Kim John Un's Mixed Signals: War or Peace?

N. Korea flag

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's New Year's speech expressed an odd combination of threats and conciliation. Obviously, Kim has a reputation for unpredictable behavior, and North Korea's government, formed when Korea was divided after World War II, is militaristic and oppressive. Although I have not obtained an English transcript, the news reports give us some interesting information about what he said.

First, according to the AP, Kim boasted about North Korea's growing nuclear capability: "The U.S. should know that the button for nuclear weapons is on my table." This can only be viewed as a threat. We will recall that U. S. President Donald Trump had derided Kim as "rocket man." Kim implied, however, that he would order a nuclear attack only as a defensive measure: "The entire area of the U.S. mainland is within our nuclear strike range. . . . The United States can never start a war against me and our country." Still, the shocking message struck many viewers as belligerent. Retired Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, predicted that the United States and North Korea were getting closer to nuclear war.

Then, however, taking a friendlier tone, Kim turned to the upcoming Winter Olympics, to be held in South Korea. He said that the two Koreas should discuss having North Korea send athletes to the games. (South Korea responded positively.) "The Winter Olympics games that will be held soon in the South," he said, "will be a good opportunity to display the status of the Korean nation and we sincerely wish that the event will be held with good results."

I am reminded of Mary Anne George's master's thesis at the University of Akron, which analyzed Yasser Arafat's 1974 United Nation's speech, which also combined threats with conciliation: "Today I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom-fighter's gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat: do not let the olive branch fall from my hand." Yet, Arafat offered a choice, while Kim offered a threat against one nation and conciliation with another. Of course, Arafat was either a terrorist or a freedom fighter, depending on your point of view, leader of the Palestinian National Authority, while Kim is the leader of a powerful independent nation. Does that make Kim more dangerous? Or less?

Kim's approach has long been to keep his opponents off-balance. Keeping people off balance has its place, but always invites misunderstanding. And misunderstandings between nuclear powers can be dangerous.

I am therefore also reminded of John Stoessinger's important book, Why Nations Go to War. Stoessinger

Nuclear radiation universal symbol

showed that miscalculations lay behind most decisions to start a war. He also showed that a nation's leaders are most likely to strike an enemy because they think the enemy is about to strike them. Often, both sides strike because they both fear that the other side is about to strike. In the nuclear age, making decisions by fear can be the most dangerous fear of all. Are North Korea's leaders and the United States' leaders likely to miscalculate? What combination of strength and wisdom is best to preserve the peace? 

National leaders jockey for advantage. Kim's speech was part of that jockeying, since he obviously is pressing for advantage, while he surely does not want his country to be blown up. Kim is not to be underestimated. Kim is, despite his many faults, a very intelligent and well-educated man who is playing a very dangerous and complex game. This speech was part of that game. Good luck to us all.

To end on a more positive note, here are my comments on some more positive New Year's speeches from a year ago.