Is Barack Obama Finding His Inner Churchill?

[Update: Clinton hints at putting North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and calls the charges against Laura Ling and Euna Lee “absolutely without merit or foundation.” Does that mean Clinton’s best information is that they were inside China?]

I continue to be gleefully amazed by the toughness and seriousness of Obama’s words on North Korea. Now let’s see if they translate into effective action. In his young presidency, Obama has already jettisoned some of the sillier foreign policy fantasies he’d articulated in his campaign. One early casualty is the idea that the U.N. can be an effective tool for dealing with sociopaths. Obama now seems completely prepared to act with or without the assent of Russia and China, and thus, the U.N. The result will be a tougher resolution and better diplomacy:

His patience tested, President Obama on Saturday promised a new and stronger response to defiant North Korea, saying that while he prefers diplomacy he is now taking a “very hard look” at tougher measures. A Pentagon official said no military moves were planned. Obama’s blunt language seemed to point toward nonmilitary penalties such as financial sanctions against North Korea, either within the United Nations or by Washington alone. U.S. allies in Asia may consider new moves to improve their own military defenses.

“We are not intending to continue a policy of rewarding provocation,” he said, alluding to recent North Korea nuclear and missile tests. [….] “We are going to take a very hard look at how we move forward on these issues, and I don’t think that there should be an assumption that we will simply continue down a path in which North Korea is constantly destabilizing the region and we just react in the same ways by, after they’ve done these things for a while, then we reward them,” Obama said. [AP, via USA Today]

More here:

Obama said North Korea’s recent actions, which also include testing missiles, were “extraordinarily provocative” and would not be met with appeasement as they had been in the past.”I don’t think that there should be an assumption that we will simply continue down a path in which North Korea is constantly destabilizing the region and we just react in the same ways,” Obama told reporters. [Reuters, David Alexander]

That’s right. A correspondent from the famously left-wing British wire service Reuters actually used the word “appeasement,” notwithstanding the all of the political and historical connotations that word carries. Even if Obama’s own words were not meant to be a rebuke to his predecessors — including the husband of his Secretary of State — they may just as well be taken as such. Indeed, if Obama follows through with these words, making financial pressure a key element of his North Korea policy and a forced opening of North Korea to transparency its objective, a man many of us had dismissed as a naive liberal neophyte will have created a North Korea policy vastly superior to any previous American president. Obama has expressly discarded the myth that there is a purely diplomatic solution for every problem:

“My preference is always to use a diplomatic approach,” Obama said. “But diplomacy has to involve the other side engaging in a serious way in trying to solve problems. And we have not seen that kind of reaction from North Korea. So we will continue to consult with our allies.” [AP, via USA Today]

The willingness to shape our diplomatic efforts around nations that share our interests, as opposed to those that willfully undermine them, will make our diplomacy more effective. So will dovetailing our diplomatic efforts with financial pressure and sensible military deterrence:

“We will not stand idly by as North Korea builds the capability to wreak destruction on any target in the region or on us,” [SecDef Robert] Gates said. In meetings with South Korean and Japanese officials, he said it was time to think about additional defensive moves they could make, collectively or individually, to prepare for the possibility of North Korea continuing to develop its nuclear capability.

Gates mentioned no specific possibilities. One possible option could be to put more Navy ships in waters near the Korean Peninsula to provide more capability to shoot down hostile missiles. Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Saturday that the U.S. is not moving toward military action against North Korea.

“That’s not the focus of our efforts,” Morrell said. “Everyone’s preference is to prevail upon the North Koreans with diplomatic or economic pressure. But Secretary Gates on his most recent trip to Asia urged our allies — Japan and South Korea — to begin thinking about prudent defensive measures that might also be taken should we fail in dissuading the North Koreans from pursuing” ballistic missile and nuclear bomb capabilities. [AP, via USA Today]

Gates is now said to be reconsidering proposed missile defense cuts, while avoiding threats to strike directly against targets in North Korea (another ill-advised call for that here).

Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak are even reviving a regional alliance that leftist presidents Roh Moo-Hyun and Kim Dae-Jung had spent the last decade undermining. This time, both South Korea and Japan appear to have joined us in a coordinated approach. As with the promising developments in America, we would never have heard words of such clarity, determination, or maturity from President Lee’s predecessor in a moment of crisis:

“I hereby make it clear again that there won’t be any compromise in issues threatening the lives of the people and national security,” Lee said at a speech marking Memorial Day to honour the Korean War dead.

North Korea was not only threatening the South but the world’s peace and stability by carrying out nuclear tests and launching missiles, he said.

“Even at this very moment, the North is ratcheting up the level of threats as we are also stepping up our defence posture, resulting in a trigger-wire confrontation,” Lee said. [AFP]

Japan and South Korea have both joined America in putting pressure on the Chinese at the U.N.:

A revised draft Security Council resolution outlined by seven key United Nations members on North Korea’s second nuclear test would obligate all U.N. members to inspect North Korean cargo if it is suspected of carrying nuclear or missile-related items, U.N. diplomatic sources said Friday.
The revised draft also includes additional financial sanctions against North Korea in line with a call by Japan and the United States, the sources said. [….]

Japanese Ambassador Yukio Takasu told reporters Friday, ”We are spending day and night on it since the response of the Security Council to the nuclear test by North Korea should be very, very strong and clear.” ”How this will be formulated into a concrete way…requires very careful technical, legal and political examinations by all of us,” he said. [Kyodo News]

Naturally, the Chinese are stalling. They warn that inspections at sea will lead to military conflict. I don’t doubt that that’s true, though any such conflict would be limited, winnable for us, and a potential humiliation for North Korea. Certainly the Japanese been through the experience while trying to catch North Korea dope smugglers off their own shores:

But conflicts with North Korean ships are much less likely to expand into Korean War 2 than such ill-advised ideas of striking at North Korean nuclear sites. Kim Jong Il probably knows that his navy is outclassed, and he knows what the consequences of escalating a land war would be. That’s why past conflicts with North Korea on the high seas invited no greater reaction than more bluster from North Korea and its sympathizers in the South. Speaking of which, you’ll be pleased to know that the Hanky is aghast at the direction of U.S. policy, and in related news, KCNA is bleating about Obama’s plot to dominate Eurasia.

Myself, I’ll be very interested in seeing how Kim Jong Il reacts to this new and credible American threat. He knows how much pain financial sanctions caused him in 2005-2006. That means that the next missile test could become a test of much more than propulsion and guidance systems. If the North Koreans end up doing, say, a static motor test instead of an actual launch, it may demonstrate our capacity to influence the North Koreans’ behavior. Then again, the North Koreans must realize what conclusions America would draw from them backing down. They may feel compelled to go ahead with the test to avoid the affirmation of exactly that lesson. If we learn it as effectively as they’ve learned to extort us, it might reshape America’s entire approach to Kim Jong Il in a way not at all to his favor.

One very faint sign that Kim Jong Il could be concerned is his invitation to the South Koreans to parlay about Kaesong, but this may or may not mean anything. The North may just show up and issue a new set of demands.

My final caution would be this: just as Bush’s words during his first term failed to translate into a coherent and tough policy, Obama’s rhetoric during his campaign (thankfully) proved less than enduring in practice. Now it’s up to Obama to follow through on his words.

Related: It’s even becoming difficult it distinguish Obama’s rhetoric from Robert Joseph’s:

Some who oppose putting real pressure on North Korea argue it will lead to war. In fact, taking the above steps will likely reduce the risks of conflict and increase the chances for diplomacy to work. The North Korean regime is brittle, its economy bankrupt, and its future dim. It has come to rely on extortion for its survival. If we make the hard choices, if we deny it further benefits from its provocations, and if we act with resolve, we increase the prospects for long term peaceful change.

Success in confronting the North Korean threat demands American leadership on the most fundamental level. To date, Pyongyang has repeatedly used its nuclear program to gain concessions vital to its survival. The objective of U.S. policy must be to present the Dear Leader with a clear choice: he can keep his weapons and loose all outside assistance, or he can give up the weapons. We cannot allow him to continue to have it both ways. [Robert Joseph, Wall Street Journal]