Hummm.......
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/bringing-north-korea-into-line/
Bringing North Korea Into Line
What might make Kim Jong-un want to give up nuclear weapons?
By David A. Welch
January 17, 2016
5 Shares
30 Comments
North Korea’s recent alleged “H-bomb” test in flagrant violation of United Nations resolutions set off the predictable flurry of shock, outrage, condemnation, and expressions of determination around the globe. We are now well into the equally predictable hand-wringing and token wrist-slapping phase. Everyone but North Koreans agrees that a nuclear North Korea is intolerable; everyone also – no doubt including North Koreans – believes that nothing can be done about it.
Or can it?
Certainly the international community’s standard bag of tricks is not up to the task. North Korea is already almost entirely sanctioned, and therefore immune to further economic pain. Kim Jong-un appears to believe (probably correctly) that having even just a small, low-quality nuclear arsenal will deter foreign military action. Condemnation and largely symbolic sanctions merely feed the “they are out to get us” narrative that justifies both Kim’s iron grip on power and the very nuclear program that the world would like to reverse. If anything is going to work, it would have to be something very much outside the box.
It is probably a safe assumption that if Kim Jong-un values anything more than having a nuclear arsenal, it is staying in power. If he could be brought to believe that his nuclear weapons threatened rather than served that higher goal, he might be willing to give them up. The trick would be to do this without the threat of external force, which merely plays to the regime’s strengths.
The alternative to external force is internal force.
Now, the international community does not, of course, have the capacity to engineer a coup or revolution directly. But it does have the capacity to sow internal seeds of doubt about whether supporting Kim is a wise long-term bet. For this it would be necessary to dangle the prospect of a better bet, and threatening to dangle that better bet would be the key to persuading Kim to reconsider his nuclear ambitions.
Here is how it would work.
First, the international community would quietly communicate to Kim Jong-un that he has six months to agree to a practical program of denuclearization, in return for which he would receive a basket of guarantees and economic rewards that he can publicly represent to the people of North Korea as the fruits of a major behind-the-scenes diplomatic victory. If he does not agree, the UN General Assembly would vote to declare the North Korean seat empty and invite a new government in exile to occupy it. The members of the General Assembly who vote in favor and who currently host North Korean missions would then invite the new government in exile to take possession of them, declaring Kim’s representatives personae non gratae. What would follow would be a carefully staged series of negotiations and agreements with the “new” North Korean regime promising a normalization of relations, enhanced opportunities for economic cooperation, and human rights guarantees. The new regime, in turn, would grant amnesty to those senior members of the North Korean government and military that abandoned ship, and promise International Criminal Court indictments for those that did not.
North Korea is not so hermetically sealed anymore that word would not get around quickly that there is another path to a better future, and those in the best position to topple Kim would certainly perceive a personal interest in doing so – particularly those whose knives are already halfway out of their sheaths.
Predictably, Kim Jong-un would react with outrage, defiance, and bizarre threats. But practically speaking, there is nothing he could do. Lashing out would only trigger the very doom he seeks to avoid. He would be pinned on the horns of a dilemma, and if he were rational, he would choose to cooperate.
This approach has no perfect precedent, of course; but neither did anything else that was tried for the first time. The two main elements do have at least imperfect precedents: widely recognized governments in exile were common during World War II, and a General Assembly vote in 1971 yanked the China seat out from under Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan. Arguably, the legal case for pulling recognition from Kim Jong-un would be even stronger today than at any time in history: The international community is, in effect, a club, and membership comes with more obligations – both to one’s own people and to the international community as a whole – than ever before. In terrorizing his own citizens and flagrantly ignoring UN resolutions, Kim has already effectively declared his own illegitimacy.
Obvious important practical questions arise. The biggest one is whether China could be brought on board. China plays a key role in the politics of the Korean peninsula, being Kim’s sole enabler, and China fears both chaos in North Korea and a united Korea with a strong American presence once the dust has settled. It would be vital to let China play a leading role in the entire episode, including the selection and perhaps also the hosting of North Korea’s government in waiting. China would have to be allowed a major say in what a post-Kim North Korea would look like. China (and others) would have to be given credible assurances that these particular measures would not themselves serve as precedents, on the principle that an exceptional circumstance requires an exceptional response.
At the very least, working out the details of such a plan would galvanize a degree of regional cooperation on the North Korean nuclear issue that is long missing and sorely needed.
With luck, just the quiet threat would prompt Kim Jong-un to fall into line. If not, with equal luck, it would prompt his quiet fall.
David A. Welch is CIGI Chair of Global Security at the Balsillie School of International Affairs, Professor of Political Science at the University of Waterloo, and Senior Fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation.
___
30 comments
The Diplomat
Join the discussion
Avatar
John Smith • 2 days ago
Yeah, because this trick has worked so well in Syria, Libya and Ukraine. I'd actually prefer military force WAS used, because at least that way there's a possibility to prevent the situation from spiralling out of control. Furthermore, you'll have to sneak this past both China and Russia, as neither one of them will have much patience for this sort of proposal. (For reasons why, see: Libya, Syria, Ukraine.)
EDIT: Of course, this sets a really bad precedent and harks back to imperial practices. The day the international community starts telling member-states who can/can't run their country is the day people withdraw from the international community. I think you'd find a significant majority of Middle Eastern/African/Asian states would reject a GA proposal on these grounds, knowing full well that such a precedent could one day be turned on them. For many states, the legacy of colonialism is still a liiiiiiittle too fresh to consider this sort of proposal seriously.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Justanotherviewer • a day ago
"It is probably a safe assumption that if Kim Jong-un values anything more than having a nuclear arsenal, it is staying in power. If he could be brought to believe that his nuclear weapons threatened rather than served that higher goal, he might be willing to give them up. The trick would be to do this without the threat of external force, which merely plays to the regime’s strengths."
Yeah good luck trying to convince Kim after what happened to Ghadafi, the West convinced him to give up Libya's nukes and now he is lying 10 feet under.
And starting the practices of ejecting members from the UN is frankly just dumb.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JCDavis > Justanotherviewer • a day ago
North Korea clearly sees the truth about the Western empire, saying two days ago: "The Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and the Gaddafi regime in Libya could not escape the fate of destruction after being deprived of their foundations for nuclear development and giving up nuclear programmes of their own accord."
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Benny • a day ago
Daydreaming,Naive and Clueless.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
TheSaucyMugwump • 2 days ago
The author wrote "What might make Kim Jong-un want to give up nuclear weapons?"
Kim 3.0 learned the game of rope-a-dope from his dying daddy. He will not give up nuclear weapons because it gives him more leverage, more cards to play by first attacking then demanding aid.
We had our chances. We should have destroyed all artillery placed within range of Seoul before it became operational, but we didn't and so we have the situation where the DPRK can blackmail the ROK. We should have destroyed the first rocket on the launch pad to prevent the DPRK from learning how guidance systems work, but we didn't and so Kim can blackmail the entire world.
By the way, the reason sanctions will never work is that China refuses to work with us. All the luxury goods a dictator could ever want arrive via the Chinese border. And this article ignores the brilliantly evil scheme Kim 1.0 created: imprisoning a dissident's entire family, not to mention songbun.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Daniel Pinkston • 7 hours ago
If Professor Welch had done his research and homework, he would have learned that there already is a government in exile for the territory under DPRK control. It has been in existence for over 66 years and is located in Kugi-dong, Seoul. More information is available here:
http://www.ibuk5do.go.kr/; http://www.ebuk7do.co.kr/. And what about the Republic of Korea? Is it supposed to have any say on this?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Susumu_Araki • 17 hours ago
N. Korea is controlled by Shenyang Military Region. Any talk or deal with N. Korea is nonsense and meaningless.
Since Shenyang military region is not controlled by Beijing politicians, only direct talk with Shenyang military region can be meaningful. Talk with Beijing is waste of time.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Luke • 20 hours ago
I don't see how this plan would work considering that any scenario that offers the Kim regime anything like amnesty is bound to be met with extreme international skepticism, including quite likely from the regime, itself. We've done absolutely nothing to indicate any willingness to work with any elements of the current government; what, exactly, is supposed to make them think that we've really changed our tune?
If anything, I'd suggest really turning the tables on the Northern government and giving it the antidote to a poison it claims the world keeps trying to feed it. If we were to actually recognize Northern sovereignty (not over the South, obviously) and withdraw our troops from South Korea (which can easily defend itself against any symmetric threats), they'd lose their boogeyman of supposed American imperialism, be required to adhere to international norms of governance, and we'd (possibly) further stoke the animosity of Northern civilians to their heinous, totalitarian government by exposing them to consistent interaction with the outside world. In other words, give exactly what the current regime claims it wants, but in truth are its greatest fears--expectations and accountability.
Take away the perception of an enemy, and where could the Kim regime possibly source its legitimacy from? North Korea's power stands on but two legs: nukes and indoctrination of its population based on supposed anti-imperialism. Take away a leg, and surely the place will fall. It may take a while, and it's highly likely that the deeply inhumane practices of the Kim government would continue, but only as long as the people felt it was worth it...which obviously wouldn't be for very long.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JCDavis • a day ago
The flagrant violation is the United Nations itself as it seeks to deny North Korea the right to defend itself. When Bush developed plans to attack NK with nuclear weapons in a first strike, and when he put NK on an "axis of evil" with Iraq and proceeded to attack Iraq in a war of aggression, NK had no choice but to develop the ultimate defensive weapon.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Joshua Stanton • a day ago
Dear Professoriate, Please stop saying North Korea is almost entirely sanctioned unless you (a) have read the sanctions, (b) have compared them to other sanctions programs, (c) have some understanding of how sanctions work and the legal authorities on which they're based, and (d) understand how effective the Banco Delta Asia measures were before G.W. Bush lifted them. As a matter of law and fact, the assertion is dead wrong.
http://www.fletchersecurity.or...
The source linked does not support the author's assertion. It's just a general outline of the existing U.N. resolutions, which says nothing about how well member states, including China and the U.S., are enforcing them. Also, it's six years out of date. It fails to mention UNSCR 1874 (2009), UNSCR 2087 (2013), and UNSCR 2094 (2013). It says nothing about member state implementation of those resolutions, bilateral sanctions, or the lack thereof.
Expertise on international affairs as a general matter does not qualify the writer as an expert on centrifuge cascades, missile defense, sanctions law, or any other specialized topic.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Luke • a day ago
I think the most important fact pointed out by this frankly underwhelming proposal is the fact that even total international isolation would work in the Kim Dynasty's favor by exemplifying the external threat, the global, US-lead conspiracy to take down Korea (the imagined nation which has a Kim as its leader).
Why not REALLY turn the tables on him and give them the recognition of sovereignty (at least over at least the current North) that they claim to have always had? No aid, just recognition--and with that, expectations of adhering to international norms, domestically and otherwise? If the power the Kims yield over North Korea is substantiated by the international community's treatment of the North as a problem child, why not take that a way by simply treating it as an irresponsible adult in need of firm correction, but nominally entitled to a measure of respect?
At this point, even those South Koreans who want unification and a single Korea would rather wait until the North is developed. Why not at least force that process to start by more or less giving the current regime the power and access to resources it wants? The consensus, at this point, seems to be that even a bit more international exposure would bring North Koreans to the edge of their tolerance for thetotalitarianism of the Kims; why not start that fire with spark that
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
TV Monitor • a day ago
The reason Kim Jong Un wants nukes is that the ROK Army is the most firepower intensive ground force of the free world, and North Korea won't last more than two weeks if a conventional war broke out. Kim sees his nukes as the only deterrent against the ROK's vastly superior conventional firepower, and this is why it is impossible for Kim to get rid of his nukes.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Bob Bob > TV Monitor • 20 hours ago
South Korea is not serious about it's own defense. It once again begged America to keep control of OPCON for another decade. Ha!
South Korea is not a serious threat to the North and Kim knows it. After the H-bomb detonation, the best that the South could do was start playing some propaganda on loud speakers. In the mean time, the Kaesong Industrial Region continues to operate. Kaesong is the single biggest source of foreign capital into DPRK and South Korea can't even make the simple step to shut this racket down.
This is just the latest provocation against the impotent south. Some of the recent ones I can remember are the artillery shelling of a South Korean village killing civillians, the Sinking of the Cheonan killing many Navy men, detonation of land mines killing ROK soldiers, etc etc.
and the response? Hardly a whimper.
In fact I think there is far more agitation against Japan over some stupid comfort women statues.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JCDavis • a day ago
The flagrant violation is the United Nations itself as it seeks to deny North Korea the right to defend itself. When Bush developed plans to attack NK with nuclear weapons in a first strike, and when he put NK on an "axis of evil" with Iraq and proceeded to attack Iraq in a war of aggression, NK had no choice but to develop the ultimate defensive weapon.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
TDog • 2 days ago
Cut off his supply of Snickers and he'll fold in a hot minute.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Brad Arnold • 2 days ago
The Kim regime is dependent upon antagonism with "outsiders" and especially the US for the survival of his rule. As long as South Korea refuses to acknowledge that it must shoulder the costs of reunification, there is virtually a zero chance that their threading the needle between avoiding a North Korean collapse, and avoiding an existential threat on their border.
By the way, the pipe dream that is spelled out in this article is the best attempt I've seen for a realistic plan. Good luck getting any cooperation from China on the UN Security Council. Every year that goes by North Korea keeps getting more and more dangerous, although I bet they have highly contagious extreme lethal strategic bioweapons that would cause the collapse of the entire global economy if they choose to deploy them.
