North Korea Thumps Its Chest

The little man in high heels, Kim Jong-Il, and the North Korean People's Army, have declared themselves ready to 'blow up' the United States and South Korea, after the opening of the annual joint defensive drills. This year's operational name is Key Resolve/Foal Eagle, and is somewhat scaled down from previous years, with only 18,000 US troops participating.

'The U.S. and South Korea argue the drills -- which include live firing by U.S. Marines, aerial attack drills and urban warfare training -- are purely defensive. North Korea claims they amount to attack preparations and has demanded they be canceled.

The North's People's Army issued a statement Monday, warning the drills created a tense situation and that its troops are "fully ready" to "blow up" the allies once the order is issued.

The North also put all its soldiers and reservists on high alert to "mercilessly crush the aggressors" should they encroach upon the North's territory even slightly, said the statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.'

Pyongyang typically increases its defensive posture and ups its rhetoric in response to these drills. Although the spate of missile and nuclear testing over the past year make the threat somewhat more serious, North Korea has little ability to follow through on anything. It's soldiers may very well be more likely to ask for a good, hot meal at this point. While they are typically better fed than the average 'citizen,' the repeated halts to food aid this last year have left the entire country on the brink .

Does Iran Have the Payload?

Short answer - no one knows. The new Director General of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, is a technician who is focusing on the ways and means by which Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon. In particular, Amano is focused on Iran's treaty violations. In contrast, Mohamed ElBaradei, who apparently has political ambitions of his own, has seemed more focused on keeping all parties appeased and at the table.

'In his first report on Iran, the new director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, broke with the more cautious style of his predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei, and suggested Iran could have looked into the construction of a weapon, and that ­weaponisation work could be under way.

Amano's report to the IAEA board also confirmed that Iran had succeeded in producing 20% enriched uranium, a level of enrichment much closer to weapons grade than it had attempted before. It criticised the Iranian authorities for taking the step without giving IAEA inhttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5002651818781399387&pli=1spectors notice.'

Of more urgent concern is whether or not Iran has any concern for an IAEA report or the threat of ramped-up sanctions. Iran has continued to test medium and long-range missiles, the latter with little success, which could be adapted to carry a nuclear payload. However, the thought of a medium-range missile with a nuclear payload has to be of little comfort to any of Iran's neighbors. Israel will certainly not stand for such a development, and Iran's other neighbors are feeling the heat as well (most are Sunni compared to Shiite Iran). Perhaps the greatest impediment, other than technical ones, to Iran moving forward with a nuclear weapon, is its inability to build up a nuclear deterrent (or conversely, threat). At best, Iran can produce a couple of weapons, and these would be untestable. Unless Iran is bent on a suicide mission, it seems unlikely that it would openly load or deploy at this level. More likely scenarios include a repeat of Iraq's verbal deterrence games, or deployment through a surrogate (e.g. - terrorism). Wherever the truth lies, it seems likely that Iran prefers a closed fist to an open hand.

Cyber v. Missile Attacks

The Guardian reported today that both South Korea and the US have been plagued by cyber-attacks originating out of North Korea starting on Saturday.

'North Korean hackers are suspected of launching a cyber-attack on some of the most important government offices in the US and South Korea in recent days, including the White House, the Pentagon, the New York Stock Exchange and the presidential Blue House in Seoul. The attack took out some of South Korea's most important websites, including those of the Blue House, the defence ministry, the national assembly, Shinhan bank, Korea Exchange bank and the top internet portal Naver. ... John Bumgarner, director of research at the US Cyber Consequences Unit, said: "There's been a lot chatter recently about cyber-war. The North Koreans may have felt they were not getting enough attention launching missiles so they moved into another potential warfare – cyber. It's a form of sabre rattling. But the big question is, did the North Koreans launch it themselves or did someone do it for them?"'

Also on Saturday, North Korea launched seven ballistic missiles (two medium-range and five short-range) capable of striking all of South Korea and much of Japan, over the objection of the UN Security Council. Their apparent moves to test-launch another long-range missile appear to have been smoke, at least for the moment.

'"The members of the Security Council condemned and expressed grave concern at the launches, which constitute a violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions and pose a threat to regional and international security," council president Ambassador Ruhakana Rugunda of Uganda said. North Korea, which was banned from ballistic missile launches in a Security Council resolution passed last month, "must comply fully with its obligations," Rugunda said in an oral statement read to journalists.'

