Obama's Crisis Management: North Korea, Again

The United Nations Security Council approved tougher sanctions against North Korea.

President Barack Obama changed the old kabuki in dealing with his second North Korean crisis. The first time around, back in April, dealing with a long-range missile test that failed to place a satellite in orbit, Obama treated the effort as more of the same rather baffling attention-seeking by the Hermit Kingdom. This time, after a string of provocations including an underwhelming underground nuclear detonation, a series of missile launches, and the imprisonment of two California-based journalists, Obama went in another, tougher, direction that may lead to a naval confrontation.

North Korea, one of the most secretive nations on the planet, has been developing missiles and working for years on a nuclear weapons program. In the long-established pattern, the North Korean regime engages in provocative acts and the US and allies pay it off, while working to limit the risk from North Korea's activities and promoting sanctions that don't accomplish much.

In 2008, President George W. Bush -- who in 2002 proclaimed North Korea part of the "Axis of Evil" with Iraq and Iran -- actually removed North Korea from the list of terrorist states.

Defense Secretary Bob Gates declared North Korea's latest actions "a grave threat" at last week's meeting of Asian defense ministers in Singapore.

Naturally, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich claimed Obama was making America less safe by his handling of the April crisis.

Obama was also dealing with the Somali pirates crisis in April, ordering the Navy Seal team rescue of a captured American freighter captain. Then Obama gave more attention in his public statements, though less in private discussion, to the North Korean missile launch during that crisis.

That's because North Korea, unlike the Somali pirates, is a nation-state. And because North Korea has a pretty well-established pattern of trying to get attention and validation through various missile launches and brandishings of nuclear reactors. In a sense, it was all part of an established kabuki.

The launch actually failed in its mission of putting a North Korean satellite in to orbit. While the first stage of the rocket was successful, launching it over an agitated Japan, failure occurred somewhere in the second or third stages.

In June 2008, then President George W. Bush removed North Korea from the terrorist state list and ended key trade sanctions.

Some over on the American right said that Obama should have stopped the North Korean launch. Obama had ordered US Navy destroyers with anti-missile capability into the area, but did not order the shoot-down.

A fulminating Gingrich said the missile should have been stopped, if not shot down, perhaps by special operations forces. He was quite vague, actually, perhaps because what he was saying didn't make much sense.

Since the missile could have been shot down, it wasn't necessary to actually do so. And North Korea - which the Bush/Cheney Administration removed from the list of threatening rogue nations after going through this sort of thing on several previous occasions - has a habit of making a spectacle of itself in order to publicize one of its few industries which actually has some success, and to try to get international aid.

This time around, Obama, working through the United Nations to gain legitimacy for his strategy, moved against North Korea's lucrative arms trade. The United Nations Security Council action came slower than anticipated in levying tough new sanctions against North Koreas for its recent string of international provocations.

But it did come today, with a unanimous vote, including support from frequent North Korean allies China and Russia.

North Korea made a show last summer of destroying a nuclear reactor tower that was the most visible symbol of its nuclear weapons program.

One reason for the slowness of UN Security Council action is that the resolution gives other nations legal sanction for naval interdiction of North Korean shipping to see if nuclear materials and technology or advanced rocketry is being sent elsewhere in the world.

Think of it as a potential "quarantine." That's the phrase then President John F. Kennedy used to describe his sending the Navy to inspect shipping coming into Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

A country may refuse inspection of one of its flagged ships at sea, but then has to direct the ship to a nearby port for inspection by local authorities. If it refuses that, it triggers a Security Council session and likely sanctions. So there may be ways around this move. But giving the Navy the legal right under international law to challenge any suspect shipping is a major escalation of tactics against North Korea that will give its potential partners great pause.

North Korea promised "merciless retaliation" to any nation trying to interfere with its missile test earlier in the spring.

Meanwhile, North Korea may be prepping a third underground detonation of a nuclear device. The first was in October 2006 and the second was last month. Both were underwhelming in terms of yield, well below the weapons used in 1945 by the US against Japan. And detonating a nuclear device underground is still a far cry from delivering a warhead.

