Or Else What?

One of the famous slogans of the Sixties (originally taken from a Berthold Brecht poem) was, “What if they gave a war and nobody came?” Well, what if a nation conducts a nuclear test and no one really notices?

With South Korea distracted by the suicide of former President Roh and the US distracted by everything, if you’re a North Korean official, now is a perfect time to conduct a nuclear test. And having escaped meaningful punishment for its missile launch in early April, North Korea figured the risks of conducting a test were pretty low and the benefits in increased respectability and the prospect of future concessions pretty high.

(A useful timeline of the North Korean nuclear program is here. A considerably more detailed one through mid-2008 is here)

North Korea added to the insult by conducting its test on Memorial Day -- a holiday honoring those who have fallen in wartime, not least in defense of South Korea -- just as when North Korea conducted its missile test in April during a celebratory NATO summit.

Here is the President’s statement:

Today, North Korea said that it has conducted a nuclear test in violation of international law. It appears to also have attempted a short range missile launch.

These actions, while not a surprise given its statements and actions to date, are a matter of grave concern to all nations.

North Korea's attempts to develop nuclear weapons, as well as its ballistic missile program, constitute a threat to international peace and security.

By acting in blatant defiance of the United Nations Security Council, North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community.

North Korea's behavior increases tensions and undermines stability in Northeast Asia. Such provocations will only serve to deepen North Korea's isolation. It will not find international acceptance unless it abandons its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

The danger posed by North Korea's threatening activities warrants action by the international community. We have been and will continue working with our allies and partners in the Six-Party Talks as well as other members of the U.N. Security Council in the days ahead.

At the risk of restating the obvious, here it is: The North Koreans could care less that the test was in “blatant defiance of the UN Security Council.” If they had cared about the reaction from the UN Security Council, they would not have conducted the test, as they were already under sanctions from the Security Council. And the North Koreans revel in the fact that they are “directly and recklessly challenging the international community” and that the test “increases tensions and undermines stability in Northeast Asia.” Every other time they have done so, the international community and the United States have made concessions. Why should they think this would be any different?

At what point may we conclude that North Korea is less concerned about “international acceptance” and more concerned about its own survival and power? Does the Administration not realize that if it states that North Korea is “directly and recklessly challenging the international community,” then the challenge now lies with the international community to develop a strong response, and that if it fails to do so, then North Korea will have won its challenge?

Obama’s statement, which does not include the words “United States” or “I,” represents nothing less than the complete multilateralization of US policy. While Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary (a very important post there) stated, that the test was “absolutely unacceptable. Japan will take stern action against North Korea,” we’re left with “working with our partners and allies in the six-party talks as well as other members of the UN Security Council in the days ahead.” And North Korea says it will not take part in six-party talks.

Really, would it have been so difficult for Obama to state that he personally condemns the test? Or was the fear that this might put too much pressure for action rather than more diplomacy?

In contrast to Obama, here is EU foreign policy head Javier Solana: “These irresponsible acts by North Korea warrant a firm response by the international community. The European Union will be in contact with its partners to discuss appropriate measures.”

When you’re beaten by the EU on the strength of a statement – Solana’s “firm response” versus Obama’s “action” – that’s not a good sign.

In diplomacy, words are supposed to matter. Therefore we must take Obama’s words – and, equally, what is not said – seriously. Was this supposed to have been some sort of coordinated statement and someone dropped “firm” from the U.S. statement?

Recall that the North Korean position is that the UN Security Council should apologize to it for having imposed sanctions on North Korea, and that North Korea had threatened to carry out this test if it did not do so. And the North Koreans also picked the month in which they would have the friendliest country this year holding the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council (China does not have a presidency this year).

There’s a theory that if we ignore the North Koreans, they will not get the attention they crave. It’s an attractive theory in some respects, but it forgets that weapons of mass destruction are different. Ignore North Korea, and that sends a signal to Iran. Ignore Iran, and that sends a signal to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and other countries.

The next line from Brecht’s poem after the one with which I opened this piece is generally forgotten. It is, “Why, then, the war would come to you!” The poem continues:

Even avoiding battle will not avoid battle.
Since not to fight for your own cause
Really means
Fighting on behalf of your enemy's cause

Last June, President Bush said that “tough multilateral diplomacy can yield promising results.” But note that even when the United States makes a major concession – here, taking North Korea off the list of state sponsors of terrorism – the “results” are only “promising.” As the world has now once again found out, they are ethereal, not real.

And you have to love the headline here: “North Korea Nuclear Accounting Won’t Include Bombs.” Recall that this was nearly three years after the supposed 2005 agreement for North Korea to give up its nuclear program. Now we know they have one fewer bomb.

The Obama Administration may be about to find out what the limits of diplomacy really are. Then what?

Sobering reflections on this Memorial Day. Requiescat in pace to our fallen heroes.