I wonder what part of 'they really don't give a s**t' the Security Council doesn't get. They seem to believe that stating objections will do something to deter North Korea from acting like a spoiled brat. Right now, our direct interests are not much affected by North Korea's missile program. We do have shipping and security interests that could be impacted, but our greater concern is the continued participation in illegal arms sales. So far, we've done nothing but issue empty threats on that front as well. We should be (but maybe aren't) concerned about the risk to sworn allies, but that may or may not fully materialize. Certainly Japan and South Korea are themselves concerned.

For now, the cyber-attacks may be the worst threat North Korea can offer as an immediate response. The arms trading and missile development, however, can not be dismissed.

Return of the Axis of Evil?

Yup, this will stop 'em in their tracks:

'The leaders of South Korea and the United States told North Korea to drop its atomic ambitions and stop threatening the region while media reports on Wednesday said Pyongyang was moving ahead with plans to launch a long-range missile. After a summit with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak in Washington on Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama said a nuclear-armed North Korea would pose a "grave threat" to the world. He vowed new U.N. sanctions imposed for North Korea's May 25 nuclear test would be strictly enforced.'

The only sanctions we can strictly enforce are our own.  We can do force other nations to abide by the sanctions, much less enforce them.  And there has been ample evidence that North Korea has and will continue to trade nuclear material, including to Iran and Syria. 

'"A U.S. spy satellite spotted a special ICBM transport train moving from the manufacturing plant (near Pyongyang) to the Musudan-ri test site and staying there for a few days before returning," it quoted a government source as saying.'

Sounds familiar, no?  Meanwhile, Secretary Gates has vowed that the US '..."will not accept" a nuclear-armed North Korea as new intelligence data showed that the secretive state was preparing a fresh missile launch, which could take place in two weeks' time. ... In his speech in Singapore, Gates warned that America would hold Pyongyang "fully accountable" for the proliferation of any nuclear material or technology. "The transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the US and our allies. And we would hold North Korea fully accountable," Gates said. However, co-ordinating an effective international diplomatic response to North Korea has not been easy. Russia and China have stymied efforts to isolate the country at the UN, preventing a united front to condemn the country's nuclear ambitions.'

Apparently, we will 'not accept' North Korea's belligerence, but neither the EU nor we will do anything but 'dialogue' with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.  This is not to advocate direct action in Iran, but given the Iran has purchased material from North Korea (and has had invited observers at, and received data from, nuclear and missile tests in North Korea), and seems increasingly willing to defy all agreements on the use of that material, 'dialogue' seems a rather anemic response.  In January 2007, the Telegraph noted:

'North Korea and Iran are both countries driven by the bizarre regional ambitions of their rogue leaders, whose global isolation propels them into what appears to be absurd posturing and gratuitous confrontation. But however nihilistic and ultimately futile their actions may appear to Western interests, they represent a strategic confederation of malcontents whose tactics will have to be addressed with resolution of purpose.'

Meanwhile, Iran is dealing with major heartburn over continued protests of its election, about which our president has strangely been struck mute.  We don't yet know if these protests speak against President Obama's desire for peace through diplomacy rather than the promotion of democracy.  Right now Iran has neither peace nor democracy and conciliation hasn't worked to date, despite claims to the contrary.

Whether Ahmadinejad retains his hold on the presidency, neither the EU nor we have much influence in Iran, and we will still have the problem of dealing with the nuclear ambitions of both North Korea and Iran.  It's possible that despite all the [somewhat justified] mockery of the term, we are indeed facing the return of the 'axis of evil.'

The North Korean Fog

The fog of confusion surrounding North Korea's actions thickened over the previous week, beginning with the show trial of the two American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee.  The North Korean court (wholly government-controlled) sentenced the two women to twelve years in a forced-labor camp for unspecified 'hostile acts,' which apparently included straying over the border into North Korea itself.  These camps have been documented in the past, and include the kind of conditions found in the worst of the old Soviet gulag system.  Speculation is rampant among the talking heads that the women won't actually be sent to a camp, as long as the North Koreans feel they can use the two as a bargaining chip to exact concessions from the US.  Interestingly, the journalists were there to report on the growing cross-border trafficking in female sex slaves by the North Korean government.  (I say growing because several family members and friends are involved in trying to liberate women and children who are trafficked, and have been documenting the growing influence of the North Koreans in this vile trade.  If you're interested in an in-depth examination of this issue, check out the book Terrify No More (Gary Haugen and Gregg Hunter)).

