Here we go again. The North Koreans are making bombastic threats to launch a missile strike on the United States, test Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM), or even attack South Korea. Making outrageous, possibly absurd, threats has been a staple of the regime and the Kim dynasty for decades. North Korea engages in ”temper tantrum” diplomacy using threats to achieve their policy objectives because it has worked. The United States and its regional allies should take a new stance and refuse to play this game, and instead pursue a policy of diplomatically ignoring North Korea and refusing to engage in negotiations in the face of provocations.
North Korea has long threatened and coerced its neighbors to get diplomatic concessions or aid. It has proven to be an effective strategy for the poor, isolated, and otherwise irrelevant country. When North Korea instigated a conflict in the early 1990s over its nuclear program, the United States agreed to the U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework, which provided heavy fuel for reactors in exchange for the North freezing plutonium enrichment. The threat of war brought the United States directly to the negotiating table. The North would later abandon the agreement. The Sunshine Policy of South Korean presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Myun-hyun in the early 2000s provided the North with economic development projects and unconditional aid. North Korea continued its aggressive behavior and in 2002, naval confrontations left four South Korean sailors dead. Eventually, the Sunshine Policy ended in failure with the North Korean nuclear test in 2006. These examples demonstrate that a policy of direct negotiations in the face of provocations does not work.
In the past, the United States and South Korea have played along and given into North Korean blackmail in an attempt to maintain peace and stability. Giving in to North Korean demands has not led to stability or improved the prospects for a lasting peace. To the contrary, it has only emboldened the North Koreans and encouraged further provocations. The latest North Korean threats come on the heels of two unprovoked attacks in 2010: the sinking of a South Korean warship and the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, which killed 50 South Koreans.
Past South Korean leaders have sought to establish closer ties with the North through the Sunshine Policy of engagement. There has been a preference for aid and diplomacy over confrontation. When the South failed to retaliate for the 2010 attacks, it showed the North that their southern neighbor could be bullied without retribution. South Korea has now changed as public opinion has turned against the North. During President Roh’s tenure, public opinion supported engagement; now the public has turned hostile towards the North. New president Park Geun-hye has promised a military response to further aggression. Her predecessor Lee Myun-bak is seen as having failed to act in 2010 and President Park has vowed not to repeat the mistake.
As North Korea’s major supporter, China will be a critical influence on future North Korean actions; China provides much of the country’s food and fuel. While China views North Korea as a useful buffer against U.S. forces in South Korea, China’s overarching concern is maintaining North Korea’s stability. Continued North Korean provocations are not in Chinese interests, as they give the United States a reason to move more troops and military assets into the region. Hence, Chinese President Xi Jinping recently criticized North Korea’s behavior. If China is unwilling to give North Korea its unconditional backing, the North will become further isolated and have no external support.
Recent North Korean behavior has been extreme and dangerous and risks plunging the region into conflict. This pattern has existed for decades and has been continued by Kim Jong Un. The North is using the latest crisis to gain direct talks with the United States and seek international recognition as a nuclear power. Rather than give legitimacy to North Korea’s coercive behavior by entering into direct talks, the United States should not engage North Korea diplomatically. Instead, the United States must continue to support its allies, South Korea and Japan, by bolstering defenses and promising a vigorous response to any aggression from Pyongyang. While the North’s tactics may make it appear irrational, the regime is actually highly rational and will push its limits to the maximum extent in order to get what it wants. It will stop short of war because it would lose a war with the United States and South Korea, which would mean the end of the regime. Refusing to engage the North will demonstrate that the United States and its allies will not tolerate continued provocations and reward bad behavior. Only once this has been established will the North be forced to change its actions.
Vineet Daga is an independent foreign policy writer. He has a BA and MA in international affairs from The George Washington University.
Photo: U.S. Army/Staff Sgt. Bryanna Poulin
a global affairs media network
Ignore North Korea
May 10, 2013
Here we go again. The North Koreans are making bombastic threats to launch a missile strike on the United States, test Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM), or even attack South Korea. Making outrageous, possibly absurd, threats has been a staple of the regime and the Kim dynasty for decades. North Korea engages in ”temper tantrum” diplomacy using threats to achieve their policy objectives because it has worked. The United States and its regional allies should take a new stance and refuse to play this game, and instead pursue a policy of diplomatically ignoring North Korea and refusing to engage in negotiations in the face of provocations.
North Korea has long threatened and coerced its neighbors to get diplomatic concessions or aid. It has proven to be an effective strategy for the poor, isolated, and otherwise irrelevant country. When North Korea instigated a conflict in the early 1990s over its nuclear program, the United States agreed to the U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework, which provided heavy fuel for reactors in exchange for the North freezing plutonium enrichment. The threat of war brought the United States directly to the negotiating table. The North would later abandon the agreement. The Sunshine Policy of South Korean presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Myun-hyun in the early 2000s provided the North with economic development projects and unconditional aid. North Korea continued its aggressive behavior and in 2002, naval confrontations left four South Korean sailors dead. Eventually, the Sunshine Policy ended in failure with the North Korean nuclear test in 2006. These examples demonstrate that a policy of direct negotiations in the face of provocations does not work.
In the past, the United States and South Korea have played along and given into North Korean blackmail in an attempt to maintain peace and stability. Giving in to North Korean demands has not led to stability or improved the prospects for a lasting peace. To the contrary, it has only emboldened the North Koreans and encouraged further provocations. The latest North Korean threats come on the heels of two unprovoked attacks in 2010: the sinking of a South Korean warship and the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, which killed 50 South Koreans.
Past South Korean leaders have sought to establish closer ties with the North through the Sunshine Policy of engagement. There has been a preference for aid and diplomacy over confrontation. When the South failed to retaliate for the 2010 attacks, it showed the North that their southern neighbor could be bullied without retribution. South Korea has now changed as public opinion has turned against the North. During President Roh’s tenure, public opinion supported engagement; now the public has turned hostile towards the North. New president Park Geun-hye has promised a military response to further aggression. Her predecessor Lee Myun-bak is seen as having failed to act in 2010 and President Park has vowed not to repeat the mistake.
As North Korea’s major supporter, China will be a critical influence on future North Korean actions; China provides much of the country’s food and fuel. While China views North Korea as a useful buffer against U.S. forces in South Korea, China’s overarching concern is maintaining North Korea’s stability. Continued North Korean provocations are not in Chinese interests, as they give the United States a reason to move more troops and military assets into the region. Hence, Chinese President Xi Jinping recently criticized North Korea’s behavior. If China is unwilling to give North Korea its unconditional backing, the North will become further isolated and have no external support.
Recent North Korean behavior has been extreme and dangerous and risks plunging the region into conflict. This pattern has existed for decades and has been continued by Kim Jong Un. The North is using the latest crisis to gain direct talks with the United States and seek international recognition as a nuclear power. Rather than give legitimacy to North Korea’s coercive behavior by entering into direct talks, the United States should not engage North Korea diplomatically. Instead, the United States must continue to support its allies, South Korea and Japan, by bolstering defenses and promising a vigorous response to any aggression from Pyongyang. While the North’s tactics may make it appear irrational, the regime is actually highly rational and will push its limits to the maximum extent in order to get what it wants. It will stop short of war because it would lose a war with the United States and South Korea, which would mean the end of the regime. Refusing to engage the North will demonstrate that the United States and its allies will not tolerate continued provocations and reward bad behavior. Only once this has been established will the North be forced to change its actions.
Vineet Daga is an independent foreign policy writer. He has a BA and MA in international affairs from The George Washington University.
Photo: U.S. Army/Staff Sgt. Bryanna Poulin
