The New Republic

This North Korea situation is terrible! What do you think we should do?

- subterran

July 25, 2010 at 3:42pm

"This North Korea situation is terrible! What do you think we should do?" Nothing, let them make the first move.

- jdyer

July 25, 2010 at 5:11pm

Free coverage and analysis of Operation Invincible Spirit available at "Stars and Stripes" http://www.stripes.com/news/u-s-s-korea-aim-to-strike-the-right-tone-as-exercise-kicks-off-1.112245 An article The New Yorker chose to NOT make available online: Barbara Demick, Letter from Yanji, “Nothing Left: the North Korean Catastrophe,” The New Yorker, July 12, 2010, explores how "North Koreans’ faith in their political system is eroding from the border inward" ABSTRACT: LETTER FROM YANJI about North Korea and currency reform. On February 23rd, a sixteen-year-old North Korean girl walked across the frozen Tumen River into China, becoming at once a runaway and a refugee. Song-hee (as she asked to be called) came from Musan, an iron-mining city. Song-hee’s parents had been saving money for her education, since neither of her two brothers showed academic promise. Then, on November 30, 2009, the North Korean government announced that it was devaluing its currency. Henceforth, all existing North Korean money would be worthless, and small allotments of new money would be given to each family. The life savings of members of the nascent middle class were reduced to a handful of paper, worth about fifteen dollars on the market. When a classmate of Song-hee’s confided, a few months later, that she planned to escape from North Korea in two days, Song-hee impulsively accepted an invitation to go with her. After they entered China, they made their way to Yanji, a city fifteen miles from the border, which is home to a large population of ethnic Koreans. The writer interviewed Song-hee twenty days after her arrival in China. In North Korea, Song-hee’s family consumed regular meals of white rice, the staple of the relatively well-off. Many North Koreans were given less than twenty-four hours’ notice about the currency reform. So many people suffered heart attacks and strokes, or attempted suicide, that the Workers’ Party had to act to stem the panic. Some people were reluctant to turn in their cash for fear of being punished for becoming too rich. Mentions economist Cho Myung-chul. North Korea has undertaken currency reform five times before. On each occasion, the goal was to consolidate power and to raise money. Starting last year, Kim Jong-il began the hasty process of anointing his youngest son, Kim Jong-eun, as his successor. Cho believes that King Jong-il delegated responsibility for the currency exchange to his youngest son. When the new currency was distributed, Song-hee’s family got five hundred won for each person living at home. This amounted to a household income of about fifteen dollars at the informal exchange rate. On February 10th, North Korea’s Prime Minister, Kim Yong-il, told Party loyalists, “I offer a sincere apology about the currency reform…” The regime has managed to stabilize food prices, but the price of rice remains out of reach for most North Koreans. In the past, defectors have been hesitant to criticize the country’s leadership, but North Koreans’ faith in their political system is eroding from the border inward. Song-hee said that all of her friends in Musan were looking for a way out of North Korea."

- K2K

July 25, 2010 at 6:16pm

peeling back a few layers of media propaganda: "...Did you know, however, that the USS George Washington (CVN-73) Carrier Strike Group conducted a joint exercise with the South Korean navy in the Yellow Sea in October 2009? ...Did you know that Kim Jong-Il issued threats then too, or that George Washington had been in the Yellow Sea when North Korea conducted five missile launches off the East coast on 12 October?...[or that] in November 2009, when a Yellow Sea naval skirmish between North and South Korea resulted in the North Korean ship retreating in flames. The March 2010 sinking of ROKS Cheonan was thought by many to be in retaliation for that ignominious incident. ..." from "Perception Warfare" J.E. Dyer, retired US Naval intelligence officer http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/07/25/perception-warfare/

- K2K

July 25, 2010 at 7:24pm

When atheism becomes a state religion, its believers become just as intolerant and bigoted as the worshipers of any theistic religion, and without a holy moral code to temper its actions, the regime tends to be even more murderous than a Christian or a Buddhist one. Just ask Kim Jong-Il, Stalin and Pol Pot. Also, Mubarak's son is Gamal, not Assad. Marty mixed up his dictators.

- NR114746

July 25, 2010 at 8:25pm

I think it's also that the Kim family has succeeded in steering the deep-rooted religious feelings of the Korean peasantry toward a kind of communist emperor-worship. The war is sacred because the nation, as embodied in Kim Jong-Il, represents a kind of transhistorical, almost mythical entity. More than just human, in other words. Not dissimilar to Japan in WW2.

