Tensions are growing rapidly on the Korean Peninsula at the news North Korea is about to launch a long-range missile. Speculation includes all sorts of scenarios, from the possibility the United States will blow it out of the sky immediately after launching to the suggestion that the U.S. and Japan will strengthen sanctions against Pyongyang and essentially discard the six-party process. All the possibilities being mentioned are, of course, being made on the premise that the confrontation will intensify and the overall situation is turning for the worse. It is a nightmare, returning just three-and-a-half years since the nuclear crisis toward the end of 2002, when there was even talk of the possibility of a U.S. air strike.
As so many observers note, there is little for North Korea to gain from firing a missile. It has long said it develops them for defensive purposes. However, for a country like North Korea that is surrounded by major powers, the ability to manage tension and crises is more important than a high degree of missile technology. It does not have what it would take to be able to handle the long-term tension and isolation that would result from a missile firing. It may be thinking it would at least be advantageous for missile exports, but that is a miscalculation. It is unclear whether the launch would even be a successful one, and if it happened it would become more likely that the U.S. would take measures to blockade North Korea's missile exports.
Firing a missile would not be an effective tool for improving relations with the U.S., as the North's "brinkmanship" in the past did not help things. Instead, the launch would provide hardliners in the Bush administration and the military-industrial complex with an excuse to put priority on pressure instead of dialogue, and it would strengthen the military alliance between the U.S. and Japan. Furthermore, it would be a considerable burden for all those who want negotiations, those who have been working for a peaceful resolution to the problems facing the Korean Peninsula. This alone should be reason enough for North Korea to cease missile launch preparations immediately.
The Bush administration, for its part, deserves criticism for trying to pressure Pyongyang to surrender, while making almost no effort when it comes to the six-party talks. It refused to allow a meeting between top U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill and North Korean deputy foreign minister Kim Kye-gwan when the two were both at a meeting on cooperation in Northeast Asia, held in Tokyo in April. When North Korea invited Hill to visit Pyongyang earlier this month, it immediately turned down the opportunity. The U.S. says it is willing to talk about everything at the six-party talks, but then it does so little to get them going again that it makes you wonder if it really is interested in seeing them resume. Waiting for the North's unilateral surrender is as foolish as firing a missile to make American hard-liners surrender. And since the U.S. already has financial sanctions against Pyongyang in place, it has few other cards to put into play. The best thing for the U.S. could do would be to begin discussions on resuming the six-party process.
When countries act irrationally in international relations, it is all too frequently because they are either absorbed in a subjectivism that makes them misjudge the situation at hand, or because they are trying to make a show of strength. Right now North Korea is doing both. So is the U.S., for its insistence on coercive measures. The South Korean government needs to do all it can to have the countries with an interest in the current situation make realistic decisions. What if the half-century-old U.S.-South Korea alliance and years of progress in inter-Korean relations are useless in a crisis?
[Editorial] Stop the missile launch and start N.K.-U.S. dialogue |
