[thevardanian]

Honestly I don't get this sentiment. NK isn't some rationalistic actor. The NK problem can never ever be solved by diplomatic resolve. This goes beyond mere saving face, or diplomacy. This is simply about maintaining and expanding power. That is sometimes you need to be confrontational. Sometimes you need to stop being Chamberlain, and start being Churchill. Preferably before it's too late.

What else is their development of nuclear arms about? NK is a signatory of the NPT. They broke their promise. They've broken their promise multiple times. What they're looking for isn't a resolution to their situation, if anything they want to prolong it as long as possible. What they actually want is to win, and emerge "victorious" in the face of US "oppression".

Personally I think while China's interests are in maintaining a peaceful region, we must be wary of the relationship between NK and China. As there is a possibility of another game being played. Perhaps China wants to annex NK.

[jasonwatkinspdx]

> NK isn't some rationalistic actor.

The way they're behaving is quite rational. They looked at what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam, as well as how the new administration is seeking to tear down the Iran deal, and came to the conclusion that the US/West could not be trusted to honor a nuclear disarment deal long term.

This means a credible nuclear deterrent is the only way to ensure the regime's survival.

Lest people think I'm engaging in apologetics, what they're doing to keep in power is reprehensible. But they're not mad men looking for a symbolic "win" at the cost of suicide.

[hodgesrm]

That's assuming that NK is just building the deterrent to stay in power. Another possibility is that they would seek to increase their power against other, non-nuclear armed nations. Many of NK's historical actions such as kidnapping foreign citizens [0] or the abominable treatment of prisoners like Otto Warmbier cannot be explained simply by a rational desire for regime survival. We don't really know what their end game is.

[convivialdingo]

I agree completely. Contrast those rogue nations with Pakistan - who has nukes - and it's a strong argument. Pakistan regularly taunts India with the same threats and they still get megabucks in aid.

NK made it past the finish line: they have a real program and a modest delivery system. I expect they will continue to follow the same diplomatic strategy as Pakistan.

[smsm42]

It looks like currently their estimation is that the West is too weak to oppose them and by taking a bellicose stance they can extract concessions, payments and other benefits. This is basically a blackmail/hostage situation.

[cryptonector]

They haven't been wrong about that in the past...

[AnimalMuppet]

> They looked at what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam, as well as how the new administration is seeking to tear down the Iran deal, and came to the conclusion that the US/West could not be trusted to honor a nuclear disarment deal long term.

I believe that NK was untrustworthy long before the events you cite. They didn't reach a rational conclusion. They always were belligerant, untrustworthy, lying bullies.

[CamperBob2]

They always were belligerant, untrustworthy, lying bullies.

Yes, and that's worked out great for the Kims for almost 70 years now. We haven't exactly given them an incentive to change or reform.

It's impossible to exaggerate how badly we botched our handling of Libya in particular. After watching what happened to Gaddafi, there was literally no other option for Kim besides an all-out push to develop nuclear arms.

Iran, not being a country populated exclusively by idiots, will be doing the same.

The US simply cannot be trusted regardless of what party is at the helm, and that's a huge problem for us as well as anyone we're doing international business with.

[Certhas]

You imply that untrustworthy, lying bullies can't be rational. Read the parent again:

> This means a credible nuclear deterrent is the only way to ensure the regime's survival.

If you're a criminal bully, then the only way to not get taken down by the bigger kids is to get nuclear weapons.

[chickenfries]

> They always were belligerant, untrustworthy, lying bullies.

And US policy towards Korea has been something else?

[krapp]

South Korea seems to be doing just fine, and the US seems to be honest about the contempt with which it views the North Korean regime, so I don't really see the purpose of the equivocation you're trying to set, here.

[chickenfries]

I'm not trying to equivocate I'm trying to point out the a-historicism of throwing our hands in the air and saying "well I guess there's just no reasoning with them!"

The reason our diplomatic options are so poor now is because we have constantly failed to deliver our end of the bargain when it comes to nonproliferation in North Korea, see the Agreed Framework. Saying that they're "just crazy bullies" has always been a stupid over simplification that gets us nowhere closer to not blowing each other up.

> and the US seems to be honest about the contempt with which it views the North Korean regime

And DPRK is not? What are you even talking about? The DPRK literally uses inflammatory rhetoric about the USA all the time.

[newsmania]

No they’re not. The only reason they are still there is because China wants them there. And they are being very dumb by making China angry.

Secondly treating your people like dirt is also a very bad idea. Singapore remains a monarchy while not being anything like NK. The man drives his country into the dirt for bombs when they are completely unnecessary. He could either a) treat his people better then wouldn’t need bombs, or b) keep China happy and still wouldn’t need bombs.

[cryptonector]

China isn't angry at NK for building nukes. They're angry because now they have to be given that the U.S. wants them to be "or else". I'm not sure that the "or else" is real, but China has a lot to lose, while NK only has Kim to lose, so I expect China will continue attempting to appear angry at NK.

[smsm42]

> Perhaps China wants to annex NK.

No they don't. Why would they want this radioactive toxic dumpster fire as their full responsibility? They're much better it being within their sphere of influence - so that anybody who wants anything done has to deal with China and make suitable offers to get things done - while having pretty much zero responsibility for the welfare of the people and not being subject of criticism for any atrocities that happen there, and not granting the people there even minuscule rights that Chinese subjects have. Current situation - at least until it explodes into a hot war - is a huge win for China, they are indispensable as the only power capable of putting a leash on Crazy Kim, they look relatively good in comparison to him, and they don't have to spend anything on it or bear any responsibility.

[bonzini]

China has plenty of rural areas anyway, and NK population is 2% of Chinese population.

China is pretty much the only country that can pour enough money into NK to bring it out of poverty, and a border with an important US Ally (South Korea) would be priceless.

I don't think that's what they want to do, but it would actually make sense.

[smsm42]

I'm not saying they couldn't do it - unlike South Korea, China doesn't care too much for the welfare of the population beyond the basic subsistence level, and has enough resources to avoid outright starvation in NK if they took over. I am saying there's no reason for them to take over, because they now already have all the benefits of control with none of responsibilities of it. It would be literally stupid for them to do it unless they face the imminent danger of either losing control (thus Korean War) or having a hot and possible nuclear war on their borders (thus agreeing to put the leash on Kim, for a suitable price of course).

[cmdkeen]

China has historically tolerated NK because it doesn't want to share a border with a US ally. China intervened in the Korean War precisely because the UN forces came too far north, in spite of China warning them to stay clear.

[mythrwy]

So this is why maybe the sudden change of heart. All fun and games watching Uncle Sam get poked in the eye until it appears he is going to have troops on your border if it keeps up.

At this point it's in China's actual interest to resolve the situation. They'd probably like to resolve the situation with with the stick poker intact but that doesn't appear to be acceptable anymore. I'm guessing they are hoping Kim cools it down just enough and they can wait it out until the political climate in the US changes and then business as usual.

[gumby]

> NK isn't some rationalistic actor.

I don't see why you say this. I wouldn't say they are especially competent, but they seem to have stayed in existence and played off various larger rivals successfully for 70 odd years.

[smsm42]

They stay in existence mostly because nobody wants to take the responsibility for 25 million people that are stuck 70 years behind. The West is in no shape to do any nation-building, neither financially nor ideologically, South Korea has no resources to stomach such huge influx of the population with such huge economic disparity (it's like US would get 150 million immigrants from extremely poor country all at once), and China is completely fine with the position of NK being a permanent toxic dumpster fire and China being seen as the only power being able to manage it and thus being irreplaceable and everyone's savior.

They are as "successful" as cancer is "successful" - it's hard to kill the cancer without killing the patient, but that's not a redeeming quality for cancer. In the same way, it's hard to kill Kim's regime without subjecting 25 million people to extreme dangers, exacerbated by the fact that many of them are already on the brink of starvation, and a lot of them are thoroughly brainwashed. It's not a sign of "success" or regime's rationality, it is the sign that it is hard for us to find a solution for this without hurting a lot of people in process.

[thevardanian]

Put another way. They're not going to play ball. Things cannot be solved diplomatically. Unless you call breaking all diplomatic promises, and developing nukes diplomacy.

A rational actor is a nation that is predictable, and is willing to uphold their word, and agreements. If promises are broken, agreements torn a part I don't think that state is a "rational" actor.

[irrational]

So by that definition it seems that the USA would not be considered a rational actor since the head of the nation and the majority in congress are pretty much the opposite of predictable and willing to uphold their word.

[thevardanian]

Be that as it may. The USA, China, UK, India, etc. are all far more rational actors than NK. So your assertion is irrelevant as even if it is true the US is far more likely to be rational on the geopolitical stage.

Personally I would trust the USA on its word far more than I would NK. I don't know about you.

[AnimalMuppet]

Perhaps true, but also completely off topic. It makes you look like you're just looking for an excuse to score points, rather than contributing to the conversation we're having.

[jsgo]

I think it is a fair point within the context. It links up with the "NK developing nukes for survival" but it also plays out in the sense that an outside nation of any sort, including our allies, can never be certain that 4 years from now a deal we made will continue to be honored. Iran, Paris agreement, various trade agreements, NATO, etc. have all been brought into questioning as of late. It is impossible for an ally or other country to 100% predict how a vetted agreement will play out once a new administration comes into office. Unfortunate side effect of our system, but I don't think it is a bad system.

[AnimalMuppet]

Fair point. I read it as an indictment of the unpredictability caused by the change to this administration, not just by the change to a new one, but you're right, it's a larger problem than that.

[chickenfries]

No this is absolutely relevant. Part of the reason that the Agreed Framework failed was because of the inconsistency and disagreement between the president and congress. And look at Trump criticizing the Iran deal, which the UN has found Iran is upholding. It's clear that the US will do whatever it wants, regardless of whatever deal you have negotiated with them before. This is literally what Trump ran on.

[ionised]

It's very much on-topic.

You discomfort with certain truths of your own country is not a reason to dismiss what he said.

[ionised]

> A rational actor is a nation that is predictable, and is willing to uphold their word, and agreements. If promises are broken, agreements torn a part I don't think that state is a "rational" actor.

No it isn't.

A rational actor is one who acts rationally.

If survival and self-interest is your goal then lying and breaking agreements might be a perfectly rational approach.

It depends entirely what is to be gained.

[stouset]

You’re redefining the term “rational” to mean “honorable”. A rational actor is someone who acts in their own self-interest.

North Korea acting unpredictably and dishonestly has little inherently to do with the rationality of those actions, and there are strong arguments to be made that those actions are rational from the perspective of the North Korean ruling class.

[mythrwy]

They've stayed in existence with the implicit support of China and periodic tribute in the form of food and fuel from the west.

[crdoconnor]

>What else is their development of nuclear arms about?

It dates back quite a long time. Development started as a response to the US putting nuclear artillery on the border with North Korea in 1958 and pointing it directly at Pyongyang.

>What else is their development of nuclear arms about? NK is a signatory of the NPT.

They withdrew from the NPT in the run up to the totally provoked and necessary invasion of Iraq. Around this time Bush famously branded them part of the "axis of evil" and casually threatened nuclear annihilation, among other provocations.

I guess something led them to believe that they needed a nuclear deterrent?

They did at the time make an offer to the US in light of the provocations: sign a non-aggression treaty and let them to continue developing nuclear power. The US didn't, so they withdrew.

>What they actually want is to win

No, they want some kind of military parity before joining the negotiating table because Iraq shows what happens when you don't have parity...

[acjohnson55]

They already have parity, because they hold Seoul hostage with conventional weapons. Otherwise, there'd be no problem to talk about. But they also have every reason to seek more leverage.

[oh_sigh]

> What they actually want is to win, and emerge "victorious" in the face of US "oppression".

You don't think seeing what happened to Gaddafi has anything to do with it? Libya got rid of their nuke development plans in 2003. If Libya had nukes, would the Libyan revolution have played out as it did? Do you think Kim Jong Un wants to get dragged around, anally raped and murdered by an angry mob? Probably not.

> Perhaps China wants to annex NK.

Not even close. China would rather NK sank into the sea than try to take 25M malnourished, undereducated more people.