Last month's test of a nuclear weapon, and the ongoing missile tests, have dramatically upped the tension over North Korea's intentions and objectives.  Speculation here in the US has centered around the possibility that President Obama will have his hand forced, and will back down from cutting the missile defense program (particularly in Alaska), and if we will begin intedicting North Korean vessels.  Yesterday, the Korean Central News Agency declared that North Korea would take such an interdiction as an act of war, and would consider a nuclear retaliation.  Presumably, this threat is directed against Seoul, which has recently backed the idea of ship inspections.  Simultaneously, North Korea is preparing for a test of its long-range missile, and two medium-range missiles.  Finally, while Kim Jong-Il may want his youngest son (Kim Jong-un) to be his succesor as the 'Dear Leader,' it's far from clear that the military and governmental apparatus will accept this appointment or will let Jong-un rule as completely as his father and grandfather.

One thing is clear: we don't know what North Korea wants or how it will act.

North Korea Prepping Two Additional Missile Tests

North Korea is apparently preparing to launch two new missile tests, one of a mid-range missile, and the second of it's long range missile (technically capable of reaching the US, but they've had repeated difficulties even getting the missile to reach apogee) from their western border at Dongchang-ri. Additionally: 'The reclusive communist country was showing other signs of belligerence. Reports say that over the past several days, the North has strengthened its defenses and conducted amphibious assault exercises along its western shore that could be preparations for skirmishes at sea.' Both South and North Korea have been anteing-up lately, with increase drills as well as a heating up of the rhetoric (the latter primarily on the North Korean side). South Korea and Japan now seem open to search and seizure operations of North Korean vessels suspected of carrying nuclear material or components necessary for processing of material, and North Korea appears to be deliberately provoking instability.

The AP reports that Susan Rice (the US envoy to the UN) claims: 'At the United Nations, US envoy Susan Rice said there had been movement in talks with her counterparts from Britain, China, France, Russia, Japan and South Korea when they met Monday to thrash out a draft resolution imposing tougher sanctions on the isolated regime.' However, the NYT reports that Russia and China are seeking delay the implementation of further sanctions. 'The United States circulated a softened draft resolution to the Security Council in response to North Korea’s assertion that it conducted a nuclear test on Monday. The United States pressed for a vote by Friday, but China and Russia immediately signaled their opposition to critical parts of the measure and said they needed more time. On Thursday night, a new draft resolution was circulated, and Reuters quoted the Chinese and Russian ambassadors calling the revisions improvements.' This all comes in the context of Kim Jong-Il's apparent appointment of his son, Kim Jong-un, as successor (discussed in yesterday's blog), and the move to try two US journalists for espionage.

Whatever the outcome of the action at the UN (I continue to doubt that body capable of much if any action), it's clear that Kim Jong-Il wants to ensure that he is receiving attention and is feared, in his own country and region and abroad.

North Korea Heading Down the Rabbit Hole

The inflamed rhetoric heading out of North Korea continued today with the launch of six missiles over the last 24 hours (both medium and short-range). Additionally, it appears the North Korea has restarted a previously closed nuclear plant, and has begun reprocessing of spent fuel rods. As was reported here, Kim Jong Il's moves to conduct an underground nuclear test over the weekend and frequent missile tests may have several causes, but the reasons behind his actions may prove irrelevant if he continues in this line. To date, it appears that he is using these tests to both strengthen his hand at home (and any successors) while thumbing his nose at Seoul and D.C.

It now seems increasingly clear that North Korea is already proliferating: 'U.S. security studies have identified North Korea as a supplier of missiles and nuclear materials to nations including Syria and Pakistan in exchange for cash.' Of perhaps the greatest concern, are the growing ties between North Korea and Iran. 'North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year. Under the terms of a new understanding between the two countries, the North Koreans have agreed to share all the data and information they received from their successful test last October with Teheran's nuclear scientists.' If true, then President Obama won't have his year to see how well Tehran and Pyongyang are going to respond to his overtures. The Telegraph article cited in the previous line continues: 'A senior European defence official told The Daily Telegraph that North Korea had invited a team of Iranian nuclear scientists to study the results of last October's underground test to assist Teheran's preparations to conduct its own — possibly by the end of this year. There were unconfirmed reports at the time of the Korean firing that an Iranian team was present. Iranian military advisers regularly visit North Korea to participate in missile tests. Now the long-standing military co-operation between the countries has been extended to nuclear issues.'

