"Kim's Nuclear Gamble"

One of the more interesting things we did in my International Politics class last week was watch a PBS special on North Korea. Not having researched it extensively, I knew the basic facts that have been repeated on the news - Kim Jong Il, the crazy reclusive cruel dictator of North Korea, has been defying the international community with a nuclear enrichment program aimed at building bombs. However, a situation is rarely as simple as "facts", which can be manipulated and interpreted in any number of ways. This documentary shed light for me on a different way they might be read...

Placing conflicts in their historical context is always very valuable, helping us understand how and why they originated. So as the film walked through the history of North Korea's path towards nuclear enrichment, I think it is very significant when they started - 1989. Other than being the year of my brother's birth, this was a highly significant date in world history - marking the fall of the Berlin Wall, and with it the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, North Korea had been protected under the "nuclear umbrella" of the USSR, so with the disintegration of their powerful ally they needed to find security somewhere else. This is huge for our understanding of North Korea's nuclear ambitions. When they started, it was not to thumb their nose at the international community, to threaten other countries, or to become a superpower themselves. It was a logical step for a country seeking to ensure its own national security after losing protection almost overnight.

Fast-forward to the Clinton era. By this time North Korea under Kim Jong Il is actively developing nuclear weapons, which is seen as a threat by the US and the West. Clinton manages to broker a deal by which North Korea will shut down its nuclear reactor in exchange for 2 light-water reactors (for energy purposes) and 500,000 tons of oil annually to jump-start their ailing economy. This could have worked - but the Republicans screwed it up when they gained control of Congress. The reason for their opposition? The deal contituted bribery, appeasing a cruel dictator. This argument makes no sense to me. Here we have the leader of a country who could potentially threaten us with nuclear weapons agree to give up the means by which to make those weapons. Please explain to me what the problem is with giving them these incentives so that perhaps they can develop their economy and infrastructure? Where is the bribery, the appeasement? Foreign policy is all about bargaining and compromise, and this is a fair deal - we eliminate a potential threat, they get some economic perks, we all live to fight another day.

Instead, though, the Republicans dragged their feet on implementation of our end of the deal - fuel delivery was consistantly late, and construction of the reactors fell behind. With any other country this would've been merely a nuisance, but with North Korea it was highly significant. This was essentially their first international agreement, and it was crucial for us to comply to the letter in order to establish the trustworthiness of the outside world. Unfortunately, our failure to consistantly and promptly fulfill our commitments was one of the factors that pushed North Korea to test a new long-range missile in 1998 - embarassing Clinton, and leading to a re-evaluation of US policy towards North Korea.

In the end diplomacy was the chosen route, and then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright flew to Pyongyang to meet with Kim Jong Il. The man she met was far from the charicature that had been fed to the Western world. She said that he took pride in his country, was humorous, attentive, and most importantly rational. This is key. I find it frustrating when the US and the West argue that certain countries cannot be trusted because their leaders are lunatics. By characterizing Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as irrational, we give ourselves license to treat them however we please, applying different standards (even double standards) as we see fit. Of course, I don't deny that these are dictators who oppress their people - that is horrible, but it does not make them irrational.

In fact, throughout this documentary we repeatedly saw Kim Jong Il willing to talk with the US, being open to compromise, and seeking a good relationship with us. Towards the end of Clinton's second term headway was being made towards an arms deal that would place limitations on the number of missiles the countries could possess. But sadly, the hope for this died when George W. Bush took the Oath of Office. He did not trust Kim Jong Il, and from that point on the US ceased talks and no longer tried to engage North Korea. Instead, the Bush Administration demanded concessions before it would talk with them (sound familar?) - then branded North Korea as part of the "axis of evil" in 2002.

At this point, the CIA reported that North Korea had restarted a clandestine nuclear program - and when confronted with this finding they admitted their intention to become a nuclear power. This set off a chain of events - Bush stopped fuel shipments and basically discarded the entire Clinton agreement; Kim Jong Il expelled IAEA inspectors and left the NPT. Many would say that Bush's actions were justified in face of blatant disregard for agreements by the North Koreans. However, I would say that Bush brought this on himself. What kind of reaction do you expect when you call someone part of an "axis of evil" - especially when the history books show that the last "axis" was crushed by American military might and nuclear bombs? It seems perfectly logical that North Korea would take this as a declaration of war, or at the very least a threat, and do the only thing they knew to do to increase their security - build nuclear weapons. In fact, the reason cited for their withdrawal from the NPT was that they needed nuclear weapons to deter an American attack. This was after the US invasion of Iraq, so with one "axis" member attacked, it was reasonable to think that they might be next.

Since then North Korea has repeatedly expressed a desire to talk directly with the US, but the Bush Administration has maintained that only multilateral talks will be acceptable. The same old arguments are used by conservatives - we can't be blackmailed into talking with a "rogue" nation, that would be appeasement. The Administration does not want to legitimize a reclusive, cruel regime that is acting in defiance of the international community. Yet I do not understand this either - since when does talking with someone mean condoning their actions? We talked with the Soviets throughout the Cold War even though we were poles apart on every concievable issue. And even if there was a good case to be made that meeting with Kim Jong Il directly would in some way give recognition to his regime, we may just have to deal with that. After all, every nation desires to be recognized as a legitimate world player and dealt with in a dignified manner - and I would guess that is at least part of the motivation for Kim Jong Il. What's the worst that could happen if we treated him like that, if we opened up the dialogue? Our current policy has certainly not succeeded...