Right now the best safe course is simply to depend upon MAD to deter North Korean leadership. As we saw from the Imperial Japanese government that North Korea is modelled after, it is very resilient. In my opinion, the worse thing that could happen to the Kim regime is for North Korea to open to the world, and the standard of living of its citizens to improve, because then their people will be an existential threat to their leadership that has caused so much pain and suffering to them.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Godfree Roberts • a day ago
'North Korea’s recent alleged “H-bomb” test in flagrant violation of United Nations resolutions '
And the United Nations invasion of North Korea was a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's why the North built an H-bomb.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
TheSaucyMugwump > Godfree Roberts • a day ago
"the United Nations invasion of North Korea was a war crime and a crime against humanity"
I see a bright future for you as a stand-up comedian. North Korean forces attacked all along the 38th parallel with armor and artillery within the first hours of the war, meaning that it had prepared for an attack. Syngman Rhee was incompetent, but Kim Il-sung was one of the world's truly evil leaders. And here's the way war works: if you invade my country, I am allowed to invade yours and kill you.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Godfree Roberts > TheSaucyMugwump • 17 hours ago
Korea was and is one country. The North was attempting to drive the American invaders from Korea, as they had done the Japanese invaders. The south was and is collaborating with the invaders.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
TheSaucyMugwump > Godfree Roberts • 2 hours ago
"The North was attempting to drive the American invaders from Korea"
Whatever you say. That explains why Kim 1.0 created songbun, a caste system where children of people deemed to be hostile are also placed in that category. Not to mention imprisoning the entire family of a dissident. A few people, former DPRK insiders, lost their entire extended family to torture and execution because the Kim du jour was miffed that anyone would turn on him. Not to mention that anyone who attempts to leave the country is imprisoned for crimes against the state, with people leaving the country during Kim 3.0's chosen periods, e.g. after the funeral of Kim 2.0, being executed.
I realize you understand this quite well, with you working in Chinese military intelligence, but armies do not move aircraft, tanks, self-propelled artillery, etc., until they are ready to strike, because those forces would be vulnerable to a counter-strike.
And you contradicted yourself. First you claimed that UN forces invaded the DPRK, then you claimed that the DPRK had the right to invade because of those baby-killing Americans. You can't have it both ways. You need some re-education in the camps.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Godfree Roberts > TheSaucyMugwump • an hour ago
Too much Fox News. Need to get out more.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Bo Wrinkle > TheSaucyMugwump • a day ago
Mugwump, Are you completely void of reason? The NK invasion of SK was a war crime and crime against humanity. Since then the NK-regime has starved more of its own NK citizens to death than all of the fatalities from all of the countries involved in the Korean conflict....Not to mention about 62 years of crimes against humanity and unparalleled oppression of its own people since the armistice was enacted.
I don't see a bright future for you at all.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
TheSaucyMugwump > Bo Wrinkle • 2 hours ago
One of two things is true:
1) You intended to answer GR's comment and became confused, or
2) You have the English reading comprehension skills of a pre-schooler.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
TV Monitor > Godfree Roberts • a day ago
Godfree Roberts
The UN won't invade North Korea. However, the ROK with the strongest ground force of the free world is eager to.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
applesauce > TV Monitor • a day ago
i see you still think the ROK army is somehow stronger than the US army. delusions as usual.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
TV Monitor > applesauce • 40 minutes ago
applesauce
We will soon find out once North Korea collapses and everyone's jumping into North Korea.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
applesauce > TV Monitor • 15 minutes ago
yes and until then i still hold that you are full of B.S. every indication points to the US army as being far, far superior in every way imaginable.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
anti k > TV Monitor • 13 hours ago
If South Korea has the most strongest conventional ground forces in the free world, why does it rely on American ground forces to protect them?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
TV Monitor > anti k • 42 minutes ago
anti k
If South Korea has the most strongest conventional ground forces in the free world, why does it rely on American ground forces to protect them?
It doesn't. The US reinforcement will be primarily be air assets, followed by a couple of CBGs. The US offered to send its ground troops to take control of North Korean nuclear weapons depot during an all out war, but even that duty was handed over to the ROK special forces even at the risk of ROK recycling NK warheads to build its own modern warheads in the post-Unification. At least the Pentagon has no doubt that the ROK special forces can seize the nuclear weapons depot, and this is why they handed over that duty to the ROK.
Beside, the ROK Defense Ministry gets to command the US ground and air forces during wartime once the OPCON is transferred. Japanese Defense Ministry commanding tens of thousands of US troops is unthinkable, but it is a fact for the Korean MoD.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
−
⚑
Avatar
applesauce > TV Monitor • 15 minutes ago
yet they keep delaying the transfer of wartime command because the south koreans known they can't handle it like the US could. heck it was suppose to happen in 2012 then 2013 then 1014 then 2015 now it's "sometime in the 2020s"
and no, the south korean forces DO NOT automatically get to command US ground and air forces during a hypothetical war even after OPCON transfer as that only deals with who controls the south korean forces. they can request help and maybe even ask for some units to operate under them but it's not a given thing.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