In a 2004 report, Ted Carpenter (VP Defense and Foreign Policy Studies, Cato Institute) laid out the pros and cons of four options for responding to North Korea: bribery (again), preemptive war, tightened economic sanctions, and regional nuclear balance. Certainly, none of the options are all together palatable, and we've been using the first and third options to some degree or another for the last twenty years. There has been talk lately of employing the fourth option (that is, to give Japan, South Korea and Taiwan support in developing their own nuclear programs). Such an option takes time to develop of course, and in the case of Japan, there would be extensive cultural resistance and the need to change its constitution. China would probably vigorously oppose such a solution, no matter how pure its intent. Carpenter concludes that the US should pull its troops out of SE Asia, and allow events to take their own course (but this was before our involvement in Central Asia).

The United Nations, and activists in Japan and South Korea, have advocated a regional 'nuclear-free' zone (who wouldn't?), but this is pie-in-the-sky thinking. It's not a nuclear-free zone, and neither China nor North Korea is going to suddenly give up its weapons. China's program is well-advanced and could serve as a counter-weight to North Korea, but it's difficult to know which direction China's policy toward Pyongyang is going to go. There are extensive ties between the two nations, and China is generally sympathetic toward 'non-interference' policies (since they want no one to poke around their internal policies). On the other hand, China probably doesn't want a nuclear North Korea under the direction of an unstable Kim Jong Il.

In the end, we would have difficulty protecting our allies and assets in the region if we were to either directly engage in a preemptive strike or if we supported one. We also have a military stretched to its limits, and engagement in a third extensive engagement might very well break it. Further regional proliferation would be a long-term proposal, and is fraught with problems, and bribery has repeatedly failed. We may be stuck with containment and trying to wait for Jong Il to die. If we take the 'wait 'em out' approach, we're also going to need to ensure that we have hard blockade to further proliferation (along with the willingness to defend that blockade), and that we beef up the defense capabilities of our allies, and we need to deal with Iran now, rather than waiting a year. Without those secondary actions, we're going to end up in this position again.

UPDATES: Oooh, Aahhh - Worldwide Condemnation for North Korea

UPDATE 2: Kim Jong Il apparently feels the need to announce his size by launching yet more missiles. One wonders if the only option here is to contain N. Korea, and prevent the sale of arms and weapons, and yet reports have Iran there already in observer status.

UPDATE 1: The President has announced that we will '... work with our allies to stand up to North Korea.' Isn't it great that we're now relying on others to know when, how and why to stand up?

As reported here the other day, North Korea conducted a successful underground nuclear test two days ago, and overnight (EST), the nation launched two missile tests. From the Guardian: 'A defiant North Korea fired two short-range missiles off its east coast today, according to news reports, hours after the UN security council condemned the apparently successful test of a nuclear weapon as powerful as the one that destroyed Hiroshima.' Apparently, and as predicted, North Korea really doesn't care what the US and UN have to say. That's nothing new. North Korea launches a test, we complain to the UN Security Council, the council makes noises, nothing happens. The US and the UN are fairly impotent when it comes to reigning in 'rogue nations,' as witnessed by last week's repeat missile test by Iran.

Of perhaps greater interest is the speculation surrounding why both nations seem to be pushing hard to conduct tests. Of course, it hardly matters when and why when you don't care what the neighbors think, but the potential reasoning in the case of Iran and North Korea may be more relevant than normally. In an article from yesterday, the Guardian raises three likely scenarios for North Korea. 1. Tensions over the possible succession to Kim Jong-Il. 'Signs of internal tensions have continued to grow despite Kim's political resurrection, including a cabinet reshuffle in which about one-third of ministers lost their jobs or were reassigned. A similar shake-up is said to have taken place among the highest ranks of the military.' 2. The normal paranoia under which North Korea operates. 'Jim Hoare, a former British ambassador to North Korea, said a second explanation should be considered: that North Korea was reacting to what it perceived to be threatening and destabilising external events, notably the ending of South Korea's "sunshine policy" that had encouraged deeper engagement.' 3. North Korea is descending into chaos, a situation that the Guardian understates as the 'least palatable' of the three options. '... the possibility that, increasingly, nobody is really in charge in Pyongyang and that the country is beginning literally to run out of control. If North Korea suddenly imploded, the US and South Korea might come in from one side and China from the other, Foster-Carter warned. The danger of history repeating itself was, he said, a "baleful prospect".'