[SyneRyder]

I'm not sure why this was downvoted. North Korea officially cited Gaddafi and Hussein as motivations, as reported by The Telegraph back in 2016:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/12...

The BBC has run stories on it as well:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37321686

I'm sure it's just one of many motivations, but it does seem to be at least one of the motivating factors.

[thevardanian]

Libya was diplomatic failure of epic proportions.

Furthermore the value of NK isn't the people, but the geographical position. It is a well known fact that China is amping up its projection of power, and using it to claim territory. Doklam is the most recent example. Furthermore I don't think China gives two shits about forcing people into doing what it wills. 25 million people is basically a negligible amount for China to handle, it's >2% of their total population. If anything it is an opportunity to gain goodwill by "rescuing" them.

All I'm saying is that perhaps China has a vested interest in trying to provoke NK into increasingly irrational decisions so to open an opportunity for them to annex NK in the name of "maintaining order".

[WillPostForFood]

Libya was failure of aggression. Where was there diplomacy happening? Hillary Clinton's quotation on the diplomacy was, "We came, we saw, he died."

https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/3/the_libya_gamble_insid...

[cryptonector]

Libya was a failure of President Obama to honor a deal made by President Bush.

Qaddafi gave the U.S. his centrifuges and other equipment, which in turn laid bare the A. Q. Khan network and Iran's program, and also helped the U.S. and Israel hack Iran's program to slow it down. And just what did Qaddafi get for his troubles? He got killed.

After that betrayal no one will make any deals like that with the U.S. again. To say that President Obama's Libya adventure was destructive is to put it mildly.

[vadman]

Or perhaps, the US has a vested interest in a divided and unstable Korea to have an excuse to maintain lots of military bases in the region, because China. And Russia.

[forapurpose]

> NK isn't some rationalistic actor.

I think they are, from their perspective. First, non-rational actors don't survive to establish and hold political power, for years (generations for the Kim family) in dictatorships where failure means death. Kim Jong-un's behavior would be madness in a democracy and where we care about fellow citizens, but it's successful (by his terms) and makes sense in a dictatorship.

Second, consider the history of U.S. regime change from an outside perspective:

1) Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program; the U.S. said it did, invaded, and overthrew the regime.

2) Libya did have a minor nuclear weapons program. In an agreement with the U.S. (and maybe with others too) it gave up the program. Soon after, the U.S. bombed the Libyan military and helped the opposition overthrow the regime.

3) Iran had a very capable nuclear weapons program. It gave up the program in a treaty with the U.S. Now the U.S. is at high risk to renege on the treaty, continues to threaten Iran, and continues to talk about regime change.

It seems that no matter what you do, what the U.S. says, or what international law is, if the U.S. doesn't like you then it pursues regime change. That's the Russian point of view, too, to an extent. It's openly discussed that perhaps the only way to protect yourself is to own nuclear weapons.

(As a side note, when people question the value of following international law, this is it: If the U.S. reliably followed international law, NK could trust that a deal to give up its weapons would be followed and others wouldn't feel the need to acquire them. On the other hand, if the U.S. withdraws from the Iran agreement, why would NK - or anyone - bother even discussing an agreement? So they can disarm and be destroyed?)

> Sometimes you need to stop being Chamberlain, and start being Churchill.

And sometimes you need to stop being Bush and start being (name your favorite peace-maker). I'm not sure what that proves - sometimes one tactic is appropriate, sometimes another, and often a a completely different approach. Also, this situation does not at all seem similar to WWII.

[tooltalk]

I second oh_sigh's view on this matter. As FP notes, http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/26/kim-jong-un-is-a-survivo..., they are doing what they doing to survive.

annex what? I don't think China's interested in maintaining a peaceful region, as much as they are scared of losing control of their country and desperately trying to keep their country in one piece, having witnessed the fall outs from the collapse of the Soviet.

[thevardanian]

I agree. They don't want to lose power, if anything they want to expand it. We can call it "survival mode", but I don't think their desperation can be solved by diplomacy. So what is the solution? More diplomacy? More failed agreements? More broken promises?

