North Korea

[Clueless]

Ok so I am completely naive when it comes to most politics so bare with me while I ask what I'm sure is a stupid question:

Why hasn't anything to do with North Korea kicked off yet?

It's clear, not only that they have WMDs, but that they spitefully defy any UN resolutions and wave their nuclear capabilities and intentions in the collective face of the world. When the decision to invade Iraq on the basis that they had WMDs was made the intelligence was mostly guesswork and turned out to be fraudulent. With North Korea not only is the evidence for WMDs there, it's bloody airborne! Unlike with Iraq the international reaction is almost universally condemning their actions and responses. Given all this, how come nothing's happening?

(No points awarded for the obvious answer: oil)

[Haunted]

Well done, Iraq had very little to do with WMD's.
North Korea also happens to have something like 100,000 regular artillery cannons trained on Seoul so in the event of any aggressive action they can obliterate the entire city in under a minute.

[MelissaL]

There's also CHINA right next door. The UN/international community/USA is probably concerned about stepping on China's toes. I think as soon as China gets really annoyed with North Korea (instead of just mildly irritated) something might happen.
As well as Russia to the north. Recall how the last UN security council meeting Russia (well, USSR then) missed authorised the Korean War (well, police action technically)?
And all the West's military personnel are stuck in the Middle East. Plus we know they actually *have* WMDs, which can be used on any invading armies. It's a lot less risky to invade a country without WMDs than one WITH.

[Andy Monkey B]

Maybe this will provide a brief rundown of the issues involved, and some of the stuff that's never reported:

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/09/0906 ... ltered.php

[LonelyPilgrim]

An individual who works on plume detection and modelling - ie. sensors that can detect nuclear/biological/chemical stuff out of the air - was informing me the other day that North Korea has done no above ground nuclear tests yet and that their underground tests have led to drastically less radiological 'leakage' than should be expected given the seismic magnitude of the explosions.

This means either:

a) their underground test sites were INCREDIBLY secure... more secure than anything we've ever found to use

or...

b) they packed an underground chamber with massive quantities of conventional explosive and a wee bit of radioactive material and blew it up to fake everyone out.

Given N. Korea's inability to make a functional ballistic missile, I'm inclined to at least consider the possible of the second option.

[LonelyPilgrim]

As for why nothing has been done... the tautological answer is because the perceived costs exceed the perceived benefits.

Even assuming a best-case scenario, a whole lot of people would die, irreparable damage to relations with China would occur, Seoul would be devastated... and all for what purpose? Reunification? I'm sure South Korea really wants to lose lots of their people and the infrastructure of their capital to take over a dirt poor and utterly dependent region of rocks after we've devastated it.

Ultimately, North Korea just isn't a credible threat to anyone despite their bluster, and the most cost effective way of dealing with them is containment and a slow and steady political process leading to reunification somewhere in the distant future.

[wild_quinine]

Lucky that no one in North Korea is starving to death whilst we sit back and wait.

Note: I don't want to push an opinion or agenda here. All I'm saying is that if we think we've got the moral basis to interfere, but it's practicalities holding us back, then we should consider the moral basis of holding back, just as seriously.

[munchingfoo]

Lucky that no one in North Korea is starving to death whilst we sit back and wait.

Note: I don't want to push an opinion or agenda here. All I'm saying is that if we think we've got the moral basis to interfere, but it's practicalities holding us back, then we should consider the moral basis of holding back, just as seriously.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that orders of magnitude more people would die in any conflict than die under North Korea's current system of power.

[wild_quinine]

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that orders of magnitude more people would die in any conflict than die under North Korea's current system of power.

'Orders of magnitude'? Well that's just silly talk. It's been estimated that up to 2 million people died as a result of starvation in the late 90's. I don't think we can say that 'there is absolutely no doubt' that this estimate is off, or that it couldn't happen again in the next few years.

Even one order of magnitude from there constitutes the entire population of North Korea.

Two orders of magnitude is all of the population of North Korea... and all of the population of South Korea... and all 130 million residents of Japan as well.

Three orders of magnitude would represent one third of the population of earth.

What kind of armageddon do you have in mind?

[Haunted]

Yeah I think any kind of conflict with North Korea (including a nuclear one) would find it difficult to top two million.
Though the two million figure was due to starvation which, while still pretty bad these days, isn't nearly as dire as it was in the 90's. The regime's current rate of human extinction is probably the lowest it's been for a long time.

