Kim is a nut
Under an oversized portrait of Kim Jong Il, Sunday's front page posed the question, "Does North Korea's Dear Leader want nuclear capability for fun or profit?" Like most articles, it overlooked the option that North Korea may want nuclear capability for protection.
An ardent North Korea watcher, I don't deny that Kim is a nut, who is not known for his rational decisions. However, to attempt to understand Kim's actions, we must ask ourselves, "Why does he care more about bombs than food?" A question to which there are many answers. Primarily, Kim Jong-Il is paranoid about what he perceives to be an imminent U.S. attack. Technically, North Korea is still at war with the U.S., as only a military armistice, not a peace treaty, was signed in 1953. Yet, despite Condoleezza Rice's efforts to begin negotiations on a peace treaty back in May 2006 and George W. Bush's recent promise that the U.S. will not attack, America refuses to put a formal end to the perpetual state of war.
This situation, combined with the harsh rhetoric of Bush and John Bolton, the Iraq war, and annual American/South Korean military exercises staged just south of the North Korean border, do nothing to assuage Kim's paranoia. I understand the viewpoint of Pak Gil-yon, North Korea's UN ambassador whom I met in Toronto last year, when he insists that nuclear capabilities are for self-defence.
After all, didn't Bush get exactly what he wants? A nuclear North Korea gives him countless reasons to justify pouring money into his growing nuclear arsenal and missile defence systems.
An ardent North Korea watcher, I don't deny that Kim is a nut, who is not known for his rational decisions. However, to attempt to understand Kim's actions, we must ask ourselves, "Why does he care more about bombs than food?" A question to which there are many answers. Primarily, Kim Jong-Il is paranoid about what he perceives to be an imminent U.S. attack. Technically, North Korea is still at war with the U.S., as only a military armistice, not a peace treaty, was signed in 1953. Yet, despite Condoleezza Rice's efforts to begin negotiations on a peace treaty back in May 2006 and George W. Bush's recent promise that the U.S. will not attack, America refuses to put a formal end to the perpetual state of war.
This situation, combined with the harsh rhetoric of Bush and John Bolton, the Iraq war, and annual American/South Korean military exercises staged just south of the North Korean border, do nothing to assuage Kim's paranoia. I understand the viewpoint of Pak Gil-yon, North Korea's UN ambassador whom I met in Toronto last year, when he insists that nuclear capabilities are for self-defence.
After all, didn't Bush get exactly what he wants? A nuclear North Korea gives him countless reasons to justify pouring money into his growing nuclear arsenal and missile defence systems.
