Machismo and paranoia

Published September 11, 2017

AS North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un and American President Donald Trump exchange macho words and moves, one wonders whatever happened to old-fashioned diplomacy and statesmanship. Both seem to want to prove that they are major players as they show off their military hardware. But while Kim Jong-Un might have something to prove, the United States certainly doesn’t.

After all, the whole world is well aware that it is the most powerful nation on the globe by far. In terms of military spending, technology and training, it is so far ahead of every other country that there is just no contest. North Korea, also known as the “hermit kingdom”, on the other hand, is an impoverished, isolated state that, had it not been for its aggressive drive to acquire nuclear weapons and missile technology, its very existence would have been a distant rumour. So clearly, the ruthless young DPRK leader is an attention-seeking leader who wants to be respected, and put his country firmly on the map.

But while Kim Jong-Un’s motives for this confrontation are clear, why the Americans are playing his game are not. After all, the US has nothing to prove about its power. So why conduct provocative joint military exercises with the South Koreans near the border? The standard American response is that they don’t want to be seen backing down before an apparently irrational dictator; also, they see North Korea’s growing nuclear capability — and the means of reaching the US mainland — as a mortal danger.

Hang on, though: why would Kim Jong-Un wish to risk his grip on power by provoking a massive American response? If his country is destroyed, he will no longer have one to misrule. And if there’s one thing we have learned from contemporary politics, it is that no dictator wishes to give up power. So clearly, he is calibrating his provocative moves carefully, knowing exactly how far he can go. But this presupposes that his opponent will also make rational counter-moves, and if there’s one thing nobody has accused Trump of, it’s rational behaviour. Because he is so unpredictable, it’s hard to judge just when his short fuse will be lit, and all calculations get thrown out of the window.

Many politicians and pundits ask why China doesn’t lean more heavily on its neighbour to de-escalate the crisis. Trump has sent out a series of tweets accusing Beijing of failing to restrain North Korea. But throughout the war of words, China has been urging a return to diplomacy. Vladimir Putin has warned that further sanctions are no solution to the problem as the North Koreans “will eat grass” before they give up their nuclear capability. Shades of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s vow to match the Indian nuclear programme after our neighbour exploded an atomic device in 1974…

So given the huge mismatch in military power, why hasn’t America acted to neutralise North Korea, and take out its paranoid leader? Other dictators as well as elected presidents have been subjected to regime change for far lesser offences. The reason for North Korea’s apparent impunity is that it holds South Korea — and specially Seoul — hostage by virtue of the capitol’s proximity to its massed artillery and short-range missiles just over the border. Several American war games have shown that their aircraft and missiles will be unable to neutralise the DRPK threat before hundreds of thousands of South Korean casualties. And if you throw in North Korean nuclear tipped missiles into the mix, you get a whole different magnitude of mayhem.

For China, the calculus includes the probability of vast numbers of North Korean refugees fleeing across the border to escape the inevitable American and South Korean retaliation. Then, there is the threatening scenario of South Korea becoming its immediate neighbour, with no North Korean buffer. Thus, thousands of American troops would be close to the border, together with radar and listening posts monitoring every Chinese electronic signal with even greater accuracy than they do now.

Another theory to explain the lack of greater Chinese pressure on its aggressive neighbour is that for Beijing to cause the collapse of Kim Jong-Un’s vicious regime would be seen as letting a fellow Communist Party down. Such a move — perceived as coming under American pressure — would weaken the Chinese government of Xi Jinping,

For all these reasons, President Xi has been urging calm and dialogue. But the American position is that any talks must lead to a dismantlement of the North Korean nuclear infrastructure, something that is anathema to Kim Jong-Un. He has seen the fate of leaders like Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qadhafi and Bashar al-Assad who have been picked off and attacked by American-led coalitions. He fears that once he no longer has nuclear weapons, he, too, will be knocked off his perch. Thus, from his point of view, his actions are perfectly logical.

The American ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, recently declared that Kim Jong-Un was “begging for war”. Actually, given America’s track record, it is the Trump administration that is hankering for armed conflict, but is frustrated by the lack of good military options. North Korea, for all its bellicose threats, has not gone to war since the end of the Korean War in the early Fifties. America, on the other hand, has hardly seen a year since then that its troops are not fighting somewhere or the other.

Mercifully, despite the threats flying around, there seems to be no stomach on either side for a fight. No troops have been mobilised on either side of Korea’s Demilitarised Zone, and nor is the American Seventh Fleet steaming towards the Korean peninsula. Thus far, Trump’s handlers seem to have restrained him. Long may the status quo last.

irfan.husain@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, September 11th, 2017

Opinion

Editorial

Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...
New terror wave
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

New terror wave

The time has come for decisive government action against militancy.
Development costs
27 Mar, 2024

Development costs

A HEFTY escalation of 30pc in the cost of ongoing federal development schemes is one of the many decisions where the...
Aitchison controversy
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

Aitchison controversy

It is hoped that higher authorities realise that politics and nepotism have no place in schools.