'Outstanding Leader' and the Future of North Korea

When I started this blog I kidded to myself that it would be less than a month before something happened in North Korea that would prompt me to write a post.  I did not anticipate that it would be the death of ‘dear leader’ Kim Jong-Il.  What is clear is the chips are up in the air.  Little is known about the inner workings of Pyongyang and the personalities of the officials at the top.  In reacting to these recent events it is important to analyze a single action as possibly being caused by one or more of several causes.  This process would be shown clearest with a large tree diagram on a white board, but I am limited by my media so a blog post will have to suffice.

To start, there are several key differences between the upbringing of ‘outstanding leader’ Kim Jong-Un and his father.  Most notably is that Kim Jong-Un was educated in Switzerland, giving him firsthand experience living and functioning in a Western society.  Kim Jong-Il and Il-Sung were educated in North Korea. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/who-is-kim-jong-un-really/2011/12/20/gIQAaytB7O_story_1.html

Also important is that Kim Jong-Il spent 10 years working his way up the North Korean political and military ladder under the guidance of his father Kim Il-Sung.  Jong-Un only appeared in North Korean politics just over a year ago. 

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/03/17/2010031700811.html

A second factor to take note of is the transformation of the North Korean political structure.  Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il ruled the country as dictators, yet in his final months Kim Jong-Il made preparations to create a collective rule.  This Politburo will be composed of Jung-Un, his uncle Jang Song-Taek, and representatives of the military.   

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/21/us-korea-north-exclusive-idUSTRE7BK0FX20111221

The extent to which differences in their respective upbringings will differentiate son from father are as much a political debt as it is question of nature versus nurture.  I am not a biologist or developmental psychologist, but I believe differences as major as these will surely shape Kim Jong-Un into a different, even if only slightly, man than his father.  Given how Kim Jong-Il managed his country and conducted foreign policy I believe it is fair to say most world leaders would be willing to roll the dice and hope Kim Jong-Un is warmer to the World and kinder to his people than his father and grandfather before him. 

There are two possible motivations for the new North Korean political structure.  The first is that Kim Jong-Il decided the new political structure would better serve the needs of the North Korean people.  This is clearly disproved by the nature of Jong-Il’s rule.  I don’t believe it is necessary to go into further detail on this point. 

Rather than being motivated by genuine concern for the welfare of the North Korean people, I believe Kim Jong-Il was not confident his son could effectively maintain and exercise authority over the military and Nation as a whole.  With this end game in mind, there are three possible reasons for the new political order: 

1.      Despite its public support for the new leader, the military was reluctant to accept the untested 20-something as supreme commander.  This situation would mean the implementation of the Politburo was designed as a means of power sharing to buy the loyalty of the military.

2.      Kim Jong-Un is too inexperienced to rule the country effectively himself.  This would mean the Politburo was set up to help the young Kim manage the affairs of state.

3.      Kim Jong-Il feared that his brother-in-law Jang Song-Taek would try to take power from, or influence the decisions of, Jong-Un.  In this case the Politburo would ensure Kim Jong-Un a degree of authority with less resist of being undermined or removed from power.    

If my first theory is the case and top North Korean military officials were reluctant to accept the authority of Kim Jong-Un, their relationship will likely come to a flashpoint before it solidifies.  Kim Jong-Il spent ten years earning the respect of the North Korean brass before he assumed authority over them.  Jong-Un was promoted straight to the rank of 4-star general in September of 2010, prior to which he held no offices or titles.  It is expecting a lot to expect generals who fought together in the Korean War to pledge allegiance to someone so young. 

This is made unlikely due to the continued prominence of Jang Song-Taek, who was second in command behind Kim Jong-Il.  Any military official with hesitations about the ‘outstanding leader’ would likely take comfort in the presence of Song-Taek, or fear taking action against the young Kim for the same reason.  