North Korea may also be prepping a long-range missile test. Its last such, early this spring, was something of a dud. The Hermit Kingdom sought to place a satellite in orbit. But failed miserably at the task.

It's unlikely to take this biggest challenge yet to its ability to peddle its weaponry lying down. Or at least, not without a lot of barking.

You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.

Comments

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Incidentally, I use a number of sources, not all of them Western.

For example, I feature live links on my site to Al Jazeera and Russia Today, not that I always agree with what they're saying ..

[arvay]

Realistically, if a North Korean ship or a North Korean shipment on another nation's ship is boarded out of its naval reach -- which is quite limited -- there is little North Korea can actually do.

Yes, they can fire off more missiles and do more nuclear testing. The might even provoke a confrontation at sea and have a few of their ships sunk in the process.

But attacking Seoul would be the end of the game, they would be committing suicide. A punishing counterattack would follow, probably including on their nuclear facilities. Would China come to their assistance? I doubt it, although they'd probably make outraged noises -- but wouldn't cash in their Treasury bonds.

So it looks like or best options are financial and measures to assure that they aren't delivering fissile materials elsewhere. And, no other reaction form us, which frustrates the purpose of these irrational actions.

Students of the Korean War will recall that blustery brinkmanship is an ingrained cultural habit. Time to call their bluff.

[Winning09]

Yep.

[oxi]

When it comes to nukes and North Korea, touch cookies!

North Korea is no longer a part of the NPT Treaty! In other words North Korea has every right to pursue a nuclear weapons program! Tough cookies!

Their is another country in the same boat, it is Israel and I do not see anybody whining about their nuclear program!

Note: how dare the arrogant current members of the nuclear club have the nerve to lash out at North Korea? If you do not like North Korea from LEGALLY obtaining nukes, 3 things:

Live with it...

Prepare defenses against them...

Or leave this planet and go to the moon and create a nation there...

Rule of law applies and we cannot do anything to stop them!

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

The UN Security Council, mostly made up of non-members of the nuclear club, disagrees with your view, 15-0.

[oxi]

Is this the same UN Security Council that was ignored Serbia 1999 and Iraq 2003?

Sorry, the UN Security Council has been compromised in their authority by the 5 permanent members past abuses, all are guilty, none more than the other.

So when NATO bombs Serbia in violation of not only their treaty but the UN Charter that the NATO Treaty is placed under (Article 51 could not be used because Serbia never threatened nor attacked a single NATO state) and now all of a sudden you have the nerve to say the UN voted, NO WAY will I buy into that logic.

North Korea has every right to build nukes. Tough cookies!

[Winning09]

It isn't legal to break agreements to shut down their nuclear weapons program, break agreements to stop exporting weapons technology, and to threaten their neighbors with war.

You can find somebody more deserving to apologize for...

>>>> Rule of law applies and we cannot do anything to stop them!

[oxi]

Not legal to break agreements you say:

Torture and the 8th Amenedement to the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Conventions...

Bombing Serbia 1999 against the UN Charter and NATO Treaty...

Recognizing an independent Kosovo in violation of UNSC Resolution 1244, basically stealing land away from Serbia...

Is the NATO Treaty your new rules to obey or that of the UN Charter?

[oxi]

When it comes to nukes and North Korea, touch cookies!

North Korea is no longer a part of the NPT Treaty! In other words North Korea has every right to pursue a nuclear weapons program! Tough cookies!

Their is another country in the same boat, it is Israel and I do not see anybody whining about their nuclear program!

Note: how dare the arrogant current members of the nuclear club have the nerve to lash out at North Korea? If you do not like North Korea from LEGALLY obtaining nukes, 3 things:

Live with it...

Prepare defenses against them...

Or leave this planet and go to the moon and create a nation there...

Rule of law applies and we cannot do anything to stop them!

[Winning09]

Be an international outlaw.

Then you are IN the law!

I love your "reasoning."

