US-North Korean relations have seen no improvement since US President George W. Bush assumed office in January 2001. Instead, tensions have been escalating. This has become more evident since the trip to Pyongyang by US Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly last October.
With the US-led war on Iraq all but over, one can't help wondering whether North Korea, listed by Bush as one of the three "axis of evil" members, will become the next military target as the US implements its anti-terrorism and anti-weapons-of-mass-destruction (WMD) policy.
In this article I will try to analyze US-North Korean tensions in the light of the personal traits of the two leaders -- Bush and Kim Jong-il.
Generally, international relations can be studied at three levels -- international systems, states and individuals. Analyses of the latter underline a leader's personality (such as his or her policy preferences, leadership models, values and experience), as the most important variables influencing a nation's diplomatic policies and international relations. The personal-level approach, however, is not generally favored by academics because of the difficulty of accessing information and the controversial nature of any evidence.
Even so, it is an approach that can be highly credible when used to study political systems in which power is concentrated in one person, such as presidential systems, dictatorships and communist and autocratic regimes. The US is a democracy with a presidential system while North Korea is a communist autocracy. In addition, Bush and Kim both exhibit domineering leadership styles. There is justification for applying the individual-level approach to the escalating nuclear crisis between the countries.
Close investigation of their upbringing, experience and convictions, all of which are instructive as to the formation of their personal traits, shows that the two men have much in common.
First, both of their fathers were heads of state. Their experiences when growing up and the status they enjoy today are mostly down to who their fathers were. Bush's and Kim's lives have so far both gone smoothly, without major setbacks.
Bush graduated from top universities, with a bachelor's degree in history from Yale and a master's degree in business management from Harvard. Before winning the presidency, he was governor of Texas for two terms (1994 to 2000).
Kim, after graduating from Kim Il-sung University in 1964, was immediately appointed as an instructor in the organizational instruction department of the Workers' Party. In September 1973, he replaced his uncle as secretary of the party's propaganda department and became the anointed successor to his father, Kim Il-sung. When his father died in 1994, Kim Jong-il took over the reins of government.
Against this kind of background, Bush and Kim both have strong beliefs and almost religious faith in their beliefs. Bush views himself as the savior of Christianity and regards the separation of good from evil as paramount. He insists on not compromising with what he believes to be evil forces and believes that evil must be eradicated to save the people of the world.
Kim, brought up in a society that worships his father and family, is viewed as a god by North Koreans. Nurtured by his father's anti-imperialism and anti-US thinking and his emphasis on self-determination, he has strong self-esteem and the willpower to act out his beliefs.
As a result, the two have adopted a tit-for-tat attitude toward each other. Although they keep reiterating that the door to negotiations remains open, they have maintained high-handed postures, held fast to their own positions and expected the other side to give in first.
One can't help worrying that the two leaders' personal clashes seem to be driving their nations into a game of chicken, in which there are two drivers speeding toward each other from opposite directions of the highway. Both are adopting radical strategies in an attempt to force their opponent into thinking the other side is unpredictable and irrational, and then giving way. The one who compromises is the chicken.
During North Korea's nuclear crisis in 1994, the US and South Korea mapped out Operation Plan 5027 for surgical strikes on nuclear facilities in the North. The plan has been reviewed every two years. In view of the terrorist attacks on New York on Sept. 11, the plan was amended last year to include a scheme to oust Kim Jong-il.
Now that the US has toppled Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's regime, it might up the ante against North Korea and even launch similar bombings on the nation in the future. If the US undertakes surgical strikes against the North's nuclear facilities, Pyongyang might choose to strike the South, launch missile attacks against Japan, or even wage a full-scale invasion of the South. A second Korean war will then be inevitable.
It is worthy of note that some Bush administration members believe that if the US were to launch surgical strikes on North Korea, the latter would not -- because it wouldn't dare -- launch the full-scale attack, of which Pyongyang has spoken, against the South or Japan.
But Kim has nevertheless threatened, relying on his nation's strategic advantage against the South and Japan, that he would not hesitate to wage war if the US attacks his country. His real intention is to use the development of nuclear weapons and medium- and long-range missiles to push the US to the negotiating table, in a bid to acquire financial aid and forge diplomatic relations with the US.
The trilateral talks between North Korea, China and the US are certainly to be welcomed. But they do not mean that the crisis will be defused. If these two leaders, with their strong self-esteem and iron wills, really are the "little emperors" that the above analysis suggests, insisting on achieving their goals even to the extent of using military force, then their clashes of personality will lead East Asia toward war.
Liou To-hai is a professor of diplomacy at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Jackie Lin
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS