![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Blackmail, yes - but aimed at whom?
Oct. 5th, 2006 07:35 pmOk, so the DPRK (North Korea) have announced that they're going to test a nuke & everyone is falling over themselves to tell them that they shouldn't. Whilst the "Western" response is only to be expected (we're technically still at war & frankly the DPRK is - as far as I'm concerned - the national equivalent of a cancerous sore), the response of the nations who have the unfortunate handicap of being allied to the DPRK is interesting. They're in a corner - they cant let an ally colapse - even if that ally is as embarrasing, militaristic, secretive & belligerent as the DPRK (a nation who - by its own admission - is involved in international criminal activities such as money laundering & drug smuggling). Morover, they (Russia & China, mainly) don't want to be seen as being responsible for starting a major regional war on the Korean Pensinsula, whilst also don't want to give Japan a pretext for either regularizing its military, or going nuclear themselves.
So who, exactly, is this nuclear brinkmanship aimed at? I doubt that its going to extract any additional resources from the western nations, as its going to harden the stance of Japan & South Korea, but, as North Korea has written the textbook on 'firm negotiation from weakness' & you have to tip your hat at the raw application of "Owe a man a pound and he will own you. Owe a man a million pounds & you own him".
Depressingly, I still think that we're going to see a conflict on the Korean peninsula, and it will make the current conflicts in the Middle East look like a piece of cake by comparison - heck, they dont need nukes, they can nerve-gas Seoul. Consider: If North Korea doesn't test the nuke because of rewards elicited from its allies (and probably South Korea), they'll be rewarded for bad behaviour & will only resort to "diplomacy by tantrum" in the future, when they want something else from the world, whilst simultaneiously having irritating their allies. Sympathy levels in Beijing will be eroded by this & at some point, the west will stop appeasing.
On the other hand, they could go ahead & test the nuke. No matter how you cut it, I cant see a nuclear test NOT triggering a war. Bad bad bad badness. I'm so glad that I'm not calling the decisions on this one. Go to war, or tolerate a nuclear armed, irrational loose cannon on the world stage, who is admittedly involved with global terrorism. Not to mention a regional arms race.
Hmm. Tough call.
So who, exactly, is this nuclear brinkmanship aimed at? I doubt that its going to extract any additional resources from the western nations, as its going to harden the stance of Japan & South Korea, but, as North Korea has written the textbook on 'firm negotiation from weakness' & you have to tip your hat at the raw application of "Owe a man a pound and he will own you. Owe a man a million pounds & you own him".
Depressingly, I still think that we're going to see a conflict on the Korean peninsula, and it will make the current conflicts in the Middle East look like a piece of cake by comparison - heck, they dont need nukes, they can nerve-gas Seoul. Consider: If North Korea doesn't test the nuke because of rewards elicited from its allies (and probably South Korea), they'll be rewarded for bad behaviour & will only resort to "diplomacy by tantrum" in the future, when they want something else from the world, whilst simultaneiously having irritating their allies. Sympathy levels in Beijing will be eroded by this & at some point, the west will stop appeasing.
On the other hand, they could go ahead & test the nuke. No matter how you cut it, I cant see a nuclear test NOT triggering a war. Bad bad bad badness. I'm so glad that I'm not calling the decisions on this one. Go to war, or tolerate a nuclear armed, irrational loose cannon on the world stage, who is admittedly involved with global terrorism. Not to mention a regional arms race.
Hmm. Tough call.