- ironyroad

July 25, 2010 at 9:40pm

K2K that's a very interesting piece (your Hotair link) by someone who knows his stuff, but I feel the point at the end is gratuitious (presumbably there because it's a conservative blog). Has Obama given any sign up until now of being inclined to provoke or court danger by aggressively "sending signals" via the Navy or any other vehicle? I don't think Gates has either, or the present NSC team (which I don't know much about, to be honest, but timidity has been the more common accusation from the Right). The McNamara analogy is very weak.

- ironyroad

July 25, 2010 at 9:54pm

Irony: "More than just human, in other words. Not dissimilar to Japan in WW2." This is an excellent comparison.

- jdyer

July 25, 2010 at 10:36pm

irony: On May 27, 2009, North Korea announced it no longer accepted the armistice agreement of July 27 1953. From Pyongyang's perspective, they are in a state of war, so who knows what they see as provocation or not? I posted what I thought were the key points from J.E. Dyer's post - about the October 2009 'war games' and subsequent Korean naval encounter that some believe led to the "March 2010 sinking of ROKS Cheonan". Her research into 'naval facts on the sea' are what interest me, not her conclusions, which she is entitled to. I do not know enough about U.S. decision-making as to when to conduct bilateral 'war game' exercises to have an opinion as to why we had one in October 2009, and again in July 2010 to project naval power and solidarity with South Korea. My guess is deterrence, not provocation. But, you never know. There is growing frustration, at least in military minds and some foreign policy shops, about the concept, and cost, of limited wars becoming decades-long frozen conflicts. so, irony, I do hope you recognize that I posted the URL in case anyone wanted more of the naval facts, NOT because I necessarily agree with JEDyer's conclusions. I do respect that she always frames her conclusions as just that, in no way as if she is carving her opinions in stone. (I read her personal blog on naval matters, but she cross-posts at HotAir, which I otherwise ignore) The English experts can parse her wording. I am saving my strategic depth for other issues :) I do think Obama is trying to show the intransigence of North Korea in order to get a bit more Chinese and Russian co-operation. Not so easy because North Korea represents an economic opportunity to both countries. Both are building their own ports. And China knows the value of NK mineral deposits. NO ONE wants North Korea to implode. Based on what I read in Barbara Demick's The New Yorker article, it seems as though China is doing a super-slo-mo economic colonization of NK. I do not know what the South Koreans think of that, but assume they (and everyone else?) would prefer Chinese wanting to do business over North Korea launching missiles. BTW, the Reagan carrier group is in week 5 of the RIMPAC naval exercise: The United States, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, Peru, Netherlands, Thailand, and France. Anchors aweigh!

- K2K

July 26, 2010 at 10:37am

"There is growing frustration, at least in military minds and some foreign policy shops, about the concept, and cost, of limited wars becoming decades-long frozen conflicts." A fair point, and perhaps the Cold War itself is what did the most to socialize us (or school us) into a different relationship between war and peace, and between military and civil milieux, than had been the case (at least for the U.S.) before. The Korean situation is in some ways a classic containment problem, and yet the potential volatility of the contained entity undercuts the classic theory.

- ironyroad

July 26, 2010 at 11:24am

I don't think Marty mixed up the dictators. I think he said, "Mubarek and his son, Assad and his son..." referring to the Syrian Hafez Assad and his son Bashir. ?

- Sophia

July 26, 2010 at 3:15pm

World War 5 is coming. (3 was the "cold war" and 4 is West vs. Islamoterrorist.) Should we get it over with now or just wait in happy suspense for NK to start it.

- skahn

July 26, 2010 at 9:30pm

Goddamned Obami.

- icarusr

July 27, 2010 at 1:36pm

sophia: I don't think Marty mixed up the dictators. I think he said, "Mubarek and his son, Assad and his son..." referring to the Syrian Hafez Assad and his son Bashir." yes, you can delete your question mark. ? irony: one could argue that it was the bloodbath of WW2 and fear of more nuclear war that "did the most to socialize us (or school us) into a different relationship between war and peace", and created the "Cold War", but I am not, as usual, in the mood to argue about anything :)

- K2K

July 27, 2010 at 4:21pm

Mood is moot. Mutt is mute.