>>>> North Korea is no longer a part of the NPT Treaty! In other words North Korea has every right to pursue a nuclear weapons program! Tough cookies!

[erikhiga]

Seriously? Is anybody really afraid of North Korea?

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Do you remember the Korean War?

[oxi]

The ICTY?

You actually respect this travesty to justice?

Have you bothered to check where the majority of the funding for the ICTY comes from? The majority of judges and prosecutors?

I'll gve you a hint, NATO COUNTRIES!!!

If you cannot see the conflict of interest, you are lost and should not be respected!

No wonder NATO war crimes were never even brought into the ICTY. No wonder!

Geesh, wake up to the realities of this world and stop relying on the western media for your sources!

[Winning09]

Sure.

South Korea, Japan ...

[GrainOSand]

Yielding is excellent technique, and snapback is powerful response. I pray for moments of clarity in the thought process of the North Korean leadership such that provocative bluster does not become real tragedy of global proportions. Brinksmanship in a nuclear arena is game changing folly. This is not Caesars’ father gladiator, this is instantaneous massive death. One immediately wonders why, as Rodney King asked. Alas, it is of no consequence...the answer, for Cain slew Abel. The best we can do is be on the lookout for the rise of Cain. So...let us inspect Cain’s ships and let us keep Cain quarantined. Give Cain a timeout and as Cain sits there screaming, pouting, kicking and sucking his thumb, may Cain come to his senses and see the blinding light of a nuclear wasteland brought on by a wasteland of thought concerning how nations might have better relations.. Or, for the secularist, let us recognize, be on the lookout for, and have sophisticated and powerful methods to combat...evil manifest by nation State, creepy cabal of murdering cave dwellers, or domestic lone wolf, long in the tooth -- assassin. It is not carrot and stick -- it is carrot, stick, nightmare. A naval confrontation could be a case of stick leading to nightmare. You are right Mr. Bradley, Obama is calling the bluff, and that is dangerous, but his response cannot be cowboy or coy. Tone is everything with tyrants. A firm tone sounded from the UN. Let’s see.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Yielding and snapback. Interesting concepts.

[GrainOSand]

Nah, not really, see a pulled rubber band, still water disturbed, a slingshot, a bouncing ball, a 110 pound woman wrap a 250 pound man around her finger and turn him into a blubbering pile of flesh and bones. Seemingly weak positions hiding strength are all around us, and utilizing such technique has been proven in the laboratory of real life to produce positive and negative results. Bullies do not know how to sacrifice such that seeming loss (weakness) today transforms into a powerful position of dominance tomorrow. Bullies always want to dominate, and thus they remain highly vulnerable to the red cape hiding the sword. Nations should take heed of this as they attempt to bully others. An open hand of friendship and good intention can easily become a initial backhand leading to an overwhelming response to evil unchanged by the offer of an open hand.

Iron wrapped in silk or the velvet sheath of a razor

[Merlin7]

I'm no fan of North Korea, but this narrative reflects the America-centric attitude that keeps the U.S. at odds with the rest of the world. Even a layman must doubt that NK is carrying out its expensive missile tests merely to "get attention" from the U.S. As I understand it, NK's most lucrative business is building and exporting weapons, especially missiles. It seems to be going about its business in a very logical and predictable manner. I would imagine that it could sell its ICBMs for a tidy profit. And developing nuclear weapons would seem to be the logical way to ensure that the regime is not ousted by either SK or the U.S. So where does the "crazy" come in? NK is vicious and absolutely ruthless, true, but I don 't see any more craziness there than in Iran, Syria or half a dozen other dictatorships.

Also, the other day an expert on NK on a TV new show said NK freaked out after the U.S. failed to keep a promise to supply 600,000 tons of fuel, which led to the latest round of belligerent actions. What's up with that? Maybe I've grown overly cynical, but I strongly suspect that the American public is not being told the whole story about what's going on with NK. Gee, wouldn't that be surprising.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Well, this piece is about what President Obama is doing on the latest crisis. I'm sure someone can write this from the North Korean perspective.

