Oh Korea

I have wanted to write about the North Korea mess ever since the reports came out that (e.g. this one from the NYT) of North Korea had again claimed -- this time very publicly and explicitly -- that it possessed nuclear weapons and was prepared to use them in the event of a US-led attack. It is possible that this claim is only a bluff, but Administration seems to believe it is not, and, despite the Administration's miserable intelligence record in the recent past, I tend to think they know what they are talking about in this case. Moreover, the prospects of nukes per se is only part of the problem. The other part is that the North Koreans clearly do have weapons grade materiel and are demonstrably willing to sell that materielto people who wish us ill.

So, what do we do? Aaaah. Now THERE's the rub. My delay in trying to actually suggest something on this question is a reflection of the fact that I have no frickin' idea! I still don't, but I am encouraged to write nontheless by the fact that I am not alone in my confusion. See, e.g., The NYT Editorial Borad, Daniel Drezner, One hand Clapping, and the links they provide. So far as I can tell some of the biggest voices in blogdom have, like me, either very little (e.g. Kevin Drum, Instapundit, and Laura Rozen) or nothing at all (Matt Yglesias and Crooked Timber) to say about the issue.

I will admit that my first reaction is "nuke the sumbitch before he nukes us!" But even if we could ignore or accept the unthinkable humanitarian consequences (which we or at least I cannot), the unceratinty about the geoploitical consequences makes this option unthinkable.

Nichloas Kristoff comes as close as anyone I have read to propsing a potentially workable approach to the issue in his NYT Op-Ed piece on Wednesday:

The other option is the path that Richard Nixon pursued with Maoist China: resolute engagement, leading toward a new "grand bargain" in which Kim Jong Il would give up his nuclear program in exchange for political and economic ties with the international community. This has the advantage that the best bet to bring down Mr. Kim, the Dear Leader, isn't isolation, but contacts with the outside world.

This is essentially the same approach that Robert Wright advocated more generally in his Op-Ed piece (discussed here) a couple of weeks ago. The problem with the engagement approach, though, is that it assumes that the leadership of the target nation is at least rational and is not bent on sending his nation back into the stone age. There is little in the public record that would justify such an assumption about Kim Jong Il. In this reagrd, the Bushies may (for once) actually be right in assumimg that Kim will take whatever he can get out of engagement and welch completely on his supposedly reciprocal pledge to abandon his nuclear wepons program.

I think Wright is correct when he argues that "[i]nvolvement in the larger capitalist world is time-release poison for tyranny." Thus, in the loing run, I think the engagement strategy will work. But in a case like North Korea, the "long run" is probably to be measured in decades, rather than years.

There simply are no good choices for the Administration here. And, that may be the scariest part of all. Does the Administration that brought you Iraq have even the most remote chance of successfully negotiating the shoals posed by North Korea? The record so far suggests not. But many, just maybe, they have learned a thing or two over the last four years. And, maybe just maybe, they will find a way through this thicket. If they do, I will forgive them a lot.

Beyond this, my one question is where the [heck] is China? Surely the idea of a nuclear North Korea is at least a big a concern for China as it is to us. And, they unquestionably have a far greater ability to actually control old Kim that we do. This is China's chance to really emerge as a player in terms of maintaining world peace and security. Let's hope she grasps that opportunity -- for her own sake as well as ours.