- ironyroad

July 27, 2010 at 7:35pm

"Mood is moot, Mutt is mute." tomaytoe, tomahtoo, this is one of those days to award the Neville Chamberlain Appeasement Award for 2010 to David Cameron for continuing the 200-year British tradition of Turkey-Coddling.

- K2K

July 27, 2010 at 9:30pm

"continuing the 200-year British tradition of Turkey-Coddling." I don't think that historically this statement can hold up. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,719329,00.html

- noga1

July 27, 2010 at 10:50pm

noga: great find. I had no idea Time had made it so easy to search back to when Time was serious about the news of the day. yes, there was an intermission in British Turkey-Coddling. Cameron's speech reminded me of how The Eastern Question was such a British policy imperative in the 19th century. Some comfort knowing Cameron frosted the Anglo-French Exclamation Point on Turkey and the EU :)

- K2K

July 28, 2010 at 1:21am

Somehow I just knew that the Treaty of Sévres would be behind it all.

- ironyroad

July 28, 2010 at 2:41am

"The slap at Israel was bad – the failure to condemn the Hamas government in Gaza even worse – but the real evil in Cameron’s speech in Ankara was the way in which it fed Prime Minister Erdogan’s delusions of grandeur. “Turkey is a great NATO ally and Turkey shares our determination to fight terrorism in all its forms, whether from al-Qaeda or from the PKK.” “Which European country could have the greatest possible chance of persuading Iran to change its course on nuclear policy? Tabii ki Türkiye.” “No other country has the same potential to build understanding between Israel and the Arab world.” “But as, hopefully, we move in the coming weeks to direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians so it’s Turkey that can make the case for peace and Turkey that can help to press the parties to come together, and point the way to a just and viable solution.” None of these statements are true. Turkey is not determined to fight terrorism in all its forms, not when it is sending flotillas to support Hamas. Germany and Russia are European countries with much more important trade and strategic relationships with Iran. Egypt has much greater potential to build bridges with Israel than Turkey, a country still mistrusted by many in the Arab world it once ruled. Turkey cannot help press Israel and the Palestinians together, because Turkey has forfeited almost all its credibility with Israel by its recent behavior. Diplomatic speeches are not delivered upon oath, and sometimes improved behavior can be elicited by flattering lies. In this case, though, flattering lies seem much more likely to create feelings of impunity – and invite yet more provocative behavior." http://www.frumforum.com/a-worse-mistake-in-cameron%E2%80%99s-prison-camp-speech

- noga1

July 28, 2010 at 7:42am

David Cameron is following in Obama's footsteps and has decided to outObama Obama in and on Turkey.

- noga1

July 28, 2010 at 8:09am

noga: "David Cameron is following in Obama's footsteps and has decided to outObama Obama in and on Turkey." If I thought Cameron was acting as Obama's proxy, since Cameron's visit to Turkey was preceded by his visit with Obama, I would agree. I am not so sure about that, because of Cameron's unlikely coalition with the Lib-Dems. Was Cameron playing to his British audience via Turkey? Maybe Cameron has picked up the habit of saying different things to different audiences? FM Hague met privately with Davatoglu. Germany's FM Westerwelle and France's FM Kouchner are next on the Turkish stage, both meeting with Davotoglu separately. One wonders what is said in THOSE meetings. By comparison, Obama look absolutely statesman-like regarding Turkey. Obama dissed Erdogan at the G20, and seems to be watching to see how all the EU and NATO deal with Turkey. The tragic IAF helicopter crash in Romania revealed that Greece, Romania, and Bulgaria have indeed stepped in as NATO members to replace Turkey in Israel's always fragile alliances. Turkey is so riven by internal politics these days that there are actually now editorials posing the question of separation from thier Kurds, coming from the Kemalist opposition, who seem to realize that 90 years of Turkification in the name of extreme nationalism has not succeeded. Yeah, the failure of the Treaty of Sevres really haunts us. Today's Guardian has an analysis of Iraqi political paralysis that reminds the reader that Iraq was an artificial creation to protect British interests in the Middle East. "Han", translated from Korean into English: Sadness so deep no tears will come, yet still hope will come. "West Wing", 2003. I imagine the Kurds have more than one word to express that.

