The Missiles of July

Yawn. Stretch. Scratch. I wake up, the morning after the Great North Korean Missile Launch. And Tokyo - and I presume the rest of the world - is still here! Based on the loose-bowelled reaction to yesterday's missile tests I had expected to awaken in a glowing post-nuclear city of crazed mutants - or at least in a country under martial law, with streams of refugees fleeing the city for the relative safety of Tokyo Disneyland. Last night, I even went to sleep listening to Ultravox's apocalyptic classic 'Dancing With Tears In My Yeyes".  But no apocalpyse! What in Bush's name is going on?

Click here for my sensible, sarcasm-free analysis of the missile test firing yesterday.

Despite my flippancy, it is serious of course. But it's been serious for years, and the events of yesterday morning make little difference except symbolically. This is what it boils down to, in a very simplified and condensed form. The only way to make progress in defanging North Korea and luring it out of its isolation is by engagement - the kind of 'Sunshine Policy' enacted by Clinton and the former South Korean president, Kim Dae Jung. Yes, the North Koreans will lie and cheat and generally take the piss. But what is the alternative?

The alternative is what we've got now - a situation of rudderless drift in which the US pats itself on the head for not "rewarding" North Korea with talk and concessions, while Kim Jong Il meanwhile builds up his nuclear arsenal. The ironies are so immense it's easy to stop noticing them. To repeat only the most obvious: we went to war in Iraq over WMD which didn't exist; meanwhile North Korea boasts of building nuclear weapons, and we find ourselves powerless. Like so much current US foreign policy, we will look back on all this in calmer decades to come and shake our heads at the idiocy of it all.

Another loosely connected thought. The official version has it that six medium range missiles were fired yesterday and one Taepodong 2 which "failed" after 40 seconds. But did it really fail, or was it destroyed in flight by the North Koreans themselves?

As far as I can tell, there is a single source for all the technical information about the flight of the missiles - the Pentagon. And of course it suits the Pentagon to portray the Taepodong as a laughable failure. But it all seems a bit too neat to me.

Having cranked up their missile, the North Koreans had to do something with it. But it was clear that if they fired it all the way - up over Japan and towards the United States - a furious and decisive reaction would have followed. Perhaps they chose to lob it a little bit of the way and then ditch it - enabling them to test the launch mechanism and the first stage of the rocket, and to make their gesture of defiance, but without unequivocally inviting retaliation.

I don't know . . .

There's good sensible commentary by the sage John Gittings on The Guardian website here.

Comments

[Pippa]

I was wondering, was it you who wrote an article a while ago about a visit to North Korea where by you gave a book about Kim Jong Il to one of the security guards assigned to you? It was a book that had pictures of Kim and his family and the said security guard had been previously unaware of the existence of sons. If it was you, can you chuck us the details of the book? If not, does it ring a bell (article or book)?
Tar lar.

[Richard Lloyd Parry]

Pippa, it was a post I wrote in February - here's the link:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/times_tokyo_weblog/2006/02/happy_birthday_.html

The book is 'Kim Jong Il: North Korea's Dear Leader' - highly recommended.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0470821310/202-8923912-2041403?v=glance&n=266239

[Richard Boveman]

As an American sitting on the potential receiving end of a North Korean long-range missile, I can assure you that it caught my attention. If firing missiles at someone is North Korea's way to initiate dialogue and to extort financial aid, I believe they are sadly mistaken. The civilised world should never give in to terrorist extortion whether from Kim Jong II or any other rogue state.

[Richard Lloyd Parry]

Unless you live in Hawaii or the Aleutian Islands, it isn't coming anywhere near you (even it does stay in the air). As for "terrorist extortion" . . . it's not that I'm a fan of Kim Jong Il, but he feels he's the one in the sights of the rifle, pointed by the US government. In his position, wouldn't you posture and pout a bit too? What else is he going to do?

[john gregory Flinn]

I spent some time in south Korea in the late 70s building their first nuclear power plant at Kori, and since. I have a south Korean wife and two children who visit there often.
I was there when Kim Dae Jung was kidnapped, and the admirable wife of Park Chung Hee was (accidentally)assasinated. I even attended her funeral.

