Nuclear NorK: David Frum v. Thomas Friedman

NYT op-ed contributors Thomas Friedman (paid subscription) and David Frum have given their two cents on how the world and more specifically, the United States should deal with a nuclear North Korea.

Both are fairly reasonable, respected, and accomplished men with experience in the field of foreign policy. Friedman is a more moderate and Realist. Frum is a neo-con and more of an Idealist. Both provide tempting, and potentially useful, but partially flawed policy theories in dealing with North Korea. Both rely on China in some way. None rely, at least specifically, on the UN.

I'll start with Friedman, who first claims that during the "cold war, the post-cold war era has been much better for a lot of humanity." Perhaps. But with the NorKs gone nuclear, Friedman argues that the post-cold war era is gone, and the post-post-cold war era has begun, which may prove much more problematic.

Friedman explains the potential problems of the post-post-cold war era with a big "unless" at the end. Quote:

...if things continue as they are... First is a nuclear Asia, triggered by North Korea's flaunting of its nuclear weapons. How long will Japan, Taiwan and South Korea remain non-nuclear with Kim Jong-il brandishing his bomb? Second is a nuclear Middle East. Iran is almost certain to follow North Korea's lead, and once the Shiite Persians in Iran have the bomb, Arabs in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, even Syria have one too? Third is a disintegrating Iraq in the heart of the Arab world, with its destabilizing impact on oil prices and terrorism.

Together these will add up to a much more dangerous and volatile post-post-cold war world --unless...

Unless, what? Unless China and Russia get their act together and understand that the post-post-cold war world is a much bigger threat to their prosperity than a post-cold war world in which U.S. power is pre-eminent.

Friedman goes on to say that the U.S. is out of its unilateral non-military options, and that the only countries which may have a significant impact on N. Korea are China and Russia. Same with Iran, and the greater Middle East. China simply needs to cut off the energy to N. Korea, problem solved. Russia and China simply need to join the group for economic sanctions against Iran which would cure Europe of its backbone problems, and the ayatollahs submit. Finally, Friedman thinks the U.S. should make the Cuban promise to North Korea and the like, vowing not to pursue regime change nor invasion so long as they extensively cooperate

Sounds good, except for the fact that we haven't been able to rely on China or Russia since, well, I don't remember when. And where there's potential to undermine American dominance, such becomes the path of choice among them.

While I agree with him that nuclear proliferation in Asia and the Middle East would be volatile, I don't think it would be prudent to entrust China with our national security. I mean we can't even trust our own with North Korea, so why trust the Communists?

Frum's op-ed piece is refreshingly non-militarily forceful:

North Korea could not have completed its bomb if China, which provides the country an immense amount of food and energy aid, had strongly opposed it... If China can engage in such conduct cost-free, what will deter Russia from aiding the Iranian nuclear program, or Pakistan someday aiding a Saudi or Egyptian one?...

• Step up the development and deployment of existing missile defense systems...

• End humanitarian aid to North Korea and pressure South Korea to do the same.

Since 1995, the United States has provided more than two million tons of food aid to North Korea, plus considerable energy assistance... Many United States officials believe that continuing this aid will sustain hopes for a better American-North Korean relationship in the future. Yet if the United States continues to send such aid even after an illicit nuclear test, North Korean leaders may well conclude that their aggressive actions have won them almost absolute impunity.

An end to humanitarian aid would not only exact a considerable direct price from North Korea, but it would also hurt China. Chinese leaders often justify their refusal to pressure North Korea by citing the risk of an economic collapse that would send millions of refugees northward into China. We could call that bluff: if a North Korean economic collapse is a thing China fears, why should the United States and South Korea shoulder the cost of helping to avert it? Let China pay the full cost of underwriting its aggressive client state. [emphasis added]

• Invite Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore to join NATO — and even invite Taiwan to send observers to NATO meetings.

Perhaps North Korea and China imagine that the nuclear test has tilted the strategic balance in the Pacific in their favors. Now would be a good time to disabuse each of them of any such illusion.

Frum's approach is seemingly more of the no-nonsense foreign policy that has often worked for America.

Perhaps the best part of Frum's idea is essentially starving the North Koreans out of North Korea and straight into China. That is only as long as China will allow it. The sooner China picks up the ball the better. In this approach as compared to Friedman's we don't have to wait or rely on China to do the right thing, we have more control over our own security. Bringing Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan to the NATO table would really upset China inciting them to bring a quick end to the NorK nuclear problem.

However, Frum promotes the idea of a nuclear Japan. While that sounds good to most Americans, Japan is still hated and feared by much East Asia for their crimes of WWII. Not only that, but Frum's idea of deterrence provided by Japan to Iran is overestimated. Japan is already nuclear. That is, the Pacific around Japan. The U.S. is obligated to protect Japan with a nuclear umbrella; we still have a lot of heavily armed nuclear submarines capable of destroying the planet after all.

As long as Japan trusts the United States to defend them, they are just as nuclear as D.C. is. Arming Japan with nukes would only be symbolic, and would more likely than not, destabilize the region more than is necessary.

I think for the most part Frum's idea will work, without a nuclear Japan, and with an economic and humanitarian blockade of North Korea. The quicker North Korea is fixed, the fewer Koreans that will starve under the brutal oppression of Kim Jong-il.

*Update* Don Surber has a good and concise post on why Korea proves Iraq. And he also quotes Krauthammer who thinks military action is our only option.


*Update* The test was actually nuclear, but not a successful one. At least according to one recent air sample.