- K2K

July 28, 2010 at 10:10am

"If I thought Cameron was acting as Obama's proxy," That's not what I said, k2k. And in today's world there is a lot of evidence that the thinking of those on the far right and those on the far left converge when it comes to Israel. These two actors may not yet qualify as far right or far left but the very similarity in their public expressions should worry us.

- noga1

July 28, 2010 at 12:02pm

noga, I wrote "If I thought Cameron was acting as Obama's proxy," solely as my own interpretation of Cameron's visit with Obama followed by Cameron's speech in Turkey. I have not heard Obama say what Cameron said in Turkey, and tend to think Cameron was playing to his Lib-Dem coalition partners. Anyway, having just read this, I hope you add it to your wonderful store of citations, for all the many times anyone, including Obama and Cameron, says the Israel-Arab conflict is about land, not religion: "The Root of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Classic Islamic View of Jews" by Hagai Mazuz July 28, 2010 at 4:30 am From the day Israel was established, the Muslim world has been hostile towards the State of Israel. This has been increasing over the years, despite the efforts of so many to settle the conflict. Although Israel signed Peace Agreements with Egypt and Jordan, nevertheless, many leaders in the Arab world, including Egyptian and Jordanian officials, make anti-Zionist and even anti-Semitic statements, and oppose normalization with Israel. When asked why, they answer that this peace is between governments, and not between the people of their countries. Trying to find solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict, politicians and statesmen have spent endless hours with experts on Islam to understand the roots of the conflict. They have usually heard two answers: "The root of the problem is territorial," and "The root of the problem is religious; it stems from the classic Islamic view of Jews as evil." Muslims often accuse Jews of harassing and plotting against Muhammad, Islam's founder and prophet, a charge abundantly clear since the start of classic Islamic writings, which are filled with anti-Jewish imagery. In our "post-modern" age, most Western scholars, who are secular, find it difficult to accept the idea that medieval texts can dictate the lives of, or even inspire, people today. They criticize those who see the conflict as religious, arguing that scholars who see the conflict as religious, place too much emphasis on these ancient texts, as both the times and circumstances have changed. For them, these texts are outdated. In short, secular scholars find it difficult to believe that people even still regard religious ideas as relevant. In talking with the common people in the Arab and Muslim world, however, it becomes clear that for them, these classical texts are as relevant today as when they were written. For the overwhelmingly majority of Muslims, these texts indicate that the conflict is indeed religious, not territorial. As Muslims view the world, Muhammad was the ideal Muslim. How he acted is how all Muslims should act. So how Muhammad acted towards the Jews in Medina and Khaybar is how Muslims should act towards Jews. How, then, did Muhammad act? In 622 CE, Muhammad asked the Jews to recognize him as a prophet and join Islam. When they refused, he turned against them. After Muhammad became stronger in Medina, he instructed the Muslims to terrorize the Jews. Muhammad's first victim was Ka'ab bin al-Ashraf, the leader of one of the three Jewish tribes in Medina. After the Muslims decapitated him, they brought his head to Muhammad who took it and said, "Praise G-d for the death of Ka'ab." (Source: Kitab al-Maghazi [The Book of Muslim Raids Against the non-Muslims], Vol. 1, pages 184-190). Immediately thereafter, Muslim tradition talks about the murder of the Jewish trader ibn Sunayna by the Muslim, Muhaysa bin Mas'ud. When Muhaysa's brother Huwaysa, heard about the murder, Huwaysa beat his brother mercilessly and said to him: "Much of the fat in your stomach is due the man (i.e., the Jew) you just murdered." Muhaysa responded, "If the one who commanded me (i.e., Muhammad) to slaughter ibn Sunayna would ask me to kill you – my own brother – I would do so." His brother responded, "a religion that can make a brother kill his own brother is a wonderful/amazing religion." Huwaysa immediately converted to Islam. (Source: Kitab al-Maghazi, Vol. 1, pages 190-192). Simultaneously, the Muslims murdered many more Jews in the back alleys of Medina. In 624, when the Muslims besieged another Jewish tribe in Medina, the Jews gave up. Muhammad wanted to execute them, but one of the powerful non-Muslim allies of the Jews prevented Muhammad from doing so. Muhammad gave in, but exiled