The Koreans have many negotiating techniques most of which are designed to fool their adversary, but generally have a strategic objective in view.
They understand the power of the media in the west, its amorality and its capability for wishful thinking.
The North Koreans have American/Western aid as a prime objective. A lesser, secondary objective is to achieve reunification but on their terms - this is what Kim Dae Jung was trying to engineer.
With aid their aim is to strengthen and rebuild their own regime to rival the south, and thus achieve the second objective. Without such aid their regime is vulnerable, but they are counting on the usual thinking like you suggest - "But what is the alternative?"
They also know that we think such aid will render their regime more susceptible to our blandishments and gradually become less extreme etc, etc.
It will not make a jot of difference; because, as you say 'they will lie and cheat and take the piss'. Also Koreans have had to endure centuries of persecution, threats, war and isolation from the Japanese and Chinese, yet they still remain a formidable, independent racial group. So a bit of soft-centred pressure from the west is nothing in comparison.
Have they got nuclear warheads? This is a supposition that the Koreans are quite happy to have the West believe. My understanding is that, although they have bred plutonium from U-238 in quantities sufficient for a few weapons, they have not, as yet, extracted the plutonium from the spent fuel and formed it into a weapon. Because they do not possess sufficient technology to do this safely and reliably.
The enriched uranium they have is not available - it has been irradiated, and is not a high enough enrichment anyway.
Only a test would convince me that they have a weapon.
So,They have no fangs to fear! A very large Army maybe, but few modern resources behind, and a questionable sense of loyalty. Every north Korean who gets to the south quickly realises what a pack of lies they are told in the north and recants. Once the populace at large know this the regime will collapse.

Keep them where they are. Do not engage with them at all. What are they going to do? Bomb us into giving them aid?
The Chinese and the Japanese will have ideas of their own and they are closest to any threat.

[Chad D. Bradbury - Wichita, Kansas USA]

The North Koreans are attempting to get the attention of the West and to intimidate certain weak elements in the Western media and various governments to appease them via technology transfers and aid. The end game for the North Koreans is to improve their military and strengthen Kim Jong Il's power in the region. He has no concern for his people and thinks of them simply as resources that can be used as he sees fit.

The most prudent course is for the USA to work with Japan, South Korea and to a lesser degree China and Russia to make the NK's realize there is no advantage to developing WMD's and eventually for them to understand the fact that it's ultimately a loser proposition for them.

Containment backed up by a steel spine and the threat of complete destruction of the regime is the best policy. I can tell you that if NK is ever foolish enough to attack Japan, S. Korea or the USA itself they will rue the day as the amount of military power that could be brought to bear on them would be profound and immediate and would make the Gulf War look like a training exercise.

To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher this is not the time to "go wobbly" this is the time to demonstrate pragmatic thinking combined with a clear path for North Korea to that will allow it to chug along in relative peace until the eventual fall of their pathetic and sorry "nation in a bottle".

[shine watanabe]

The north korean president are blackmailing international community.They want to get something out of Japan &south korea& do know very well they can`t get anything from china or russia.The japan is very easy target to blackmail,because they don`t want to fight&do`t want any trouble.But other Roge country like Iran are watching carefully,if western democracy give in they will do the same or worse.It is time for american to stand firm ¬ to give in to blackmailer.
yours s.watanabe japan

[Richard Lloyd Parry]

I'm interested in this idea that the US, Japan etc must "make the NK's realize there is no advantage to developing WMD's" and "understand the fact that it's ultimately a loser proposition for them". This is the problem. We tell them it's a bad policy - but they seem to disagree. We tell them they should sit down for talks - but they ignore us. Meanwhile, as they stubbornly refuse to accept our assessment of what is in their best interests, they are steadily turning out the nuclear warheads.

The fact is that talks, disarmament etc aren't in Kim Jong Il's best interests at all - they're in our best interests, and he can see that. We can go on repeating ourselves until we're blue in the face but until NK is given a better incentive (by one means or another) then the present policy will continue to be a failure.

[Chad Bradbury - Wichita, Kansas USA]

Mr. Parry,

I would agree it most certainly is not in Kim Jong Il's best interest to abandon NK's nuclear program but it is in the best interest of his people, the Pacific Rim and the world in general. I am under no illusions that any amount of diplomatic effort will achieve this. However, we should try and whilst doing so the world as a whole should isolate NK (with food aid as an exception) and limit or completely stop the export of arms to other regions of the planet. This strategy has already been implemented and has been mentioned in US papers and I would assume in the EU and UK press as well.

Kim Jong Il like all tyrants and dictators only understands power and the threat of it. The present policy of containment is exactly right for the situation backed up with a massive retaliation if South Korea, Japan or the US is attacked first by NK. The US will never commit a large ground force in the region so I would suspect that we would act only with overwelming air power and in extremely dire circumstances "non-conventional" weapons via our submarines located presently off the NK coast. Lets all hope and pray it never comes to this. That decision will eventually be NK's not the USA's but it is a reality when you consider that South Korea has 20 Million people within range of conventional arms from the North and in effect are held hostage to the whims of a dictator who may or may not be capable of handling this situation. Time is on the side of the West and others in the region. We can wait for years if necessary as the NK nation is hardly capable of developing it's economy and is destined to collapse.

[Richard Lloyd Parry]

"We should ... limit or completely stop the export of arms to other regions of the planet."

The last time I checked, the US was the biggest arms exporter on the planet.

[Chad Bradbury]

Mr. Parry,

True, America is the largest exporter of weapons. So what? Are you drawing a moral equivolency between North Korea and the USA? If so, then I'm afraid you don't know your history very well.

[Richard Lloyd Parry]

We disagree over US policy towards North Korea - so that proves that I must be ignorant about history?

It doesn't matter whether I believe the US and North Korea are equivalent or not. The point is that the North Koreans do. Being "in the right" is not the point - the point is that the policy is not working, and never has worked. Small comfort, as North Korea increases its nuclear arsenal (and thus its power to barter with other rogue states, terrorists etc), to know that we are "morally" in the clear. I'd rather make a compromise here and there, and solve the problem. Historically speaking, that's something the governments of the West do understand . . .

[Chad Bradbury - Wichita, Kansas USA]

Mr. Parry,

No, it means the US is a force for good in the world and although far from a perfect country you can't compare US arms exports to that of NK's which you were implying in your previous response. My friend, either you are obtuse or you have some kind of attention deficit disorder as you seem to insist on jumping from the main point of the discussion which is "what is the world going to do about NK" to talking about US arms exports followed up by some mumblings about morale high ground.

I'm telling you that in the case of NK, who is right or wrong, is irrelevant and if you go back to my first email to your column you'll see the recommended course I was advocating called for a pragmatic containment policy backed by overwelming strength which is exactly what the West is doing now.

We agree on one thing we can't convince NK of anything but we can stop or slow the proliferation of arms coming from NK for years to come. If NK does manage to sell or arm a third party with a WMD and its used against the West - well then the US and it's allies will have to end the NK threat giving you and your winging bretheren even more articles to write.

[Chen yongzi]

“far from a perfect country"? Did you mean far beyond a perfect country? Also, I'd like to know your standard to judge whether a weapon is good or bad. Do you mean that it must be “a good” so far as it is “We Western”? If you are hypersusceptibale to “morale high ground”, than I’d like to recommend you a rather sophisticated way: do you agree with me that a weapon would be more wicked if it kills more Homo sapiens？

[bugiewugie]

C Bradbury,
Re your first post 'N Koreans attemting to get the attention of the West...etc '
That doesn't show a huge willingness apparently on your part to understand
the N Koreans.
Of course they want to improve their military capability, who wouldn't?
Seeing people as resources, this is what you'd expect of bad, no, dire HR depts who sadly get off on verbalising it to staff.
You're also joking about the containment and threat of destruction, I have to presume.
Why is it a loser proposition for N Korea to develop wmds out of interest when virtually everyone else has them?
The last paragraph of your first post is strange btw.
Anyway, re: your 2nd post.
Weapons were fired incriminatingly from the region.
If you give a jot about the best interests of the N.Korean people then of course it's in their best interests to have nukes, as it is in the UK the US's and elsewhere.
Kim Jong does understand the threat of power, which is why he has missiles.
What on earth gives you the impression the US is necessarily a force for good etc?
You're right, of course you can't compare US arms exports with anyone else.
You mention about the possibility of eg Japan, the US, and S.Korea's capabilities if N Korea strikes...yes, and? How likely is that (assuming it were self genersted and not set up?)
Of course the US wont be seen to commit a large ground force, that'd be too overt.
The decision would be the US's not the North Koreans, whether to strike elsewhere and it's not really up to you or me or anyone how Kim Jong il chooses to handle it.
And the NK economy is not destined to collapse, it'll collapse if people drive it to collapse.
C.Bradbury, your last post:
your impression the US is a force for good etc.
In a way you're right, of course you can't compare US arms exports with anyone else's.
If you want to see a reduction in arms proliferation then everyone else has to stop supplying them, obviously.

[Chad Bradbury Wichita, Kansas USA]

Mr. Bug,

Your writing is difficult to understand so I'll respond as best I can.

The US has proven in it's history it is a fundamentally good country. Who led the way in helping the S. Pacific nations devastated from last years Tsunami's with it's military and aid? The US did as NO OTHER nation in the world had the capabillity to do so. The US and its allies defeated the Communist fascists in Russia without a major land war in Europe over the course of 50 plus years. During that time we kept Berlin from starving to death or face the prospect of falling under the heel of Russian rule by airlifting in food while being shot during the Berlin airlift. (My Grandfather was one of those pilots) and in the end the Russians backed down and Berlin propsered. Prior to that we defeated the Nazis with our Western Allies as well. A world without the US would be a darker and uglier place. Surely you would not argue these facts.

If NK develops WMD's and uses them against the US, S. Korea or Japan then the US will respond as we would destroy NK. I suspect a US city (perhaps Honolulu), Seoul and all of NK would have casualties in the hundreds of thousands if not millions. Certainly a "loser proposition" for the world would you not agree?

I do not believe in morale equivolency. The World is full of Nations at different levels of social and technological development - respect for life, liberty, and intentions of leaders are not equal around the world. Democracy's are not perfect but on the other hand they are NOT empires and they give their populations the potential access to wealth, safety, the rule of law etc. Wheras countries like NK, China, Iran etc. are led by small groups of people (or one individual) who are interested in their power and not the people. When politicians begin to become selfish and self seriving in democracy's a magical thing occurs and these politicians are voted out of office or they are held to account by the rule of law if they become corrupt.

I have no illusions that the US uses arms to serve it's political needs. All nations do this and it's a tough and nasty business at times. However, if our Pols sell these arms and they are used to defend liberty and democracy then that IS a good thing in the long term.

Therefore I take umbridge with anyone who will compare US arms exports with say NK or even Chinese arms exports. There is no equivolency. If you disagree with these fundamental issues then we will have to agree to disagree as we will never see eye to eye.

Conclusion - The US is a force for good in the world as it defends (or has defended) liberty around the globe for the last 100 years - the Pacific, Western/Eastern Europe, Israel in the ME and Latin America.

In our own hemisphere our economic and military strength has allowed peaceful nations such as Canada and Mexico to feel safe without having to worry about invasion from an outside force therefore giving them the ability to focus on developing their democracys and the rule of law. Canada is a model example of this. Mexico has the same potential but it's government corruption has limited it's development but that is altogether a different discussion.

The Mr. Parry and other like minded individuals can continue to take shots at the USA at they see fit and maybe it will satisfy the need to sell newspapers, stir debate and even make these people feel better thinking they've poked a finger in the USA's eye. Fine, I believe in the right of everyone to express their opinions and beliefs no matter how foolish or mis-guided.