Calling North Korea's Bluff

Kim Jong-Il, "Dear Leader" of the backwards, bellicose, dystopian dictatorship that has held its southern neighbor hostage for half a century, is truly unique in his twisted ingenuity. He defied the international community's resolutions, demands and threats for decades, while extracting concessions from the world's most powerful nations. He developed nuclear weapons, conducted ballistic missile tests, and openly threatened other nations. He is among the world's most dangerous proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, if not the most dangerous. Despite all this, Kim and his pathetically stagnant nation remain, for all practical purposes, untouchable.

In response to North Korea's most recent bout of nuclear tests and threats, hawks in Washington are once again calling for a hard, unforgiving approach. The Wall Street Journal's Gordon G. Chang recently gave voice to these hawkish sentiments in his article "How to Stop North Korea's Weapons Proliferation". According to Chang, North Korea's recent renunciation of the 1953 armistice, which in effect ended the Korean War, means that the US and North Korea are once again technically belligerents at war. This gives the United States legal standing to interdict North Korean vessels -- specifically the Kang Nam, an infamous proliferating ship now being trailed by the US Navy.

Chang proposes that rather than passively watching the Kang Nam unload its illegal goods, the US Navy should board it and seize its crew and cargo -- an approach that North Korea already said it would consider to be an "act of war". So once again the US is presented with a now-familiar choice: allow Kim Jong-Il to thumb his nose at the world, or risk the resumption of war on the Korean peninsula.

Beneath all the posturing and blustering rhetoric, the reality is this: as long as Kim's masses of artillery (and WMDs) stand ready to incinerate the bustling city of Seoul with its 10 million inhabitants, the aggressive proposals of Chang and countless other frustrated hawks will remain nothing more than dangerous fantasies. No matter how many nuclear tests Kim conducts, the United States is unwilling to call his bluff and risk not only war, but the slaughter of millions of South Korean civilians.

It is hard to imagine that Chang is unaware of this fundamental reality of US-North Korean relations. Nevertheless, he carefully plans this "legally justified" attack on the Kang Nam, conveniently omitting any mention of the catastrophic result that could follow.

Perhaps most disturbing is Chang's concluding remark: "North Korea, after all, has resumed the Korean War." In the end it seems that Chang is prepared to justify such a risk with a technicality. The Korean People's Army declared that it would "not be bound" by the 1953 armistice; therefore we have license to provoke the mass slaughter of millions.

US-North Korean relations are largely based on the unfortunate fact that Kim Jong-Il holds the city of Seoul hostage. As long as North Korea holds this trump card, talk by US hawks of naval seizures, attacks on nuclear facilities, or blockades is foolish. This is even truer because Kim very well may not be bluffing -- the insulated, eccentric leader's mental health has been called into question more than once.

As tensions with North Korea inevitably continue to escalate in the coming weeks, we must be careful to ensure that the reckless aggression of hawks like Chang does not gain traction. Though our inability to stem North Korean belligerence may be frustrating, it is certainly preferable to the extreme risk of calling a madman's bluff.