce. However it was also a momentous occasion to introduce Obama to a star-struck international community. Before the end of day one, the new administration had already met and hashed out optimistic agreements with both Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev, marking a promising departure from strained relations in years past.
Obama and Hu's first meeting ended with an agreement to create a US-China Strategic Economic Dialogue to address China's disproportionately small pull in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and to plan for the possibility of joint financial bailouts. Likewise, Obama and Medvedev's meeting ended with pledges to pursue joint initiatives later this year meant to improve ties, and, more specifically, to reduce nuclear stockpiles (an issue with direct propinquity to the North Korea problem).
Both China and Russia have in the past been complacent towards North Korean aggression. Though Kim's missile launches and nuclear tests are surely a diplomatic annoyance, it is never enough for Beijing or Moscow to issue more than a verbal wrist-slap to their vestigial Soviet-era ally. But this time is different, and the advantage is all Obama's. Indeed, neither country actually wants a nuclear armed North Korea to join the geopolitical chess match. The global financial meltdown squeezing GDP growth worldwide, and both countries now following up on G-20 pledges for better ties, all bodes well for a concerted, harsh response that finally goes beyond just words. Indeed, the current crisis allows for unprecedented cooperation between global players that could lead to good faith dealings with other prickly issues, such as global security, the economy and climate change.
With the mandate that a unified front will provide, harsh sanctions specifically targeting Kim's military will finally be feasible, as will a full-court press on North Korean vessels under the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) with South Korea onboard after years of reticence. Most essential of all, however, is the possibility that China will finally close off trade and aid channels that have for years propped up the North's regime. Admittedly, such additional provocations could lead the DPRK to back up its shrill rhetoric with violence. But multiple experts, speaking to the Washington Post Wednesday, for their part, agreed that a large-scale clash is extremely unlikely.
All things considered, much good could come out of the current crisis. Sure, Obama didn't ask for any of this. But if the pieces continue to fall into place against the Hermit King, this week's mess could be next week's fortuitous moment.
Follow Stuart Whatley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stuwhat84
Why Obama can't be soft on North Korea
Eugene Robinson: Sotomayor, North Korea, Obama World or Cheney ...
US wants more backing for tough response to nkorea
McCain on Sotomayor, North Korea Threat
Obama Top Aide Says North Korea and Iran Should Not have Nukes
Obama welcomes South Korea to anti-nuke group
US Lawmaker Confident China Will Help with North Korea
After Initial Mild Reaction, Kremlin May Consider Tougher Stance ...
ANALYSIS-Anti-proliferation group only symbolic without China
Gates heads to Asia amid crisis with North Korea
Russia says not against North Korea UN resolution
North Korea: Russia takes extra security measures in case of ...
CNN's outstanding investigative reporter, Christiane Amanpour, did an excellent story (one hour long documentary) on North Korea, which amazingly allowed her to interview and film within North Korea, albeit with very strict guidelines.
One part of that documentary which really struck me was that the Boston Symphony Orchestra was allowed to give a concert in the country. When it played "Rhapsody in Blue", the North Koreans actually wept with joy, they had never heard it before. Sad. Very sad people.
If so imo he has more than enough reason to do so.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-lurio/auschwitz-the-musical-or_b_208214.html
The real problem is why the US refeses to sign a peace treaty with No Korea, and end the war? until we do that, I forsee more of the same.
action. It would be up to the UN to enact a settlement.
Isn't a unite front on North Korea not just good for Obama but also for the World?
Fact: No Korea is a barron mountain. Even if they were the most peaceful democracy, there is no way they could feed themselves. So, what are they to do. They are orphins of the cold war, born fo the USA and the Soviet Union, after Japan raped them. The situation in Korea was not caused by China, and if you know anything at all about the history of WWII and the Korean War, then you know that Mao did everything he could to avoid that war, he even tried to get No Korea not to invade the south. So what's this nonsence about calling China an "ally" of No Korea. Don't kid yourself.
Now that the Soviet Union is a cast off snake skin, Russia does not care about No Korea.
Neither China nor Russia care about Japan. Japan raped and plundered Korea and China. Do you think they care if No Korea scares Japan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_Murder_Incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea
1) NK conducts weapons tests (nuclear or conventional), generally in violation of U.N. resolutions
2) Security council members then agree to tightening its grip by imposing/increasing sanctions
3) NK gets angry, conducts more weapons tests, makes dires (but empty) threats, maybe even mobilizes its army
4) This forces the U.S. soldiers stationed in S. Korea + Koreans soldiers and navies to mobilize in response
5) Seeing the U.S. and S. Koreans mobilize infuriates NK even more...
And so on.... Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Kim always seem to launch one of these missle/bomb tests around an American holiday? I seem to remember him doing something like this last year during Fourth of July week. What's that all about?
Knowing this convinces me that just using more angry language and empty threats will have no effect, other than to encourage more "Look At ME" behavior in the future. The danger is whether KJI has some final wish before he dies of seeing his million-strong army put into action.