If theory two is correct than the Politburo was established to ensure the capacity of the Government to exercise authority.  As was mentioned earlier, Jong-Un has barely one year of experience in North Korean politics.  It is logical that there is a long learning curve for politics in Pyongyang.  Therefore it is plausible that Kim Jong-Il established the Politburo to mentor his son and show him the ropes of dictating.  This would allow Kim Jong-Un to learn how to conduct North Korean politics.  While the Politburo could have been an unofficial or shadow organization, if it was discovered it would discredit the authority Kim Jong-Un. 

In the case of the third theory being true, Kim Jong-Il established the Politburo to protect his son’s rule from Jang Song-Taek.  Until 2004 many suspected that Jang might succeed Kim Jong-Il, however he disappeared from late 2004 to March 2006, when he was seen again with his brother-in-law on a trip to China.  Kim Jong-Il may have feared that his brother-in-law would try to seize power from Kim Jong-Un, or manipulate his nephew from behind the throne. 

In essence, each of these justifications supports the conclusion that Kim Jong-Il sought to ensure North Korea was managed much the same way as it has been for fifty years.  The trick is determining the factors that provoked Kim Jong-Il into implementing this radical change to the North Korean government. 

Determining how an individual or government will act is one of the most difficult tasks in politics.  This is only made more difficult when the entity being analyzed doesn’t view the world with the same ideology or from the same position.  Consider the secrecy with which North Korea conducts its affairs and it will be very difficult to anticipate how North Korea will act.  Add to this the new political structure, and the best that can be done is view each action as the result of several possible causes.  Only then can an educated analysis of North Korean policies be made and their policy actions anticipated. 

An update on the conflict in/regarding Syria

It was a busy weekend in the world.  The biggest story is undoubtedly the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.  I’ll comment on that soon, but first I would like to react to recent events in Syria which will probably go unnoticed.

On Friday December 16th Russia deployed the Admiral Kutznetsov carrier and strike group to the Syrian port of Tartus.  Once there the carrier and strike group will conduct military drills with Syrian forces.  Russia has also supplied Syria with 72 shore-to-sea missiles and Syria has deployed 21 Scuds to the Turkish border, five of which are reportedly armed with chemical warheads.  Additionally Syrian Vice President Farouk A-Shara travelled to Moscow as US Secretary of Defense Panetta arrived in Ankara.  

On December 15th Human Rights Watch released a report entitled, "By All Means Necessary!" In the report HRW provides the testimony of Syrian Army defectors who give the name and rank of the officers who gave the order to Syrian soldiers to 'shoot to kill' unarmed protesters. 
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/15/syria-shoot-kill-commanders-named


Also relevant is that American Special Forces leaving Iraq have been diverted to Jordan to take positions against Syrian tanks along the shared border.  Three months ago Syrian President Assad warned Jordan’s King Abdullah II against granting asylum to Syrian deserters and allowing arms to pass to opposition forces, King Abdullah II has not ceased either activity.  http://www.debka.com/article/21577/

Finally Syria and the Arab League have just agreed on a plan to allow Arab observers into the country.  The Arab League suspended Syria’s membership in the group and imposed diplomatic and economic sanctions a month ago.  http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/us-syria-arabs-elaraby-idUSTRE7BJ1H520111220

Clearly there are three main pairings of players in this broader international conflict; Syria and Russia, NATO and Jordan, and the United Nations and Arab League.  Although Russia recently put forward a UN Resolution condemning the violence by both Syrian government forces and their opposition, supplying Syria with missiles and sending a carrier group to conduct military drills is clearly a commitment to defend Syrian sovereignty and the Assad regime. 

Conversely NATO (primarily Turkey and the U.S.) and Jordan who in varying capacities support the Free Syrian Army, the ambitions of Syrian protesters, and want President Assad to step down from power.  Like Russia and Syria, these nations have made a point of showing that if necessary they are ready and able to take military action. 

Caught in the middle are the United Nations and Arab League.  The UN has released numerous reports chronicling the horrific events transpiring in Syria.  Likewise a month ago the AL suspended Syria’s membership because of the actions it was taking against protesters opposing President Assad.  So although these organizations are idealistically aligned with NATO and Jordan, they will not consent to military action to end the conflict. 

While the UN General Assembly and 14 members of the Security Council may agree to support a no-fly zone over Syria, Russia will not.  Its military commitment to Syria clearly shows that it will oppose (with force if necessary) and foreign plans for a humanitarian intervention.  The first and most likely method Russia will employ to prevent international action will be to use its veto power as a P-5 Nation.  This will prevent the UN from passing a resolution similar to UN Resolution 1973, which approved of the no-fly zone over Libya.  Without such a resolution any international intervention in Syria would be lacking official UN support and will therefore be less popular with some foreign leaders who would condone an intervention for acting against the will of the UN.  http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/19/us-syria-un-idUSTRE7BI1LB20111219

With regards to the Arab League, its recent relations with Syria are among the strongest the organization has ever criticized one of its members.  On Monday December 19th Syria agreed to an Arab League plan to have 150 observers monitor events on the ground.  Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby announced that all of the 150 observers should be in Syria by the end of December.  It is important to note that in early November the Syrian government agreed to an AL plan to end fighting, release prisoners, and open a dialogue with the opposition, yet it was not until a recent round of AL imposed economic sanctions and travel restrictions that Syria has come back to the table and decided to move forward with this agreement.

Several things are clear from these recent events.  The first and foremost is that international pressure on Syria to cease killing unarmed civilians is mounting.  As a result increasingly severe sanctions have been imposed against Syria, which in turn are causing changes in Syria’s behavior. 

Second, as the world polarizes over these recent events, Russia, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, and the United States have drawn lines in the sand (and water) with carrier strike groups, tank formations, and Special Forces.  So as contentious grows, the major players have solidified their positions, increasing the likelihood of an international conflict. 

With little gray area left, whatever happens regarding Syria will likely happen soon.  Of course my hope is that President Assad steps down as peacefully as former President Ben Ali of Tunisia or even Mubarak of Egypt.  However Assad has already done more to hold on to power than either of these disposed leaders.  With international pressure continuing to mount the odds that this conflict ends calmly seems scarce, if not fictitious. 

coming soon...

New developments in Syria including:

• Russian military aid
• American troops in Jordan
• Arab League observers

The Future of North Korea

• 11/23/10 Artillery strike on Yeonpyeong
• Stay calm, carry on?

National Defense Authorization Act

• indefinite detention of US citizens accused of terrorism
• I.D. was used during McCarthyism
• Role of the 6th Amendment

Barbara Walters interview of President Assad

Recently Barbara Walters interviewed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad regarding the protests in Syria.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/newsmakers/abc-exclusive-defiant-assad-denies-ordering-bloody-crackdown-111944523.html

As you are probably aware the Syrian government is using deadly force against Syrian citizens opposed to the current regime. This has been confirmed by journalists, the UN, and Syrian citizens. This use of force by the Syrian government further legitimizes the grievances of the protesters. Like Gandhi and MLK before them, the Syrian protesters have solicited the oppressive authority they are opposing into showing its true colors, legitimizing the plight of the protesters and winning them significant international support.  While sanctions are good, it is clear that immediate action is necessary to prevent further loss of life. After a government has killed 5,000 of its own citizens, the question changes from if it will kill its own citizens, to how many more will it kill.

Once a government has killed thousands of its own citizens, been told to stop or else, and continued to kill, military intervention is necessary.  The trick is then what degree of military force must be used to achieve what end game?  Are we simply stopping the killing, or supporting the protesters in removing President Assad from power.  Will there be boots on the ground?  Who needs to do it, the UN, NATO, a coalition?  Recent events in Libya offer a few standards which may be of help.  NATO, the UAE, and others became involved in the Libyan Civil War after the TNC had established itself as a government in Benghazi and the two sides of the conflict were engaging in traditional battles.  Even then it was not until the tide of war was against the TNC who were without an air force that the no-fly zone was established.  While the TNC had been meeting with foreign leaders pleading for military assistance, they never wanted foreign boots on the ground; international military involvement would only be accepted in the form of air support.  Furthermore UN Security Council Resolution 1973 clearly stated the endgame was to use all means necessary short of occupation to prevent the loss of civilian life. 
I believe the TNC showed great wisdom in explicitly saying no the foreign boots on the ground.  While NATO air support was crucial for evening the battle and crippling Gadhafi’s military, the war was still won on the ground by Libyans on the front line of the conflict.  Much like French military aid and naval intervention in the American Revolutionary War was crucial to the United States’ victory, without stealing glory from the U.S. 

