Why Does North Korea Want War?

Tonight, the Drudge Report points to a Reuters report, North Korea says to enter "state of war" against South Korea: KCNA

How can a country that can't keep the lights on at night actually be capable of war? This isn't the 1950's. This is a drone-war or highly technical warfare era we live in now. There's no way that North Korea could do much damage. They are barely more than a 3rd world country. (Image from CBS News.)

On the March 16th episode of Fareed Zakaria's GPS on CNN, Donald Gregg, who served in the CIA from the 50's to the 80's and was an ambassador to South Korea gave Zakaria an opinion about all of this. One that it would be nice if our country would listen to.

Below is the quote of importance. Unfortunately, CNN doesn't provide the video of the Korea segment. 

And Donald Gregg, a former adviser to then-Vice President George H.W. Bush and former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, said North Korean contacts he has met recently told him "that they have given up on their diplomats, and the military is now in control."

"What they want is to talk about moving from the now-disbanded armistice agreement to the creation of a peace treaty," Gregg told GPS. "That's what they want to talk about, and anyone who is willing to talk about that, they will listen to. Anyone who wants to talk about what they call the old way, which was give up your nuclear weapons and then we'll talk, is going to get nowhere."

Gregg recommended engaging the North Koreans in new talks. But Cha, a former National Security Council official in the second George W. Bush administration, said that can't be done so soon after their nuclear and missile tests, and he predicted "a very difficult period for the next couple of months or so."

"They don't want to give up their nuclear weapons. They want to be able to have their cake and eat it, too," he said. "U.S. policy for the past quarter century or so has been, 'These things are all on the table if you're willing to give up your nuclear weapons.' This is the problem. This is the dilemma right now."

Here is the audio segment from the GPS podcast. The first 10 minutes cover the interview and is worth listening to Gregg.

You can also read this article from 2011, written by Donald Gregg. In this article Gregg says Obama has increased ties with South Korea. Also, John Kerry (at that time Kerry was not Secretary of State) was open to bi-lateral talks with North Korea. Gregg seems hopeful for diplomacy to end the conflict.

To sum up. The U.S. won't come to the table unless there are "conditions for surrender" that North Korea agrees to. The North Koreans don't want conditions they just want to end the war. And there probably is some chae-myun (saving face) going on here too of course.

For North Korea, the only way out is war. In my opinion they know they're toast. But to end this conflict sooner rather than later they need to escalate matters, try to inflict at least some pain somewhere, and then lose the war with dignity.

What should the U.S. do? Donald Gregg says to go to the table and work out a truce. Perhaps John Kerry works out the truce and Obama fulfills his Nobel Peace Prize. Will the other side of the aisle and the military agree to go along? Or are we going to allow politics to run yet another war?

Perhaps there's a little bit of chae-myun working on our side too which doesn't allow us to do negotiations. Thus, what will probably happen is a short war, then a peace treaty, and perhaps then North Korea can move on and finally get their lights on at night. 

###

 

Comments

[AngelaTC]

They have nuclear weapons. Probably "only" the technology that we had in the 50's, but still certainly more than capable of killing millions of people.

You're right - they have said they want to talk. And most people seem to think that we should at least talk to them.

What I find interesting is the media treatment. Iran has no nuclear weapon, and there's no evidence that they're pursuing one. Yet we seemingly can't wait to drop a nuclear weapon on them. However, N Korea is a nuclear power, run by a man every bit as belligerent as Ahmadinejad, and the conversation is only revolving around "should we talk to him?"

[Triple Hash]

Is North Korea a nuclear power? How do we know? Who told us they were and do they have an agenda? Are they the same people who told us Iraq had nukes? Are they the same people telling us that Iran has nukes? Would North Korea lie about whether they have them? If North Korea can do nuclear fission then why not power their country?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

[Georg Thomas]

Great post, thanks Triple Hash. Having read it, I was wondering whether the young new dictator has lost power to the generals, or is he going along with them so as not to lose power, or is he the driving force behind the threats? Is the ruling elite so desparate as to venture a tragic end game? What face-saving exit strategies are available, and could they be expedited by judicious Western policies? Tricky case.

[AngelaTC]

North Korea has admitted to having them, and has also sucessfully tested them 2 or 3 times.

Some of the same people who told us that Iraq didn't have WMDs and that Iran doesn't have nukes are telling us that North Korea does have nukes.

I'm going to go with that.