Of course, calls for general 'military action' against North Korea are unrealistic and wildly optimistic, but it's difficult to see what other action might be successful. Clearly shaking our fist doesn't work. It might be helpful if China and Russia would fully cooperate with the US and Japan, presenting a unified face to both North Korea and Japan. It's possible that cutting off access to international funding and complete isolation may eventually bring pressure to bear on the nation. There are three problems with this second option: 1. North Korea may very well lash out in a way we are unprepared to deal with; 2. complete international compliance with such a strategy is impossible to achieve; 3. we'd have to stomach watching North Korea allow its own citizens to starve and suffer. A targeted military response designed to take out missiles and nuclear facilities may be the most feasible option, but of course, it would have to be completely accurate and successful to make it worthwhile. It's unlikely that either the President or Congress have the will to command such a strike, and its unclear if we're capable of it. It's even less likely that the UN would help with logistical support or personnel, leaving the US on its own to conduct such an operation.

Beyond the question of North Korea, Iran may be sharing information with North Korea and is likely to be watching the US and UN response to see how far we're willing to go. More particularly, both nations may be testing President Obama, and perceiving weakness in his determination to operate from international consensus. Additionally, Iran's most recent missile tests, along with its attempts to shut down access to electronic communication (email, social networking sites, etc.) in the lead up to the presidential election, may be more about internal communication. By all accounts, Ahmadinejad is deeply unpopular, having steered Iran's economy into a ditch, but there is also disorganization among the clerics that run the Revolutionary Guards. Ahmadinejad may be trying to win the election by benefiting from appearing strong and by capitalizing on the lack of a clear opposition candidate. A reformist is running, but there has been no clear signal that the Supreme Leader will back him. Ahmadinejad is a canny politician, willing to use a combination of bullying and bribery to win votes and temporary support, and without strong and clear opposition, he may very well win the election in June.

Whatever the reasons behind the actions of both North Korea and Iran, and they are probably multi-faceted, it seems clear the President Obama is going to need to do better than to pledge to 'work with our friends and allies.' Between his deep reluctance to take forceful and unilateral action, and the UN's perpetual unwillingness to take action of any kind, the next year may push the US into the same corner it experienced under President Carter.

UPDATE: Washington Will Do Something (or other)!

Update 1: How much do you want to bet that North Korea actually means its threat to take 'strong action' should the UN dare to sanction it.

As predicted here and elsewhere, when N. Korea fired off an ICBM test disguised as a satellite launch over the weekend, we and Japan demanded that the UN security conference do something. Just as predictably, China and Russia flipped us the bird. It really doesn't even matter if this launch was an actual failure, if there really was a satellite in the nose cone, or if Kim Jong Il had succeeded in playing revolutionary songs from space. The UN will do nothing, and the words of these agreements mean nothing without action to back them up. President Obama can give 'strong' speeches all he wants - it changes nothing. If our only response to proliferation is to say that we need to cut our weapons (a laudable goal to be sure, but irrelevant to N. Korea), and that we won't really do anything, than N. Korea has no incentives to change its behavior.

UPDATED: They're Shaking in their Boots!

UPDATE 1: Yup - the UN Security Council will do nada, because two permanent members want it to do nada. Why should we even bother with them?

From Reuters:

'The U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity on the sidelines of a G20 meeting in London, said Washington would react if North Korea launched a missile."There are U.N. Security Council resolutions so I would expect we would be talking to the U.N. Security Council about how to respond," the official told reporters.'

I guess that will show the mean old bad man! Because he really pays attention to anything else the UN says, right? I'm not saying we shoot arbitrarily shoot the launch down, but I seriously doubt a verbal spanking from the UN Security Council will cause Kim Jong Il to do anything except laugh. And giving him a 'stern' talking to, isn't likely to change things. Fueling the rocket seems like a pretty good sign of their determination to launch a missile that is no different than an ICBM. S. Korea wants us to shoot it down, but that's also not likely. With a successful missile test, N. Korea will have a valuable item to sell to other countries - say enemies of Israel.