[DACrowe]

Ok so I am completely naive when it comes to most politics so bare with me while I ask what I'm sure is a stupid question:

"Why hasn't anything to do with North Korea kicked off yet?" Why would thing's have 'kicked off'. It isn't in the interests of 'the West' to enter into a military conflict with North Korea, nor is it in the interests of North Korea to enter into a military conflict with 'the West'. That seems a good enough reason for things to fail to 'kick off'.

"It's clear, not only that they have WMDs, but that they spitefully defy any UN resolutions and wave their nuclear capabilities and intentions in the collective face of the world." - True enough, but despite the rhetoric of the 43rd US President no one is in the business of attacking countries merely because they have WMD. A trivial example; the US has not attacked France, yet they have a nuclear arsenal. A less trivial example; NATO has no plans to attach Pakistan though the existence of their nuclear weapons are ever increasingly a concern initially because of the traditional hostility between Pakistan and India but more recently because of internal instability within Pakistan and the fact that certain individuals connected with their WMD programme, most notable AQ Kahn, were actively engaged in trying to sell nuclear technology to other countries which might be even less stable, such as Iraq.

"(No points awarded for the obvious answer: oil)" - Oil is part of the explanation of the war in Iraq, in so far as Iraq's oil supply means events in Iraq are paid more attention than, say, events in the Sudan but it certainly isn't the whole explanation. After all, the US has not invaded either Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, yet they both possess large amounts of the world's oil supply in the Middle East. The reason is that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, however much we might dislike their internal political arrangements, are both stable regimes willing to deal on favourable terms with the West. Iraq was stable, to a fashion, but it certainly wasn't friendly towards the West. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, in the first Gulf War, so that he could have even greater control of the world's oil supply in order to use it as a geopolitical bargaining tool to maintain his own power. Similarly he pursued WMD before both Gulf Wars with a view to using them as well as to maintain internal control over Iraq (which after all was a country with three major groupings; the Kurds, the Sunni Arabs and the Shia Arabs - of which he represented the smallest, not a recipe for an easy despotism) as a means of securing himself against deposition by Western powers. In other words, like Saudi Arabia his was an oil-possessing despotism but he was determined to operate as an independent agent, which in practical terms means disrupting the free supply of oil. The 'war on terror' gave the hawks in the Republican party an excuse to do what a lot of them thought should have been done after the first gulf war; get rid of a major threat to American interests in the Middle East. It seems they also radically overestimated their ability to re-establish order in Iraq after invasion. Oil is a factor but not the whole story, the WMD point has some truth to it and the claim that Saddam was removed because he was a despot is mostly disingenuous (it's fair to say that neither the Department of State or the Foreign Office like genocidal despots, but foreign policy isn't ruled by e.g. the fact we fight the 'legal system' in Saudi Arabia barbaric - that's not enough of an excuse to start a war).

Where's would be the gain of a war against North Korea? They have WMD; sure but they don't appear to be using them, or preparing to use them on us at present. North Korea does seem to be trying to export its nuclear technology (the AQ Kahn material turned over by Gadaffi included plans from North Korea) to some degree, and that's more worrying. But there are other ways to defend against nuclear proliferation than outright warfare; international policing primarily. If North Korea were to attack a neighbouring country, especially South Korea, that would probably trigger a war; but North Korea knows this and therefore is highly unlikely to do it. Rather the WMD will just be used to shore up the ruling faction's dominance over the country. This is bad, in so far as it means human rights abuses in North Korea may get even worse rather than getting better, but the worst rights violations are unlikely to be enough to trigger war between nuclear powers.

Attacking North Korea would be a very bad idea. Are you honestly saying that if you were, say, the US President you would push for a war against North Korea? Or is this - and this being why you brought up Iraq - some strange concern with 'consistency' in policy. When you incorporate more nuance into your model of how foreign policy decisions are made than is contained, for example, in the average George W Bush speech, there's no real inconsistency between a war with Iraq because it might have had WMDs and a lack of war with North Korea which certainly does.

(I'm never sure I want to sign my name to anything quasi-political I write. Ah stuff it: http://www.xkcd.com/137/ )

P.S. (edit) @ 'Andy Monkey B' that link's really interesting. Cheers.

[Guest]

True enough, but despite the rhetoric of the 43rd US President no one is in the business of attacking countries merely because they have WMD... A trivial example; the US has not attacked France, yet they have a nuclear arsenal.

I think you missed the OP's point which was not what you have mentioned above but that they not only have them but they actively show them off (underground explosions, firing missiles into the sea of Japan, etc), i.e. 'it's bloody airborne'.

Are you honestly saying that if you were, say, the US President you would push for a war against North Korea?

Again, I don't see where the OP has said/implied that, so you're putting words into their mouth there.

