By David S. WillsWhen the South Korean government took its time to respond to the sinking of the Cheonan, it won many fans around the globe for its level-headed methodology. Rather than jump to what was really an obvious conclusion, they waited for incontrovertible evidence. They bided their time and held their tongues, and set a wonderful example in crisis management.
When the international investigation into the incident revealed that North Korea had most likely been the perpetrator, a difficult situation emerged: How exactly to punish the guilty.
Of course, war is not a tenable option. All parties involved are aware that this must be avoided, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily will. One doesn't always go into a war by his own volition. Wars emerge from the escalation of conflict, and that conflict can be the action of one or two sides. It's possible ― although not entirely likely ― that the Cheonan was sunk by a single submarine commander, whose actions were not condoned by the government.
With tensions raised along the land and sea borders, it's important that we guard against an escalation of conflict. If alarmed or confused soldiers fire upon one another, we cannot let this drag us all into war. We need to hope that the South Korean government shows as much restraint in the future as it did with the Cheonan, and we need to hope that the North Korean government realizes how damaging military action would be to itself.
In the meantime we have certain options to punish the North Korean government, and those are all being put into effect by Seoul. These sanctions are pushing the North Korean regime as hard as possible, but to what effect? North Korea responded by cutting ties with Seoul, isolating itself even further.
If we make it through the coming weeks without any fighting, we are faced with another challenge. North Korea is a poor country and its government maintains control through extreme force. Kim Jong-il may face problems when poverty further represses his people, and when budget cuts begin hitting the government harder and harder.
An irrational government is a very dangerous thing. At the end of the Cold War, the United States was paying the bills for its enemy. It was better to have a stable enemy than an unstable one. The same is absolutely true now. It's why we worry about Kim's health and the debate over his heir. When vying factors in a government fight for control, chaos frequently ensues. It could be devastating for the region if Kim lost control of his government.
Yet this is inevitable. When he dies, or tries to hand over control, we will know even less about an already mysterious government. We will see potential leaders attempt to demonstrate their strength, and try to test the limits of their newfound power. There may well be hardliners in the government who seek to demonstrate North Korea's military might.
Seoul's economic sanctions, which inspired the decision by Pyongyang to sever all ties, have brought another challenge. They have forced North Korea into an even more difficult predicament, and one has to wonder just how they will survive. We can't let a regime with weapons of mass destruction implode.
With China refusing to jump into the fray, we must hope that they are at least willing to help steer North Korea away from further acts of aggression. As the closest thing Pyongyang has to an ally, their support is immensely important. There are really few options for Seoul to take. North Korea will move along, getting further and further into debt, with Kim's hold on power gradually weakening. One day, however, the entire region will have to deal with the consequences of a changing North Korea.
David S. Wills is an editor and journalist from Scotland. He has been living in Korea for three years. willsdavid@gmail.com.
