North Korea’s recently increased belligerence regarding the development of its intercontinental nuclear missile program is inspiring anxiety worldwide. Given the ongoing wars in the Middle East and the global economic slump, this seems a particularly bad time to have to deal with the militarism of North Korea and its unpredictable leader, Kim Jong-Il. The world is becoming uneasy.

Despite what one may suspect given his reckless willingness to threaten the United States, Kim Jong-Il is not crazy. Crazy does not keep a person in power over an impoverished population that has been given virtually no liberty. Crazy does not manufacture a cult of personality strong enough to grant legitimacy to an inherited position.

This means that global leaders have been quite correct to engage Kim Jong-Il in dialogue and political pressure. After all, if he were crazy, one could just hope that his commitment to nuclear proliferation was a temporary mood. As it stands, something more proactive is called for, and global governments have been exploring a variety of tactics to diffuse this threat.

One possibility that has struck everyone even remotely paying attention is a pre-emptive strike, a la the American invasion of Iraq. In this case, at least, the WMD element is clear. However, the US cannot launch another “police action” in Korea like they did in the 1950s. For one thing, North Korea today has one of the largest and best trained armies in the world. The absence of opportunity for personal prosperity in the cripplingly poor nation has left military life a very desirable path for some million people. Moreover, security has been kept at the forefront of North Korean political culture by the proximity of its traditional enemy, the South. Finally and perhaps most importantly, China views North Korea as its responsibility; or at least, views North Korea as part of its domain. So, familiarly, military intervention by any country would be unacceptable to China. The might of North Korea coupled with incredibly strong Chinese interest in the region makes military action profoundly unwise.

In light of this, economic sanctions have emerged as a favourite alternative. Sanctions can often be potent enough to enforce compliance, but in this case, they do not seem to be working. This can likely be explained by the fact that North Korea receives little regular foreign aid to begin with. Isolation has been official Western policy towards North Korea since it split from the South. Economic sanctions against a country that is already completely marginalized is like turning the temperature down a few degrees in a room that is already well below freezing.

Granted, North Korea does rely quite heavily on China which has just renewed its commitment to sanctions. Regardless, Kim Jong-Il has become quite talented in exploiting back channels and loopholes in restrictive trade policies. Moreover, China might be unwilling to completely shun North Korea – such a move would be so significant that they may wish to save it as a potential bargaining chip for use in future negotiations with the US. Essentially, China is the only state whose sanctions might seriously harm North Korea, yet its ability and willingness to do so are questionable.

The most successful method thus far of curbing Kim Jong-Il’s nuclear zeal is, simply, to pay him off. In the early 1990s, Washington purchased his cooperation with an enormous amount of fuel and two nuclear reactors (supposedly incapable of producing any weapons-grade material). Given that Kim has sold his proliferation ambitions for generous aid packages in the past, he may simply be rattling the saber now in the hopes of a repeat transaction.

The problem with the pay-off strategy is, of course, that it sets a bad precedent. It establishes that, in spite of economic isolation, Kim Jong-Il can get whatever he needs as long as he threatens convincingly. At best, this approach is a stall.

The only way to eliminate the North Korea threat in a lasting and meaningful way is to enable the economic and political development of the country so that tyrannical regimes are both less powerful and less desperate. This approach would mean the end of the isolationist policies which force this kind of extreme behaviour in the first place. The argument being made here is not that North Korea has been victimized unfairly. Whether or not the policy of isolation has been warranted, it has not been effective. It has been counter productive.

Isolation has allowed the North Korean idea of self-reliance to become dogmatic. It is precisely this kind of sentiment that calls for unwavering dedication to nuclear armament. Moreover, and more obviously, isolation has led to economic stagnation, which keeps many North Koreans uneducated and poor, allowing authoritarian regimes to persist unchallenged. In essence, the punitive policy of isolation aimed at Kim Jong-Il’s government has inadvertently upheld it.

On the other hand, economic development would enable the growth of a North Korean middle class, reshaping the demographic landscape beyond the current powerless, easily controlled, impoverished masses. Inclusion on the world stage would create a flow of ideas and undermine the “us versus everyone” paranoia that feeds militarism. In a developed and connected North Korea, the need to act bombastically to achieve state goals would wane, as would the nationalism that currently allows Kim Jong-Il to do so.

No doubt Kim Jong-Il would oppose such development, especially if spearheaded prominently by foreign powers. He has used isolation as a political tool, keeping his population docile while at the same time promoting self-reliance through militarism. A global campaign to develop North Korea would therefore be incredibly difficult. Nonetheless, if world leaders are committed to ending this particular source of anxiety, they will need to turn their efforts towards developing that strategy. Until they do, they will have to accept paying Kim Jong-Il to quiet down once every few years – which is exactly what he is hoping for.

Zak Rose · Ottawa, Canada

Zachary Rose is a Canadian citizen with a Bachelor's degree from McGill University in Political Science, specializing in the developing world and international relations. Aside from politics, his passions include fencing, acting and directing for the theatre and cooking with woks.

zak@antillean.org