[acjohnson55]

China is very interested in a peaceful region. They have demonstrated very little interest in belligerence outside their claimed territory and a great deal of interest in stable export markets that give them trade advantages.

[Clubber]

>Perhaps China wants to annex NK.

This makes sense. NK is valuable to China as a buffer from Western countries. I'm surprised by this announcement simply because from that strategic perspective, it hurts China. If they plan on annexing, that makes more sense.

If they do, I'm sure we won't do much to stop them. We'll complain (us Westerners) but when the rubber meets the road, China is a better holder of that territory. Our only concern will be annexation of SK by China after NK, but I find that unlikely within the next 20 years.

[smallnamespace]

That's silly.

NK is a complete basket case, with a population that has been brainwashed by 70+ years of misrule, a development level probably below China in 1949, and they have a different language and culture.

Right now, China gets the benefit of a buffer state without the downside of fixing generations of problems. They would take the blame for every problem.

Did you know that the goal of reunification is explicitly written into South Korea's constitution? Yet I've spoken to younger South Koreans -- even they don't really want to reunify with the North, because it would significantly lower the reunified country's standard of living.

It took an entire generation for East Germany to reintegrate with the West, and even now GDP per capita is about 30% lower in the east. And East Germany was only about 20 years economically behind the West. For NK, multiply that problem 10x.

[thevardanian]

The issue of reunification in Korea still has significant support. Especially among the older generation, but even if we include the younger generation the support for reunification still exceed 60%.

I mean what do you want to do with NK? Leave it be? Laissez faire? Let it develop nukes as a "deterrent"? Let it be aggressive? This will not end will for the region if something isn't done, and SK is reminded that on a daily basis.

[smallnamespace]

> I mean what do you want to do with NK?

The problem is that nobody knows, and nobody wants to be responsible for figuring it out, implementing it, and paying all the costs. We're all hoping somebody else will fix the problem for us.

The US blames China. China predictably blames the US. South Korea vacillates between being hot and cold towards its Northern brother, yet neither approach has solved the issue. Meanwhile, Russia is all too happy to no longer be associated with the problem in the eyes of the global public, despite its own key role in getting us into the current mess.

You're right that reunification still has majority support in SK, but will that be true in 20 years' time once a unified Korea can no longer remembered by anyone still living?

[jcranberry]

It seemed to me his point was that China probably doesn't want to annex NK because of the economic and developmental hassle involved. Not wanting to annex NK does not mean that he automatically condones a rampant NK.

[dublinben]

What makes you think that the status quo for the last 50 years won't continue for 50 more?

[vorg]

>Perhaps China wants to annex NK

If China was considering this type of thing, it would be a split of NK territory between itself and South Korea. China would be holding secret talks with South Korea about militarily assisting them to reunite with the North, in return for China getting some of North Korea's territory. After the initial show of strength, China would offer top NK leaders and military officers lifelong residence in that annexed territory, with immunity from deportation. The U.S. right now is probably trying to stop such secret talks from starting, probably by impressing on the SK govt just how much their standard of living would be impacted by reuniting with the North. Of course, China would be using this as leverage in the secret negotiations to gain as much NK territory as possible.

[acjohnson55]

Why would the US care? At this point, the situation is an anchor around our neck. Talks behind our backs are unlikely to happen due to SK's deep distrust of China, whose fault it is that Korean war ended in stalemate (after US intervention), as well as SK's deep military integration with the US.

The Kim dynasty has shown zero inclination to give up power, which would make such a concept a nonstarter. If DPRK could be solved by all parties other than the Kim regime (say, by decapitation of the regime and containment of the resultant chaos), it would be a done deal. Everyone's been hoping the regime would collapse before becoming a credible nuclear threat, but that hasn't happened and the temperature keeps rising.

I think we ultimately will live to see this play out. I have to assume it's being negotiated even now, because it will be require unprecedented coordination to defuse NK without massive civilian deaths in Seoul or a refugee crisis in Manchuria.

As far as I know, China does not want NK territory. The last thing they need is an extremely insular ethnic group to integrate. They want containment of NK and less US presence in Asia. They also want Taiwan, but I think a much diminished US presence on the peninsula would be more than enough for them.

[jcranmer]

> NK isn't some rationalistic actor.

North Korea is rational. They have a very good idea of how far they can annoy everyone else before it starts to hurt them, and they have proven very adept at being able to extract concessions from the rest of the world.

> The NK problem can never ever be solved by diplomatic resolve.

The only way the problem could be solved diplomatically is a grand bargain between China and the US (maybe Russia as well, but China is definitely required) to let the Kim government fall.

> Personally I think while China's interests are in maintaining a peaceful region, we must be wary of the relationship between NK and China. As there is a possibility of another game being played. Perhaps China wants to annex NK.

The real problem with North Korea, and the reason we're in this dangerous unstable equilibrium is that, as much as the relevant powers hate the current situation, the alternatives are even more unpalatable. No one wants to take on the task of absorbing North Korea--China and South Korea are already too rich (the gap is even wider than East/West Germany, and that took 20 years to close). Furthermore, China already has a rural-to-urban migration problem, and North Korean refugees would only exacerbate that issue.

War with North Korea would be a very unpalatable situation. The center of Seoul is only about 30 miles from the North Korean border, and some suburbs are even closer--within artillery range of the border. That gives North Korea the ability to raise the death count to over a million people in a very short amount of time even before rockets or nuclear weapons are involved, not to mention instigating a short-term refugee situation that makes Syria's look small. Furthermore, North Korean rocketry and nuclear weapons gives it the ability to threaten the megacities of Japan, and if Kim Jung Un feels he can't win, he very well could go out with a painful bang.

Put more simply, a war with North Korea, although likely very short, could easily produce a death toll commensurate with World War I. A military option is not a good option. There are no good options when it comes to North Korea. At this point, the least bad option to me is to ignore North Korea's tantrums, publicly reaffirm commitment to the defense of South Korea and Japan in the event of a war at any cost, and quietly work with China to develop post-Kim scenarios.

[smsm42]

> They have a very good idea of how far they can annoy everyone else before it starts to hurt them,

I wouldn't overestimate their knowledge. Just as Saddam Hussein thought he'd be allowed to annex Kuwait and generally behave like an ass and nobody would dare to lift a finger, Kim is probably under the same impression. People think that various totalitarian regimes feed their citizens propaganda, but deep inside the inner party circle they have rational (even if evil) people that operate on correct information and capable of making correct (even if extremely self-serving) decisions.

The reality is usually different. The inner circle may have access to more information, but they are also largely ignorant about how politics works in the Western countries. They are as prone to biases and misjudgment as any human, and the absence of robust feedback circles usually present in open society amplifies their errors of judgement. And of course, somebody can only be told he is a unerring genius and supreme being for so long before he himself starts believing it, and once that happens, huge errors of judgment are inevitable.

Thus, what they expect the West to do may be completely different from what the West would actually do.

[MBCook]

They HAD a very good idea. Kim Jong Ill and Kim Il Sung knew what they were doing through experience. Kim Jong Un hasn’t had the time to get good at that which could be a BIG risk.

[MertsA]

> Perhaps China wants to annex NK.

That would seem to be a good thing, both for NK and the rest of us.

[ionised]

> Honestly I don't get this sentiment. NK isn't some rationalistic actor.

Of course it is.

If you think about it from the perspective of a dynasty trying to save its own skin under any circumstances to avoid having to go through something akin to another Nuremberg trials, then everything the Kim leadership does is rational.

They are even willing to point nuclear weapons at the world and subject the North Korean people to no end of physical and mental abuses just to maintain their grip on power in a country where they live like God-Kings.

[gumby]

> Perhaps China wants to annex NK.

They could have done this in the 50s when the red army controlled Norks during the war. They want a buffer state between them and SK.

[jethro_tell]

And they don't want to take on the domestic responsibility of the NK People, as refugees or as citizens.

[pcr0]

> Personally I think while China's interests are in maintaining a peaceful region, we must be wary of the relationship between NK and China. As there is a possibility of another game being played. Perhaps China wants to annex NK.

I don't believe this. I think China wants to avoid the refugee crisis that would ensue on their doorstep if North Korea collapsed.