[DACrowe]

I think you missed the OP's point which was not what you have mentioned above but that they not only have them but they actively show them off (underground explosions, firing missiles into the sea of Japan, etc), i.e. 'it's bloody airborne'.

Perhaps, but then of course France set off nuclear weapons in Algeria and Polynesia. If you're going to have nuclear weapons you're going to want to test them. I take the point, but there's a real difference between testing nuclear weapons and using nuclear weapons in a an act of aggression against another state.

Again, I don't see where the OP has said/implied that, so you're putting words into their mouth there.

The OP expressed surprise at the fact things hadn't 'kicked off' with North Korea. Assuming it's obvious that North Korea has a strong incentive not to e.g. attack the US, the implication is that things would 'kick off' by the US attacking North Korea. The introduction of Iraq strengthens this implication: what is Iraq in the popular imagination? It is an instance of the United States taking military action against a country which it believes to have WMD. It seems reasonable to read the OPs post as asking "given North Korea very obviously has WMD, why has the US not taken military action against it." I suppose we could ask the OP to clarify, but I think it's a little unfair to accuse me of 'putting words into their mouth' when really I'm just offering what seems to me to be a sensible reading of what the might mean by things 'kicking off'.

[LonelyPilgrim]

"(No points awarded for the obvious answer: oil)" - Oil is part of the explanation of the war in Iraq, in so far as Iraq's oil supply means events in Iraq are paid more attention than, say, events in the Sudan but it certainly isn't the whole explanation.

There's no oil in Sudan? Someone had better tell the Sudanese. And the Chinese. They are paying taxes and port duties through the nose to help Sudan sell its primary export and they're both under the impression that's petroleum. Someone had better point out their mistake.

The cost of getting oil out of Africa through Sudan (both from Sudan and elsewhere - piped to Sudanese ports) is probably a major motivating factor behind Chinese support for a proposed UN peacekeeping operation in Somalia. They want to develop Somalia's offshore oil reserves, and get the Port of Mogadishu secure, dredged, and re-opened to commercial shipping - all for an alternative to doing business with Sudan.

I realise this has nothing to do with North Korea... I just found it odd that Sudan should be characterised as a non-oil country when oil is its chief export and that fact is having major geopolitical effects... *whistles innocently*

[DACrowe]

D'oh!

Well... let's just say I'm attempting to alleviate my ignorance of the real world one continent at a time and it's no exaggeration to say 'I haven't gotten to Africa yet'*. Woops. Desperately trying to salvage a few points from a terrible blunder; I (rather obviously now) don't know the comparative quantities of oil available in the Sudan, but is it not at least fair to say the ability to extract it is considerably less than in the oil rich countries in the Middle East - so that even if the country was slightly more stable than it is, you'd have to establish drilling sites, pipelines, protection for those pipelines and so on all of which is already in place in the Middle East, and as such the oil under the Sudan is a lot further from the global market than the oil under Mesopotamia?

*(Book recommendations are warmly solicited).

[LonelyPilgrim]

Sudan produced 466,100 bbl/day back in 2007. More than Syria. (bbl/day = barrel per day)

In the interest of fairness, Russia produced 9,980,000 bbl/day in 2007. Saudi Arabia comes in slightly under that with 9,200,000 bbl/day (in 2008).

So, yes, Sudan is not in the league of the top producers. Even the US produced 8,457,000 bbl/day itself in 2007, placing a solid third. That said, Sudan does place 32nd out of only 115 countries that produce oil. Sudan also had plans to increase production to 1,000,000 bbl/day by the end of 2008 which would push it up to 23rd on the list, but I can't find data on their 2008 production numbers yet.

You can be forgiven for not thinking of Sudan as an oil producing nation. Their production was negligible until 1998, when it started to increase, and then it really took off in 1999 when an export pipeline was finished. At the moment, they have 5 billion barrels of proven reserves. It's suspected they have vast amounts of unproven reserves lying under areas of current civil strife that are simply not safe enough for exploration at the moment.

The geopolitical issue is that Port Sudan is really the only place on the east coast of Africa to load oil and the government of Sudan takes advantage by making buyers pay fees and taxes that make Sudanese oil very expensive. On the other side of the coin, the oil from the north of Sudan, called Nile Blend, is some of the sweetest light crude in the world and worth the cost.

