North Korean attack ignites crisis

What happened

President Obama dispatched warships to South Korea this week and announced joint military exercises with the South after a North Korean artillery attack on the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong. The bombardment killed four, including two civilians, and wounded at least 18. South Korea responded with a flurry of artillery fire and elevated its military to “crisis status,” a readiness level just short of war. Days before, the North had allowed nuclear scientist Siegfried Hecker to tour a previously secret uranium-enrichment facility in Yongbyon that is capable of producing material for nuclear weapons, in overt defiance of international efforts to restrict its nuclear program. In March, the North sank a South Korean warship near the border, killing 46 seamen. This week President Obama called on the North to “halt its belligerent action,” and said the U.S., which has 28,000 troops stationed in South Korea, stands “shoulder to shoulder” with Seoul. A foreign ministry spokesman for China, which has proved consistently reluctant to condemn the North, said: “We express our concern over the situation.”

The Obama administration faces an unpredictable challenge in the nuclear-armed North, but it appears disinclined to reward North Korea—seemingly in the midst of transferring power from dictator Kim Jong Il to his youngest son, Kim Jong Un—with renewed negotiations. “This isn’t a game of provocation and reward—we are not going to get back into that cycle,” said a U.S. official. International sanctions have failed to alter the North’s behavior, but war with the North, which has a million-man army, in addition to nuclear capability, risks a cataclysm. North Korea, said former national security official Victor Cha, is “the land of lousy options.”

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What the editorials said

China must “exercise influence over the Kims’ despotic rule,” said the Financial Times. Beijing, which does $2.8 billion in trade with the North, didn’t condemn the previous attack on the South Korean warship and it continues to treat Pyongyang with “undue respect.” To stem this perpetual crisis, Beijing must join with Washington and “stop ducking its responsibility.” It would help if the North provided some explanation of its “reckless” provocations, said The Washington Post. Is Kim creating “an atmosphere of crisis” to bolster the military’s loyalty as he passes the baton to his son? Or is he just desperate for international aid for his starving nation?

Whatever his motivation, Kim can’t be rewarded for “acts of war,” said The Wall Street Journal. The North understandably believes it can get away with this latest outrage because it has “never paid a serious price” for aggression. But as North Korea hawks its nuclear know-how to “rogue regimes” in Syria and Iran, the stakes are getting higher. The U.S. must be “prepared to act militarily if other deterrents fail.”

What the columnists said

North Korea has “played Washington for a fool,” said John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., in the Los Angeles Times. Pyongyang promises to “denuclearize, in exchange for tangible benefits.” But instead we get nuclear blackmail. Negotiation is pointless; “the last thing Washington should do now is resurrect” regional talks at the behest of North Korea or China.

Would you prefer nuclear war? said Aidan Foster-Carter in the Financial Times. Unfortunately, there are few options “but to try to calm both sides, and persuade everyone to return to the table” for talks on the North’s nukes. North Korea isn’t “all that much of a mystery,” said Simon Tisdall in the London Guardian. It has pragmatic goals, including “recognition of its legitimacy” and borders, an end to international sanctions, and the acquisition of supplies ranging from electricity to food. In return it can offer “an end to megaton diplomacy.” It’s unfortunate that such a deal would reward bad behavior, but it’s “doable.”

It’s just not that simple, said Michael Auslin in The New Republic Online. North Korea is a genuine mystery; all we know is that it’s “been acting more and more aggressively.” Without “pressure from China,” the U.S. and its allies lack leverage over the Kim regime. But this much is clear: “At some point, democratic governments have a responsibility to uphold some very basic norms of international behavior.” It’s time to find out what happens when they try.