the Jews and expropriated their property and agricultural lands. A year later, Muhammad did the same thing to another Medinan Jewish tribe. (Source: Kitab al-Maghazi, Vol. 1, pages 176-180 & pages 363-380). In 627, Muhammad besieged the last Jewish tribe in Medina. Their powerful non-Muslim ally had by that time died; the Jews had no one to protect them. The Jews then sent a messenger to Muhammad and expressed their willingness to surrender and leave the city. Muhammad said no and told them that if they agreed to surrender, he would appoint a negotiator who would settle the issue. When the Jews agreed. the negotiator Muhammad appointed was the man who had organized the murder of the above-mentioned Ka'ab, and who passionately hated the Jews. He decided that the Jewish men would be executed, and that their women and children would be distributed among the Muslims. About 750 Jews were then murdered in the marketplace in Medina, and heaped into a common grave. Muslim tradition teaches that Jewish blood flowed like a river through the market. (Source: Kitab al-Maghazi, Vol. 2, pages 496-520). Interestingly, this image has been used over and over again throughout Muslim history. In 2004, for example, when Nick Berg, an American Jew working in Iraq, was kidnapped and then murdered by the Iraqi al-Qaida leader al-Zarqawi, as Zarqawi was about to behead Berg, he said: "I will do to you what Muhammad did to the Jews in Medina." In 628, Muhammad besieged the Jewish city Khaybar. Before doing so, he sent in assassins to murder the Jewish leaders of the city, thereby terrifying the rest of the people. A bloody battle ensued; the Jews surrendered. Muhammad imposed on them the Jizya tax [for non-Muslims], and they thus became "dhimmis" [officially second-class citizens]. Muhammed also demanded that the Jews turn over to the Muslims half of their crops (note: the Muslims did not know how to raise crops). On the day that the Jews of Khaybar surrendered, Muhammad married to Jewish wife of the leader of the city, whose father Muhammad had previously killed. At the same time, her husband was tortured to death so he would tell the Muslims where he had hidden his treasure. (Source: Kitab al-Maghazi, Vol. 2, pages 440-479). The victory against the Jews in Khaybar is deeply etched in the Muslim historical memory; it has become a source for mockery of the Jews so much so that it is constantly invoked at every opportunity when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is very common to hear Palestinians, when demonstrating against Israel, shout "Khaybar Khaybar Ya Yahud Jaish Muhammad sa-Ya'ud, (Khaybar Khaybar, Oh Jews, Muhammad's army shall return!") -- as the Turkish terrorists on board the Flotilla headed towards Gaza shouted just a few months ago. There is also another version of this slogan - "Khaybar Khaybar Ya Yahud, ila Falastin na'ud, (Khaybar Khaybar, Oh Jews, We Shall Return to Palestine). In this context, the message is to return to "all of Palestine," including Israel's pre-1967 borders, as can been seen on virtually every Palestinian and Arab map. The Muslim victory at Khaybar also serves as an inspiration for Hizbullah, the Shiite terrorist organization. Its spokesmen constantly invoke the imagery of Khaybar regarding their struggle against Israel, for example, calling the Fajar 5 rockets they fired at Israel during the 2006 Lebanon War "Khaybar Rockets;" and in 2002, the Iranians developed a rifle they named "Khaybar 2002." Among the Palestinians, it is now an essential and integral part of the education system throughout most of the Muslim world, most notably in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and among Israel's Arabs as well. Throughout the centuries, these stories have been passed down from father to son, and have become deeply rooted in the Muslim psyche. These images are constantly also used in Friday sermons in mosques, and are a deep source of inspiration for the Islamic terrorist organizations. This, in short, is the source of the Muslim-Jewish and, therefore, the Arab-Israeli conflict ." http://www.hudson-ny.org/1437/classic-islamic-view-of-jews

- K2K

July 28, 2010 at 12:26pm

It's still the case that there are multiple audiences in Turkey, and the thinking in both Washington and London may well be that Erdogan won't be there for ever, and a drag-out fight that makes it look like it's Turkey itself that's the problem is probably not Option #1. I don't believe there has been recent coddling our side either. I have no knowledge but I strongly suspect that US disfavor over the Erdogan government's role in key strategic issues has been made very clear. Possibly even more clearly than when Turkey wouldn't permit the the 4th ID to move into northern Iraq in 2003, I'd guess.

- ironyroad

July 28, 2010 at 1:52pm