The one big thing you've left out of your critique -- and it is, let's say, a very big thing -- is that North Korea supposedly halted its nuclear weapons program last year. Notice the news video of it destroying the big reactor tower there? And that this is a constant pattern with North Korea, holding up the West.

As for North Korea being just as rational as Syria and others, well, those other countries don't make a practice of heavily publicized provocation such as holding missile tests over Japan, detonating nuclear weapons underground, and so on.

[Winning09]

If that's true, and if that's what is really going on, why don't the North Koreans just say it?

They certainly have the attention of the world media, which they obviously crave as they go out of their way all the time to get it.

They aren't complaining about supposedly not getting some fuel, they are proclaiming that they insist on being a nuclear power, threatening South Korea and Japan in the process.

>>>> Also, the other day an expert on NK on a TV new show said NK freaked out after the U.S. failed to keep a promise to supply 600,000 tons of fuel, which led to the latest round of belligerent actions. What's up with that? Maybe I've grown overly cynical, but I strongly suspect that the American public is not being told the whole story about what's going on with NK. Gee, wouldn't that be surprising.

[Winning09]

Man, the language the North Koreans use in that news clip from April about "merciless retaliatory blows"...They sound like brainwashed cultists.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

It is bizarre, as though from a Stalinist time warp.

[MajorKong]

That's pretty standard DPRK boilerplate. Usually they throw in a line about turning South Korea into "a sea of fire".

[Winning09]

It's still crazy talk, whether it's "standard DPRK boilerplate" or not.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

That's what I mean by this close: "It's unlikely to take this biggest challenge yet to its ability to peddle its weaponry lying down. Or at least, not without a lot of barking."

However, they've been very provocative lately, even more so than usual.

The UN Security Council was unanimous in taking this very seriously.

>That's pretty standard DPRK boilerplate. Usually they throw in a line about turning South Korea into "a sea of fire".

[Winning09]

The news footage of North Korea supposedly destroying its nuclear program last year shows how trustworthy they are.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Indeed.

[Winning09]

I love the news clip showing Bush REMOVING North Korea from his "Axis of Evil" list.

Last year!

Another Bush blunder, and great cover for Obama.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Bush and Cheney. Those guys were such peaceniks ...

[Winning09]

I like Bob Gates in that news clip from Singapore. I like Bob Gates as Secretary of Defense. He had the balls to oppose Petraeus's plan to send twice as many troops to Afghanistan, and to shut down some of those big-ticket boondoggles at the Pentagon.

[Winning09]

It's good to see in the news clip China and Russia finally getting serious about the North Korean problem.

[Winning09]

I guess we are going to have to get tougher against North Korea. I'd hate to see them provide al Qaeda with a suitcase nuke down the line. Weird country.

[MajorKong]

It's very questionable if a "suitcase nuke" has ever existed. Even if it were technically feasible, it would be well beyond North Korea's capabilities.

[Winning09]

America and Russia can both create suitcase nuclear explosives.

And radiological weapons are easily done by North Korea.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

An explosive "suitcase" device is beyond North Korea's abilities, currently.

Actually, their nuclear weapons are relatively weak, with the test in May barely more powerful than the one in 2006.

But I believe they intend to improve them ...

[S1m0n]

While it might have been possible - just - to shoot down a North Korean rocket, it was not at all likely. Better to keep your powder dry and look tough than to miss and look like fools. Particularly as the launch was an attack on anyone.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

It could have been shot down. But then what happens after that?

The missile test actually was something of a failure. As was the latest nuclear test. It's as though North Korea is somewhat desperate to pull off stunts that aren't ready.

Which does not mean that their current state of technology can't mean trouble.

[Joseph Steinberg]

Kicking the can up the cliff...it's already falling back down.

[Winning09]

You mean it's already falling back down since yesterday? Do you see into the future?

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Well, now there is UN authorization to challenge ships at sea. This is a more explicit development. The new approach hasn't failed yet in the 24 hours it's been in effect ...

[Winning09]

But do we want to risk a war with North Korea?

[GrainOSand]

Patience young Skywalker...

Smile!