On the Dear Leader - Does traditional deterrence theory apply?

Yes - another blog post on the DPRK.

The chief reason: I am reading Bradley Martin's Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty.

The secondary reason - North Korea is very important to US strategic interests and setting a precedent for rogue nuclear states.

You probably also know that the Dear Leader (Kim Jong-il, not Obama) once again captured a world audience by hosting former President Bill Clinton and "negotiating" the release of two American journalists.

So let me share a bit of what I have learned from the book as well as the recent Clinton visit.

Power in North Korea is highly centralized on the elevated figure that is Kim Jong-il. He is the unquestioned centerpiece of the reclusive communist state. The cult of Kim Jong-il is said to be even stronger than his Father, and former leader of the DPRK, Kim Il Sung.

Kim Jong Il succeeded his father by strong arming his competition, including siblings, party members and even his own uncle. His greatest tactic? Hwang Jang Yop, a high ranking North Korean official who defected to South Korea describes Kim's ruse.

Kim Jong-il is by nature a person who does not like living in harmony with others. He makes people fight against each other and depend only on him. Thus, when he talks about strengthening the organization, he means making strict rules to guarantee unconditional obedience to him... the more party members criticize each other and fight among themselves, the greater Kim Jong-il's authority becomes.

Does this seem a little familiar? Recall the recent North Korean rocket launch. The world was heavily divided between the West (plus Japan) and the rest of the world about how to react. Kim sits back and watches his stock go up, while we waste political capital forging a coalition to respond to his antics. If we "feed the animals" in this way, it is almost impossible to deter their unwanted actions.

I also want to call attention to the theories of deterrence which some have applied to the Dear Leader. The argument goes something like this - Kim Jong-il is a rational actor bent on self preservation. His political actions will undoubtedly reflect his desire to maintain control.

This logic is not flawless, decision making can be influenced by a number of factors. What Keith Payne calls "cognitive distortion" influences decision making in the DPRK. Cognitive distortion can come from a number of factors, but most notably drug and alcohol abuse. Keep in mind that Hitler's decision making was influenced by a cornucopia of stimulants, depressants, and even cocaine.

North Korean governance at least seems to be somewhat influenced by the cognitive distortion of Kim Jong-il.

Bradley Martin writes:

Like others who had worked in the higher levels of the regime, Hwang noted Kim Jong-il's penchant for holding drinking parties. But Hwang put them in context as "an important element in Kim Jong-il's style of politics."

Bradley goes on

Although the parties had a business function from Kim's point of view, they inevitably led to some drunken policy making. Kim at his parties would occasionally issue orders so odd they could not be carried out.

Deterring such an individual with such habits would be extremely difficult. The solution is not only attempting to deter him, but also hedging against potential attacks. The deployment of Aegis BMDS is a good step towards defending against a North Korean missile launch.

One last thing - I am willing to bet that Kim Jong-il is extremely opposed to this current administration.

Hwang wrote

He (Kim) even dislikes the good fortune of other countries, and becomes jealous of leaders in other countries who are known to be popular with the people.

Hwant writes that Kim justifies this jealous because

Kim opposes the worship of any individual. He is the Great Leader of the people and therefore not an individual.

So what can we learn from all this?
1) We often play into the hands of Kim by making him the centerpiece of the nuclear debate. Our "in-fighting" only strokes his ego and gives him strategic leverage.

2) It is unlikely that Kim Jong-il can be unquestionably deterred by our nuclear and BMD capabilities. His drunken parties (thrown with cognac no doubt) have lead to decision making before, and could potentially lead to a catastrophic strategic move.

3) It is unlikely that Obama's god-like (newsweeks words, not mine) presence is well received in Pyongyang. Kim is no doubt jealous of Obama's popularity in the US and world wide. As a result, it is unlikely that any "negotiations" with North Korea will be fruitful under this administration.

4) The Clinton visit was a way to increase the prestige of the regime, and merely legitimized the capture of the two American journalists. Although this wasn't a move of our administration, it was likely a mistake.