The difference in Syria is there is no legitimate government entity opposing President Assad like the TNC opposed Colonel Gadhafi or the founding fathers opposed King George III.  This is significant because it means there is no unified body opposing the current regime which could be supported by an intervention.  So if military intervention is necessary to prevent further loss of life, but it is not clear who the UN should support, what end game should the UN seek?  Killing President Assad could be accomplished with a SEAL team in a night, but that would only throw Syria into further chaos.  Rather I propose that a no-fly zone be implemented with the clear and sole mission of eliminating forces actively engaged in killing civilians.  Further evolution of foreign engagement in the Syrian conflict would have to remain dependent on events on the ground.  If the initial degree of involvement relieved some pressure on the Syrian protesters and they were able to form an opposition government, probably seated in Homs or near the Turkish border, perhaps then a similar UN Resolution 1973 would be implemented, then loosely interpreted to justify removing President al-Assad. 


But back to the interview, last week the UN issued a report saying Syrian protesters have been tortured, raped, and beaten. In response to Ms. Walters' question regarding this report President Assad replied, “We did not see these documents from the United Nations… who says the United Nations is a credible organization?” Well President Assad, people and organizations concerned with their perception make a point of avoiding association with non-credible or legitimate organizations. So because Syria is a member of the UN it legitimizes the organization, yet President Assad continues to play this fact of as, "a game you play."

Regarding images of a 13 year old boy who was arrested for writing anti-Assad graffiti and whose body was returned to his family bearing scars and bruises, presumably from being tortured. President Assad, "I met with his father, the father of that child and he said that he wasn't tortured as he appeared in the media." This came right after he questioned the legitimacy of the photos described by Ms. Walters depicting Syrians shot, beaten, and raped by their own military. So President Assad believes we shouldn't believe Barbara Walters' word or the legitimacy of these photos, but when he says something is so, that is how it is.

A final gem from the interview. President Assad, "We don't kill our people… no government in the world kills its people, unless it's led by a crazy person,"

I have two points to make in response to this:
1. If terrorists are shooting/killing/raping the protesters like President Assad claims, wouldn't/shouldn't the government move in and shoot the terrorists? Rather Assad says the government isn't shooting anyone.
2. President Assad defines a country that kills its own people as being led by a crazy person, which I agree with.  Assad is the leader of Syria; Syria is killing its own people... so Assad is crazy? I suppose we are what we do, assuming President Assad did order or approve the use of violence and deadly force to put down the protesters (which is crazy), than Assad is in fact crazy.

To sum up, President Assad seems like a leader confronted by Barbara Walters and the reality of the actions he has taken to maintain power in the face of popular opposition.  I can only hope that those who are in positions of power and authority around the world realize that every day stronger action is not taken means another five, dozen, or even a hundred Syrians whose death could have been prevented.

What is going on here?

In the truest meaning of the phrase, I am an international relations nerd.  I have a genuine interest in reading articles posted on Foreign Policy and the international section of major media outlets.  The articles and current events which most readily catch my attention, and as readers will discover, solicit a reaction, generally pertain to moral or ethical questions in the broad field of international relations.  I am also a sucker for domestic political issues with a moral or ethical twist. 

Previously when I stumbled across an article which prompted me to compose my thoughts I would email the link and my response to friends and family.  Once I realized I was basically blogging to a captive audience I decided to just start a real blog.  So here they are, my thoughts on our interesting world.


Please feel free to make comments relevant to posts.