Commentary Magazine


Contentions

RE: The Futile Engagement-Pressure-Containment-Engagement Loop

Rick, you make a keen comparison between North Korea and Iran.

Events of last week offered a chilling hypothetical. Last Friday, news broke that a South Korean naval ship sank near the border uneasily shared with North Korea. Immediately, speculation arose that Pyongyang had intentionally attacked the vessel.

This would be less than surprising, considering that within the last year, among other acts of intransigence and aggression, North Korea has conducted nuclear tests, repeatedly threatened attacks against South Korea and the U.S., and captured South Korean fishermen who had crossed into disputed waters. Yet South Korea has since determined that North Korean involvement in the vessel’s sinking is unlikely.

But suppose for a moment that Pyongyang really had attacked. As a former editor of mine pointed out in a conversation over the weekend, the reaction of the international community would have been limited. Precisely because North Korea possesses nuclear arms, South Korea and the world would have been forced to tread cautiously.

It’s also worth noting that six-party talks — a.k.a. engagement — did not prevent Pyongyang from acquiring nuclear weapons.

In July 2006, just as North Korea was testing its rocket-delivery system, I was traveling in South Korea and Japan, two member-countries of the six-party talks. I remember the uneasiness and frustration expressed by several journalists there as the rocket launched. It was odd and frightening to think that, beyond my sight, a rocket was whizzing past, and with it, the international balance was shifting. By October 2006, just three months later, it was too late for the world to do much. North Korea had become the world’s eighth atomic power.

Since then, North Korea has been a constant problem. It has been hard enough to get Pyongyang to merely participate in six-party talks — much less make substantive concessions. In May 2009, the DPRK went so far as to call talks with the United States “meaningless.” Nuclear-weapon status has only emboldened Kim Jong-il and his followers. They are an armed agent of instability in Asia.

The Obama administration should consider the North Korean precedent as it determines how to deal with Iran. One thing is certain: the United States’s problem-solving flexibility will only decrease as Iran approaches nuclear-power status.


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.