The NYT / IHT reports four apparent trends in North Korea:
- The “government …. is progressively losing the paramount role it used to enjoy in society”.
- “The power of ideology appears to be waning.”
- “Information has begun to seep in from the outside world.”
- “The effects of money and corruption appear to have grown sharply in recent years, as market liberalization has allowed ordinary people to run small businesses.”
Together, these suggest that the probability of a rapid transition or implosion are increasing, as the cult that is North Korea loses its tight seal against the rest of the world.
Ralph Peters recently offered a map of how the Middle East might look if borders were redrawn to better reflect sectarian and ethnic divides. (Click on “Next” under the map, then click on the map to enlarge.)
Among the changes that would unfold in this scenario:
- Kurdistan becomes a large, independent state, at the expense of Turkey, Iraq, and other countries. Says Peters, “A free Kurdistan, stretching from Diyarbakir through Tabriz, would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan.”
- The remainder of Iraq divides into Sunni and Shia states, and the Shia portion unites with Shia areas of Saudi Arabia.
- Saudi Arabia also loses Mecca and Medina to an “Islamic sacred state.”
- Iran loses territory to the Kurds and Arab Shia, and to Baluchistan to the southeast.
- Pakistan is much-diminished, transferring lands to Baluchistan and Afghanistan.
- Afghanistan gains from Pakistan but loses to Baluchistan and Iran.
- “For Israel to have any hope of living in reasonable peace with its neighbors, it will have to return to its pre-1967 borders.”
Peters concludes:
Correcting borders to reflect the will of the people may be impossible. For now. But given time — and the inevitable attendant bloodshed — new and natural borders will emerge.
Conservative commentator David Frum argues that the apparent nuclear weapon test attempt by North Korea demands that the US seek three goals:
- “enhance the security of those American allies most directly threatened by North Korean nuclear weapons: Japan and South Korea”
- “exact a price from North Korea for its nuclear program severe enough to frighten Iran and any other rogue regimes considering following the North Korean path”
- “punish China”
To achieve this, he advocates four policy initiatives:
- Speed up the development of missile defense systems.
- “End humanitarian aid to North Korea and pressure South Korea to do the same.”
- “Invite Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore to join NATO — and even invite Taiwan to send observers to NATO meetings.”
- “Encourage Japan to renounce the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and create its own nuclear deterrent.”
Analysis
Both the goals and the policies are internally contradictory. Policies 1, 3, and 4 seem more designed to alienate China than to punish North Korea. Given that China is in unprecedented agreement with other powers on North Korea, this is likely more based on hostility toward China than the issue at hand.
If China is alienated, goal 2 — punishing North Korea — becomes much more difficult, and policy 2 loses much of its meaning.
The North Korean problem is likely to find resolution, one way or another, but a hostile China might define the 21st century.
Missile defense systems might have some utility, but also threaten China’s deterrent — which Frum sees as a benefit — and could spark an arms race and a less stable US-Chinese relationship.
If a primary goal is enhancing South Korean security, it is unclear why the US should have to pressure the South Koreans to follow its policies. As the most directly affected state, South Korea should have considerable say in what happens next.
An Asian expansion of NATO is interesting, but might be more likely to dilute the meaning the alliance than strengthen Asian security. European allies would be foolish to interpose themselves between China and Taiwan when the US was provoking China, as it would be with these policies.
As for encouraging Japan going nuclear, this might only add to instability, given general East Asian distrust of the Japanese.
Recent events suggest that South Africa faces the same danger of destructive leadership that has been the bane of so many other African states.
This danger is personified in the form of Jacob Zuma, who has been accused of serious corruption and of raping the HIV-positive daughter of a friend. (He said that he had taken care of the risk of AIDS: he took a shower afterwards.)
He is nonetheless considered one of the leading contenders to become the head of the ANC party and thus the next president.
If this occurs, South Africa will be at heightened risk of taking Zimbabwe’s path, and self-destructing due to the choices of its leaders, at great cost to South Africans and to Africa.
Fareed Zakaria argues that the US would be better served by a policy of de-escalation and patience than confrontation with Iran. “If we convince ourselves that Iran is an existential threat, one that must be stopped immediately and at all costs, we will fail. If we turn this into a game of chicken, we will lose,” he writes.
Iran’s current advantages will fade, Zakaria explains:
Instead of getting scared and spooked, America should view Tehran with a healthy dose of calm and confidence. Iran’s fortunes will wane. Oil prices might head downward; Iraq could become less of a burden one way or the other; Arab regimes will get more assertive in responding to the rise of Iranian power. Washington could take the initiative on Lebanon and Palestine, which would vastly improve the political atmosphere.
The US needs some alternatives, he says:
The administration must also develop a set of creative options short of military strikes—which would only delay, not end, Iran’s nuclear program—in case Iran does not agree to stop reprocessing. Other countries will not go along with many of the toughest economic sanctions—and it’s not clear they would work anyway. One measure that would sting would be a widespread travel ban on Iran’s officials. . . . The second best alternative might be a permanent inspections system in Iran, ensuring that its civilian program is not weaponized.
Recent articles highlight a potentially dangerous combination.
US cities and states are increasingly pursuing anti-immigrant measures, enforcing federal laws and checking immigration status in the course of other police business.
These measures are targeted against growing Hispanic immigrant populations, and are clearly motivated in part by a basic hostility toward difference.
Widespread adoption of these policies might in fact discourage immigration, but also heightens the danger of creating a separate and hostile foreign population on American soil.
That danger could be made more acute by another development, now in its early stages: Hispanics are turning to Islam in growing numbers. The Muslim Hispanic population is estimated to be 200,000 now.
More alienated Hispanics could find the extreme ends of Islamic fundamentalism attractive, and serve as an American vector for terrorism.
Though still a low-probability outcome, the two trends might achieve a dangerous synergy.