Just a little further down the coast, though, as I understand it, Somalia has large potential reserves off its Indian Ocean coast which were discovered shortly before things went pear-shaped in the mid-80's. With the outbreak of widescale violence in '86, the overthrow of Siad Barre's government in '91, and incessant fighting since - displacing millions and completely shattering the country's infrastructure - it has been impossible to properly explore those reserves. Now, the fighting is the worst its been in years, the harbour at Mogadishu hasn't been dredged in decades, and pirates are rampant off the coasts. The prospect of settling the conflict, crushing the pirates, and reopening the port... and conducting oil production development under Chinese companies... has been a seductive one for China. They want to stop buying from Sudan, and get a better deal from someone else... perhaps some special concessions like the US got in Saudi Arabia when that country was poor and weak.

So... the UN has been talking about sending in 23,000 peacekeepers since January and China, which usually avoids any involvement in anything to do with peacekeeping, has been vociferously in support and has offered to provide a large portion of the manpower and funding. Coincidence? I think not. China's interest is in suppressing the piracy and securing Mogadishu. I doubt they care one bit if Al Shabaab and Hizbul al'Islamya control the rest of the country - seeing as the most valuable commodity in the rest of Somalia are camels.

As far as book recommendations... I haven't had time to read a book in ages. I get my information from the UNOCHA ReliefWeb Service, Reuter's AlertNet Service, various NGO's like CARE, MSF, WorldVision, the ICRC, the US government, particularly the State Department and the CIA's World Factbook, the UK's Foreign Office e-mail alerts, and by attending conferences and talking to contacts. Of course, my work is connected heavily to Somalia, so I have an unfair advantage... if you asked me about West Africa, I'd be lost!

[bdw]

Sudan also had plans to increase production to 1,000,000 bbl/day by the end of 2008 which would push it up to 23rd on the list, but I can't find data on their 2008 production numbers yet.

480,000bbl/d during 2008 according to the 2009 BP Statistical Review of World Energy:

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/2009_downloads/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2009.pdf

However both the Govt of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (“SPML/A”) have now openly agreed to abide by the 22 July award of the arbitral tribunal in the "Abyei Arbitration". This award provided that the major Sudanese oil fields and export pipeline infrastructure emanating therefrom are to fall within the jurisdiction of the Govt of Sudan. If the parties keep their word, the consequence may be that E&P activities can be safely ramped up in future.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Sudan also had plans to increase production to 1,000,000 bbl/day by the end of 2008 which would push it up to 23rd on the list, but I can't find data on their 2008 production numbers yet.

480,000bbl/d during 2008 according to the 2009 BP Statistical Review of World Energy:

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/2009_downloads/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2009.pdf

However both the Govt of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (“SPML/A”) have now openly agreed to abide by the 22 July award of the arbitral tribunal in the "Abyei Arbitration". This award provided that the major Sudanese oil fields and export pipeline infrastructure emanating therefrom are to fall within the jurisdiction of the Govt of Sudan. If the parties keep their word, the consequence may be that E&P activities can be safely ramped up in future.

Why am I not surprised that BP has more up-to-date numbers than the US Department of Energy or the USGS? I should have thought to check industry publications. bdw 1 - LonelyPilgrim 0. Good show.

Do you know if the agreement covers oil reserves anywhere in the country or is it only for development of the known reserves and existing infrastructure?

[bdw]

Do you know if the agreement covers oil reserves anywhere in the country or is it only for development of the known reserves and existing infrastructure?

Good question. The dispute only related to the Abyei area and the tribunal does not seem to have been directed to determine ownership of hydrocarbon resources, being asked instead to confirm whether the territorial delineation established by a previous boundary commission was made according to its mandate. However, depending upon the geographical extent of the Abyei area, this award may have indirectly had the effect of determining hydrocarbon ownership rights in Sudan generally (ie if all producing areas were to be located within the Abyei area).

Best I could do was to crudely match up the map representing the tribunal's award:
http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/Abyei%20Award%20Appendix%201.pdf
with the EIA's map of Sudanese hydrocarbon licences:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Sudan/images/Sudan%20b-map.gif
and any map site I could find.

Off the back of this bumblingly amateurish research, it seems to me that, while the award only covers a small geographical area (and certainly does not address any of the licences south of Heglig and Unity), those licences that it does affect are those that have historically generated the greatest crude oil production volumes in Sudan. In respect of the other licences, the fundamental document establishing control of in situ and produced hydrocarbon resources would presumably either be the state's hydrocarbon statute (to the extent that there were no territorial disputes over the other licences) or the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 9 January 2005 that is referenced in the award.

What do you think?

The award makes quite interesting reading if you are of a certain mind:
http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/Abyei%20Press%20Release%2022-07-09%20EN.pdf
I particularly enjoyed the dissenting opinion at the end of the document from Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh.