Dealing With a Dictator

I have brought peace in our time." I was reminded of Neville Chamberlain's famous statement, made upon his return from the Munich conference in the fall of 1938, when I listened to former U.S. president Jimmy Carter talk about the success of his recent mission to Pyongyang. Less than a year after Munich, World War II broke out.


I was not pleased with Carter's visit to North Korea and neither was I pleased by scenes of him embracing Kim Il-sung. It does not seem to me that Carter did anything to advance peace. Rather, he simply played into the hands of a dictator.


Those embraces and the general show surrounding the visit of this important guest from America were extremely important to the Pyongyang regime -- important primarily for internal reasons. It was as if Kim were saying: "Look, my subjects! See how this former president came all this way to see me."


Carter left, but what will come next? North Korea's ruler magnanimously decided to allow two International Atomic Energy Agency observers to remain within his empire. He also made a few other gestures, including an expression of willingness to meet with the president of South Korea.


And what are they going to talk about? There is one eternal trump in the propaganda arsenal: unification. That, of course, would be marvelous, and sooner or later it will happen.


But now one more analogy occurs to me. Perhaps older readers will remember how Stalin actively campaigned for the unification of Germany and the creation of a "united, peace-loving, democratic" country. And what did he mean by unification? Naturally, the three western zones would be joined with the eastern section and the government of that section of the country would rule all of Germany and guide it into the bright future of socialism. I do not think either Stalin or his associates seriously believed that this idea would be realized. I think the same is true of Kim and his son, the heir to the throne. But why should they not use this idea to tug at the heartstrings of their people?


However, what is more important and immediate is North Korea's nuclear-weapons program. Both father and son seem to have become so deeply involved in this program and to consider it such a fundamental part of their overall plan to personally rule over their people that it is now impossible for them to give it up.


They understand that the split between North and South is becoming increasingly pronounced. Considering the government's many efforts to isolate its subjects from the surrounding world and the innumerable investigations and interrogations, the people of the North must understand that they are being led into a dead end. And all of this is building up like water slowly collecting behind a dam: One day it will certainly overflow.


As a result, the Kims have apparently decided that they need nuclear weapons in order to maintain power over their tormented people. If something happens, they can simply drown Seoul in a sea of flames -- threats we have heard before from leaders in the North. Of course, a war with the South would lead to many deaths among their own subjects, but no doubt someone will remain. The main thing, from their point of view, is that they will remain in power and continue to rule as before. Does anyone remember how Mao Tse-tung once said that even if the majority of humanity died in a third World War, it would not necessarily be a tragedy?


Simply for the sake of their political power, the Kims have become entangled in this devilish game with the atom.


So, if the leaders of the two Koreas do meet, will any concrete results come of it? No. Because any real results would mean at least a tiny weakening of the police state. And that would mean hastening the end of that system.


A few days ago I heard the American Secretary of State Warren Christopher speak about a possible -- in the long term -- meeting between Kim and the president of the United States. It seems that Christopher, having fallen under Carter's influence, decided to use this means to spur North Korea to take new, more serious steps. But Kim cannot take such steps since they would erode his political control. After all, his regime is based exclusively on terror. The failure to understand this will lead to false moves on the part of the world's democracies.Moreover, when such a meeting fails to produce results, the American administration will be blamed, and this will provide additional fuel for the North Korean propaganda machine.


The world's experience with dictators and dictatorships testifies that they respond only to force. They simply laugh at -- though not always openly -- any efforts and overtures made by democratic countries. For this reason, I applauded the Israelis when, some years ago, they launched an air strike against Iraq's nuclear power station. What would have happened if Saddam Hussein had had nuclear weapons when the Persian Gulf War began?


The threat posed by the president of North Korea is obvious. If the world allows itself to be made a fool of, it will simply have to deal with similar situations in other parts of the world. Recently the Italian newspaper Stampa wrote that soon nuclear weapons may appear in the Mediterranean, since it is likely that Kim's counterpart, Mohamar Khadaffi, would buy them from North Korea.


Can we really allow such a development? This is why it is so frightfully dangerous to play diplomatic games with Kim. Only firm pressure and military force will be able to solve the North Korean nuclear crisis. It is naive to believe, along with Carter, that the Kims are capable of true openness. It is clear that my prognoses are gloomy, and I hope that they do not come to pass. I really do. But today I cannot be an optimist; the situation just will not allow it.





Viktor Rodionov is a freelance journalist in Moscow. He contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.