Update: Yesterday I said China, and probably Russia, would opt for a slap on the wrist for North Korea (see below). Today they do just that:

China and Russia resisted an attempt in the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions against North Korea for its missile launches Wednesday, saying only diplomacy could halt the isolated regime’s nuclear and rocket development programs. (emphasis added)

Original Post: North Korea’s launch of a Taepodong 2 ICBM and up to five SRBM (a Yonhap report says ten total missiles) is meant to cause the U.S. and Japan, and possibly others, to impose sanctions and take other negative diplomatic actions, which North Korea will use as a justification for continuing to avoid Six-Party Talks. This is a tactical move in its ongoing ‘strategic disengagement,’ which North Korea has been using since its uranium enrichment program was uncovered in October 2002.

While this may seem illogical at first, it is not for several reasons. First, after the U.S. attack on North Korea’s illegal international money laundering and counterfeiting - on top of existing sanctions - there is not a great deal more the U.S. can do in that area, although Japan can do somewhat more with remittances from Koreans in Japan. Second, North Korea knows that China and South Korea will not let it collapse, and will continue to provide food and energy aid. Third, the dangers of engagement are greater for the DPRK than the dangers of isolation, especially considering the RPK/PRC safety net reduces the effects of international efforts to isolate the country. This last point will be expounded on in a future post on ‘strategic disengagement,’ probably sooner than later.

Reactions from Six-Party Nations

U.S. and Japanese responses to a North Korean ICBM launch were made clear over the past week, so there should be no surprise if and when additional sanctions are enacted and aid is reduced. North Korea’s response is easy to imagine.

At this writing China has not released an official statement, but I expect them to say something to the effect that it was regretful that North Korea launched the missiles, and that that China supports a peaceful resolution through diplomatic means. Basically no repercussions for North Korea from China are expected.

South Korea has issued the standard “deeply regrets” statements. One test of how “deeply” the ROK government actually regrets North Korea’s launch will be if their plans to ease restrictions on economic remittances to North Korea is reversed. Perhaps unlikely, since the announce to ease restrictions was made during the build up to the launch.

Also no official statement fro Russia as of yet, but something similar to China’s expected response would not be surprising.

Other Analysis

Clinton-era National Security Advisor Sandy Berger on CNN noted that the U.S., Japan, and others likely will respond to the launch by imposing (and re-imposing eased) sanctions. A the same time he noted that the primary issue that needs attention is the Six-Party Talks and denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, but failed to see the rather glaring result; that sanctions would make further Six-Party Talks impossible if enacted.

Jim Walsh, an international security “expert” speaking on CNN, said that the launch is North Korea’s way of signaling that it wants to make a deal with the U.S. Whatever Mr. Walsh is an expert of, it does not include North Korea, which for years has declared variations of, “sanctions equal war.” If the DPRK truly wanted a deal it would only need to a) not launch the missiles, b) return to the Six-Party Talks, and c) reap the benefits. But any deal with the U.S. would require, as a minimum, complete and verifiable denuclearization, something North Korea is unwilling to do. As any agreements, or ‘deal’, with North Korea will include the element of complete verification, it is highly unlikely that the launch was meant to gain bigger and better prizes.

Gordon Chang, an actual North Korea expert, also on CNN, gave much more analytically sound commentary, saying the launch was an act of defiance against the U.S. in that not only did they launch, it was a multiple launch on America’s Independence Day. He also said that if China did not want the launch to occur, it would not have. Unlike other analysts I saw on CNN or Fox News today, Mr. Chang noted the other reason North Korea had for launching; simply testing the missile(s), although that was clearly a distant secondary reason.

Oops & More Analysis

At this point I have to say that I was wrong – I inaccurately predicted that North Korea would not launch for several good reasons (apparently Kim Jong-il does not read this blog). But this leads to tomorrows analysis of this event, which will focus on why the ICBM launch is a tactical failure and huge mistake for North Korea, the main points being that a) a launch was not needed to manufacture an excuse to continue avoiding talks, b) the failed launch was a national embarrassment, c) North Korea gleaned (probably) little useful data for missile R&D, and d) they gave U.S. intelligence data on all missiles launched.