The Korean Peninsula is experiencing one of its periodic bouts of extremism, this time marked by the suicide on May 22 of former South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun and North Korea’s second test of a nuclear device. Roh’s suicide is a disaster for his family and a national shame, while North Korean leader Kim Jong-il’s nuclear blast is something of a temper tantrum, but one that may have dire consequences for the two Koreas and the world.
The North Korean bomb, estimated at 4 kilotonnes, does not come anywhere near the magnitude of the atomic bombs of between 15 kilotonnes and 21 kilotonnes that the US dropped on Japan 64 years ago. Indeed, this vainglorious attempt by Kim Jong-il reminds Koreans of the mother bullfrog in Aesop’s Fables who puffed herself out to imitate an ox.
Yet North Korea’s world-defying belligerency is not utter madness. Rather, it is a by-product of its own acute fears of regime collapse.
As a Korean, I am always puzzled by Korean extremism. Where in the world can you find a more isolated, regimented and militarized dynastic mutation of a communist totalitarian system than in North Korea? Where on earth can you see a nuclear-armed, missile-shooting panhandler such as Kim Jong-il? Is there another country where only a father and his son have ruled like demigods for the last 61 years?
Likewise, where else but in South Korea can you find a Christian church whose registered membership runs upwards of 800,000, and where nearly 100,000 adherents attend each of the three Sunday services every week? Where else can you witness an ex-president commit suicide by jumping off a cliff near his residence? And this in a country that had an estimated per capita income of US$40 in the 1940s but has now become the world’s 12th or 13th-largest economy.
Cornelius Osgood, an American anthropologist, attributed Korean extremism to the peninsula’s weather. He observed that the Korean temperament is a product of long, harsh Siberian winters and hot, humid summers, with only short springs and autumns.
I believe, however, that Korean extremism stems from the country’s geography and history. Surrounded by hostile neighbors such as Chinese, Mongols and Manchus in the north and Japanese across the sea, Koreans have struggled tooth and nail for thousands of years to retain their ethnic, linguistic, cultural and political identity.
Setting the blame game aside, what can be done with North Korea? Unfortunately, putting the nuclear genie back in the bottle is next to impossible. The effectiveness of available options is limited, and all of them are pregnant with unpredictable political and military consequences.
“Economic strangulation” of North Korea appears to be the fallback option. Strengthening and tightening UN Security Council Resolution 1718, crafted in the wake of North Korea’s first nuclear test in October 2006, should be the immediate task. The Security Council is already at work drafting a new resolution. But to make the new resolution effective, China’s full and unwavering participation — which has not yet come about — is critical. Any unilateral measures against North Korea by individual countries must be executed within the broader framework of the new resolution.
Even if new sanctions are imposed, the door to the Six-Party Talks must be left open for Kim Jong-il. In this eyeball-to-eyeball situation, the other five parties in the talks — China, Japan, Russia, the US and South Korea — must not give in first to North Korea. At present, public opinion worldwide, particularly in South Korea and Japan, is highly volatile. A cooling-off period is necessary. Seeking dialogue with North Korea immediately after its missile tantrum and nuclear brinkmanship is unwise and impractical.
After tough and effective UN-led sanctions are imposed, the concerned parties must wait until the North feels the pain of the economic squeeze. But as North Korea is one of the world’s poorest and least globalized states, the effectiveness of sanctions will be limited.
At the same time, the nuclear threat is not the most immediate danger. The bigger threat today is actual combat, for the day after North Korea’s nuclear test, South Korea announced its full participation in the US-led Proliferation Strategic Initiative, which seeks to intercept ships that may be involved in illegally transporting nuclear technology. North Korea blasted this South Korean decision as a “declaration of war.” Great care and cool heads will be needed in the seas around Korea in the days and weeks to come.
Rising tension on the Korean Peninsula is shattering fast the glimmers of hope for re-unity that followed 10 years of progress under the Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun governments. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, through his flip-flops, and Kim Jong-il, with his renewed nuclear blackmail, both seem determined to see relations deteriorate.
Korea’s two leaders must not repeat the mistake of their predecessors in the latter part of the 19th century. Blinded by internecine domestic power struggles, they failed to see the great powers’ strategic gambits in the region. That failure led directly to the colonization of Korea by Japan.
Worsening inter-Korean relations will certainly make both sides less secure and stable — politically, economically and militarily. Caught in this vicious spiral, North and South Korea will become far more vulnerable to neighboring powers’ strategic maneuvers.
As a result, growing inter-Korean hostility may ultimately prove far more lethal to the well-being of all Koreans than Roh Moo-hyun’s tragic suicide and Kim Jong-il’s futile fireworks.
Yang Sung-chul is a distinguished professor at Korea University in Seoul and a former ambassador of the Republic of Korea to the US.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers