KOREA FOCUS

The United States and North Korea exchanged mutually sneering and disparaging remarks on the sidelines of the ASEAN Regional Forum held last week in Phuket, Thailand. When U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton compared North Korea`s nuclear test and missile launchings to the behavior of an “attention-seeking unruly teenager,” Pyongyang hit back with a harsh personal attack, calling her a “funny lady who … looks like a primary-school girl.” The tit-for-tat exchange is ill-suited to recent moves by South Korea and the United States to induce the North into talks with a “comprehensive package.”

 

Meanwhile, Pyongyang has indicated its readiness for an open dialogue to defuse tension over its nuclear program. On the heels of the wrangling, North Korea`s ambassador to the United Nations said in a conciliatory tune that his government was “not against a dialogue,” suggesting its interest in bilateral talks with the United States. While conservatives were skeptical about the North`s gesture, those who were critical about Clinton`s “undiplomatic remarks” called on both Seoul and Washington to resume dialogue. The conflicting signs of dispute and dialogue invite confusion in fathoming the main current of the situation.

 

In order to clear the confusion, implications of the remarks on “unruly” children need to be explored. In an interview on ABC`s “Good Morning America” program, Clinton said that Washington would not give North Korea satisfaction in its “constant demand for attention” conveyed through nuclear testing and long-range missile launches. Disclosing the Obama administration`s new approach toward North Korea of not responding to its provocations, she added, “Maybe it`s the mother in me or the experience that I`ve had with small children and unruly teenagers … who are demanding attention. Don`t give it to them. They don`t deserve it.”

 

Picking up on the remark, a news analysis from China`s official Xinhua News Agency said that Clinton`s remarks marked a shift in Washington`s strategy toward the North. Xinhua took note of the secretary`s statement that the North Korean military “does not pose a threat to us” on the grounds that its capabilities are “not all that great frankly.” She was further quoted as having said, “We know our allies – Japan and South Korea – are very concerned. But they watch what we watch and they know what`s really going on.”

 

Previously, Washington had consistently claimed that North Korea`s nuclear development and missile tests posed a threat even to the continental United States. But, since Pyongyang test-fired a long-range missile last April, the Obama administration has begun to furtively downplay potential danger from Pyongyang, finally stating publicly that North Korea “does not pose a threat.”

 

The shift in the U.S. strategy toward North Korea may well be explained as follows: The Obama administration has concluded that there is no need to be locked into faceoff with the North since it does not pose a direct threat to the United States and that the allies` worries can be soothed with a firm security commitment based on its expanded deterrence or nuclear umbrella. Despite Pyongyang`s rhetoric, it would not dare a nuclear war with the United States and its menacing provocations against Japan and South Korea would prove to be suicidal if borders are crossed. Therefore, unless Pyongyang first changes its stance, there would be no dialogue and negotiations.

 

For those who are dubious about the above analysis and who cling to the restoration of six-party talks, here is a noteworthy piece of policy suggestion from Washington. Richard Bush III, director of the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, recently testified before a U.S. House subcommittee that the raison d`être of the six-party talks has vanished now that Pyongyang has clearly stated it has no intention of denuclearization. He pointed out that the “pattern of game” in Northeast Asia has changed. Then he added that North Korea would make a meaningful change only after its power succession process is completed, with a new leadership firmly in place following the death of Kim Jong-il and that, until then, the North would likely absorb a modest amount of pressure and sanctions. His point is to stress the need for “robust pressure.”

 

Even if such an evaluation is deemed well reflected in policymaking, still dubious is why Washington now claims North Korea does not pose a threat, departing from its longstanding dogma. The most likely way to mount pressure is by emphasizing the perceived threat. A noticeable analysis is that the new approach is an attempt to straighten U.S. relations with its allies, which were strained by the preceding Bush administration`s war against an exaggerated terrorist threat and its poorly coordinated handling of nuclear development in North Korea and Iran.

 

[ July 28, 2009 ]