How Obama should respond to N. Koreas attack

By Arthur I. Cyr

North Korea's artillery bombardment of Yeonpyeong Island, held by South Korea, is the latest in a series of crises concerning the tense peninsula. The island lies just south of the maritime boundary dividing the two states, and is not far from where the South Korean ship Cheonan was sunk last March and where a skirmish between naval gunboats occurred a year ago.

A special international panel concluded that the ship was sunk by a North Korean vessel; Pyongyang denies the charge.

Some speculate that North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is using force to strengthen the role of his son and designated successor, Kim Jong-un. Or perhaps military factions are firing on its own, driven by extreme nationalism and spurred by absence of strong leadership at the very top.

Meanwhile, the surviving Communist regime in Pyongyang continues to ratchet up the nuclear stakes. U.S. scientist Siegfried Hecker, former director of Argonne National Laboratory, has just returned from visiting North Korea with the disturbing report of construction of new nuclear facilities. One is a light water power reactor, the other an impressive advanced centrifuge plant to enrich uranium.

The Cold War began in Berlin, as disagreements grew between the Soviets and Western allies occupying defeated Germany, but became global with the outbreak of the extremely costly Korean War in 1950.

The Truman administration properly moved immediately to defend South Korea from invasion, working through the United Nations. The U.S. navy redeployed to protect Taiwan from Communist China, and anti-communist alarm became even stronger in American and European politics.

President Barack Obama's instinct is to negotiate, often a welcome change from Bush bluster, but not in this case. Years of diplomatic flexibility toward Pyongyang have yielded nearly nothing beyond limited delay in nuclear development.

Instead, Washington should emphasize economic leverage, which is considerable. Beneath military bluster, North Korea experiences ongoing economic disaster. Late last year, the government suddenly seized the population's money, including savings, as part of issuing a new currency. The move was aimed at throttling the steadily expanding unofficial economy, but the result was widespread public protests.

In the past, well-aimed economic pressure on North Korea has paid off. The Bush administration declared Banco Delta Asia (BDA), based in Macau, a renegade institution assisting illegal activities by Pyongyang, notably a global black market. U.S. businesses were banned from dealing with BDA, and others followed suit. Macau government authorities froze $25 million in North Korean funds. The money was unfrozen following North Korean concessions.

Pyongyang has continued to support North-South commercial cooperation through the Gaeseong Industrial Complex located just north of the Demilitarized Zone. Washington could back up Seoul in offers to expand this collaboration, in return for specific nuclear and other concessions.

During the height of the Cold War, President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave consistent support to cultural and educational exchanges with the Soviet Union. Koreans have a rich, diverse cultural history, and the harsh division of the peninsula dates only since 1945. Exchanges should be encouraged.

The Eisenhower era also provides an important lesson in the realities of war.

The stalled Korean War armistice talks were quickly and successfully concluded in 1953 following extraordinary widespread bombing of North Korea at the start of the Eisenhower administration. Ike knew how to get the job done.

Obama should not threaten war but should find public occasions to emphasize this history, and remind the other side of the extraordinarily high stakes involved.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ``After the Cold War." He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu.