Winter Olympics 2018: How South Korea learned the hard way not to mess with North Korea

Could the upcoming Winter Olympics stand as a turning point, or will it be more of the same?

The icy relationship between North Korea and South Korea seems to be thawing thanks to this year's Winter Olympics. This year's Winter Games will take place in mountainous region of PyeongChang, South Korea (not to be confused with North Korea's capital Pyongyang).


Athletes belonging to the olympic teams of North Korea and South Korea will enter the Olympic stadium for the opening ceremony under one flag, and the two nations will field one unified female ice hockey team. But why is the South Korean government, headquartered in Seoul, so keen to get Pyongyang and North Korea to participate?

The answer requires some context.

Fire before Ice:

How the 1988 Summer Games Caused Chaos

In 1981, South Korea was selected to host the 1988 summer Olympics by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). It was looked upon as the nation's coming out party. Though still under a dictatorship at the time (but not for much longer), South Korea was able to project its impressive economic development since the end of the Korean War.

Nicknamed the “Miracle on the Han River,” South Korea went from an extremely poor country to an economic powerhouse in just a few decades. The government made reforms, to be sure, but it was pressure from the people of South Korea in the 1980s and 1990s that midwifed true democracy in a place once mockingly referred to as a “rice republic.”

North Korea regards its southern neighbor as a puppet regime of the West, particularly the United States, who it believes is plotting its eventual overthrow. The Kim regime, currently led by Kim Jong-un, considers itself the only true Korea, uncorrupted by foreign influence (although it depends on China for its economic livelihood). But after the IOC awarded the Summer Olympics to South Korea in 1981 (for the 1988 Games), North Korea petitioned to co-host the Summer Olympics with South Korea.

Memorial for the Rangoon bombing that took place in Burma (now Myanmar) in 1983. Credit: Getty Images.

South Korea rejected the co-hosting idea but decided to allow the DPRK (North Korea’s officialname) to host five sporting events as a concession. Pyongyang (the North Korean capital) found this insulting and ended up boycotting the Summer Games completely. But that’s not all. Two tragedies occurred between when South Korea was awarded the Games in 1981 and the opening ceremony in 1988.

The first tragedy wiped out the entire South Korean cabinet in Rangoon in 1983. Here, North Korean spies planted a bomb that killed 17 South Korean officials while they were visiting what is now Myanmar’s capital. The second incident was the bombing of Korean Air flight 858. In this case, North Korean agents planted a bomb on a Korean Air Boeing 707, which killed all the passengers and crew: 115 people, mostly South Koreans.

(The New York Times recently covered these events in a podcast episode of The Daily. It's a good listen and you check it out here.)

A Squeaky Wheel Gets Its Oil:

How North Korea's Bad Behavior Wins Concessions

These incidents can also be looked at in terms of the transfer of power. North Korea is the world’s only Communist dictatorship that has successfully passed power down power from father to son over two consecutive generations. These attacks may have helped build Kim Jong-il’s legitimacy as a military commander, fighting off the foreign imperialist threat, just as the sinking of the Cheonan battleship in 2010, and the further development of North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs have helped build the military chops of the hermit kingdom’s most recent heir, Kim Jong-un.

North Korea historically employs a strategy called brinkmanship. It goes through cycles of belligerence followed by a calming of tensions, only to turn belligerent once again. During two periods in recent history—1993 to 1998 and 1999 to 2005—the United States negotiated a deal with North Korea to get it to halt its nuclear program. But after both attempts, North Korea pulled out of deal, kept the aid money, fuel, and other goodies, and restarted its weapons program anyway. On the surface, these latest overtures look like just another calming phase.

2017 saw some of the tensest months in the conflict between North Korea and the West, mostly because North Korea’s missile and nuclear tests began to bear fruit, but also due to intensifying rhetoric between Pyongyang and Washington DC. Now North Korea is once again extending an olive branch to South Korea. On January 8, the two sides met at Panmunjom, as known as the “truce village,” which is a hall on the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)—the most heavily fortified border in the world. It was the first such meeting since 2015.

Meeting of the two Korea's for the first time in two years. Panmunjom, the DMZ. Credit: Getty Images.

As a result of the meeting at Panmunjom, the United States and its South Korean partners in Seoul have pledged not to hold military drills during this year's Winter Olympics (which the Americans and South Koreans call defensive while North Korea sees them as practice for an invasion of its territory).

After a follow-up meeting on Jan 17, 2018, the two Koreas announced that they will cooperate in several ways during the Olympic games, which the IOC has approved: marching together under a unification flag during the opening ceremony, combining their women’s hockey teams and perhaps others, and North Korea is to send a 230 member cheering squad to root for both countries. 

Such a sudden change of heart among western leaders—from ostracizing North Korea to making concessions over symbols of reunification—may seem like bizarre behavior, but negotiators say North Korea has perfected brinksmanship, and seems to now be pivoting toward the conciliatory phase. Perhaps bellicose rhetoric exchanged with President Trump caused it to seek a more amiable tone. In December, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the United States was ready to talk to North Korea without preconditions. He still holds that position today.

Too Much of a Bully Pulpit? 

Direct Diplomacy between North and South

Both the Obama and George W. Bush administrations demanded that Pyongyang give up its nuclear ambitions before coming to the table. Even so, inflammatory remarks by President Trump during a cooling period may have sent Kim into the arms of his southern neighbor. A good cop, bad cop scenario? That remains to be seen.

What’s different is, Pyongyang is actually dealing directly with Seoul. Before, it has demanded to deal directly with the United States. North Korea's Kim regime is loath to give up its nuclear weapons program after seeing what happened to Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, each of whom dismantled their programs after receiving heavy pressured from the West. It is therefore likely that Kim will get an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) strong enough to carry a nuclear warhead and use it as leverage to secure a handsome deal.

If the North and South Korea could work out a lasting peace among themselves, that might lead to the best outcome. Experts say a soft landing on North Korea, rather than a bloody conflict, assassination, or coup, is probably the best approach. Besides nuclear weapons, North Korea has thousands of long-range artillery pointed directly at Seoul, along with other horrific plans should its final hours be at hand. A conflagration would cause devastation and a horrific loss of life, the likes of which the world hasn’t seen since perhaps World War II.

Despite strong rhetoric to the country, there is little leverage outside of pressuring China to try and stop North Korea from developing it’s nuclear and missile programs. Credit: Getty Images.

But that’s an end game for the Kim regime. A starving army, old equipment, and a lack of resources means it can only see temporary gains through asymmetrical warfare. There’s no way the Kim regime could hold onto power should it come to an escalating conflict. And say the country were to fall suddenly, what then? Well, millions of starving North Korean refugees might flood the Chinese and South Korean borders.

Besides that chaos, South Koreans would have to foot a significant part of the bill to rebuild North Korean infrastructure, a price tag estimated at $1 trillion dollars, according to S. H. Jang, former president of the Royal Asiatic Society-Korean Branch. Such a public investment would surely sow a lot of resentment among the population of South Korea.

Meanwhile, North Koreans would likely be forced to work in factories for low wages, once corporations flood in to take advantage of the cheap labor. North Korean citizens militarized and filled with propaganda could easily organize themselves and start a bloody uprising to overthrow what they’d see as imperialist invaders. Since many of those factories would likely be from South Korea, it could even spark a civil war. So, whether Pyongyang’s current intentions are authentic or merely posturing, Washington and Seoul will have to play along, play nice, and see where this new thaw in relations is leading, if anywhere at all.

For its part, the Winter Olympic Games in PyeongChang, South Korea, will include six new sporting events: men's and women's big air snowboarding, men's and women's speed skating mass start, curling mixed doubles and the Alpine team event where skiing teams pool their talent. And more competitions means more gold medals—102 in total—the most ever contested at an Olympic Winter Games to date.

--

Related Articles

Major study: Drug overdoses over a 38-year period reveal hidden trends

It's just the current cycle that involves opiates, but methamphetamine, cocaine, and others have caused the trajectory of overdoses to head the same direction

From the study: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/eaau1184
popular
  • It appears that overdoses are increasing exponentially, no matter the drug itself
  • If the study bears out, it means that even reducing opiates will not slow the trajectory.
  • The causes of these trends remain obscure, but near the end of the write-up about the study, a hint might be apparent
Keep reading Show less

How a huge, underwater wall could save melting Antarctic glaciers

Scientists think constructing a miles-long wall along an ice shelf in Antarctica could help protect the world's largest glacier from melting.

Image: NASA
Surprising Science
  • Rising ocean levels are a serious threat to coastal regions around the globe.
  • Scientists have proposed large-scale geoengineering projects that would prevent ice shelves from melting.
  • The most successful solution proposed would be a miles-long, incredibly tall underwater wall at the edge of the ice shelves.

The world's oceans will rise significantly over the next century if the massive ice shelves connected to Antarctica begin to fail as a result of global warming.

To prevent or hold off such a catastrophe, a team of scientists recently proposed a radical plan: build underwater walls that would either support the ice or protect it from warm waters.

In a paper published in The Cryosphere, Michael Wolovick and John Moore from Princeton and the Beijing Normal University, respectively, outlined several "targeted geoengineering" solutions that could help prevent the melting of western Antarctica's Florida-sized Thwaites Glacier, whose melting waters are projected to be the largest source of sea-level rise in the foreseeable future.

An "unthinkable" engineering project

"If [glacial geoengineering] works there then we would expect it to work on less challenging glaciers as well," the authors wrote in the study.

One approach involves using sand or gravel to build artificial mounds on the seafloor that would help support the glacier and hopefully allow it to regrow. In another strategy, an underwater wall would be built to prevent warm waters from eating away at the glacier's base.

The most effective design, according to the team's computer simulations, would be a miles-long and very tall wall, or "artificial sill," that serves as a "continuous barrier" across the length of the glacier, providing it both physical support and protection from warm waters. Although the study authors suggested this option is currently beyond any engineering feat humans have attempted, it was shown to be the most effective solution in preventing the glacier from collapsing.

Source: Wolovick et al.

An example of the proposed geoengineering project. By blocking off the warm water that would otherwise eat away at the glacier's base, further sea level rise might be preventable.

But other, more feasible options could also be effective. For example, building a smaller wall that blocks about 50% of warm water from reaching the glacier would have about a 70% chance of preventing a runaway collapse, while constructing a series of isolated, 1,000-foot-tall columns on the seafloor as supports had about a 30% chance of success.

Still, the authors note that the frigid waters of the Antarctica present unprecedently challenging conditions for such an ambitious geoengineering project. They were also sure to caution that their encouraging results shouldn't be seen as reasons to neglect other measures that would cut global emissions or otherwise combat climate change.

"There are dishonest elements of society that will try to use our research to argue against the necessity of emissions' reductions. Our research does not in any way support that interpretation," they wrote.

"The more carbon we emit, the less likely it becomes that the ice sheets will survive in the long term at anything close to their present volume."

A 2015 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine illustrates the potentially devastating effects of ice-shelf melting in western Antarctica.

"As the oceans and atmosphere warm, melting of ice shelves in key areas around the edges of the Antarctic ice sheet could trigger a runaway collapse process known as Marine Ice Sheet Instability. If this were to occur, the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) could potentially contribute 2 to 4 meters (6.5 to 13 feet) of global sea level rise within just a few centuries."

Why the worst part about climate change isn't rising temperatures

The world's getting hotter, and it's getting more volatile. We need to start thinking about how climate change encourages conflict.

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Climate change is usually discussed in terms of how it impacts the weather, but this fails to emphasize how climate change is a "threat multiplier."
  • As a threat multiplier, climate change makes already dangerous social and political situations even worse.
  • Not only do we have to work to minimize the impact of climate change on our environment, but we also have to deal with how it affects human issues today.

Human beings are great at responding to imminent and visible threats. Climate change, while dire, is almost entirely the opposite: it's slow, it's pervasive, it's vague, and it's invisible. Researchers and policymakers have been trying to package climate change in a way that conveys its severity. Usually, they do so by talking about its immediate effects: rising temperature, rising sea levels, and increasingly dangerous weather.

These things are bad, make no mistake about it. But the thing that makes climate change truly dire isn't that Cape Cod will be underwater next century, that polar bears will go extinct, or that we'll have to invent new categories for future hurricanes. It's the thousands of ancillary effects — the indirect pressure that climate change puts on every person on the planet.

How a drought in the Middle East contributed to extremism in Europe

(DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP/Getty Images)

Nigel Farage in front of a billboard that leverages the immigration crisis to support Brexit.

Because climate change is too big for the mind to grasp, we'll have to use a case study to talk about this. The Syrian civil war is a horrific tangle of senseless violence, but there are some primary causes we can point to. There is the longstanding conflicts between different religious sects in that country. Additionally, the Arab Spring swept Syria up in a wave of resistance against authoritarian leaders in the Middle East — unfortunately, Syrian protests were brutally squashed by Bashar Al-Assad. These, and many other factors, contributed to the start of the Syrian civil war.

One of these other factors was drought. In fact, the drought in that region — it started in 2006 — has been described as the "worst long-term drought and most severe set of crop failures since agricultural civilization began in the Fertile Crescent many millennia ago." Because of this drought, many rural Syrians could no longer support themselves. Between 2006 and 2009, an estimated 1.5 million Syrians — many of them agricultural workers and farmers — moved into the country's major cities. With this sudden mixing of different social groups in a country where classes and religious sects were already at odds with one another, tensions rose, and the increased economic instability encouraged chaos. Again, the drought didn't cause the civil war — but it sure as hell helped it along.

The ensuing flood of refugees to Europe is already a well-known story. The immigration crisis was used as a talking point in the Brexit movement to encourage Britain to leave the EU. Authoritarian or extreme-right governments and political parties have sprung up in France, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Slovenia, and other European countries, all of which have capitalized on fears of the immigration crisis.

Why climate change is a "threat multiplier"

This is why both NATO and the Pentagon have labeled climate change as a "threat multiplier." On its own, climate change doesn't cause these issues — rather, it exacerbates underlying problems in societies around the world. Think of having a heated discussion inside a slowly heating-up car.

Climate change is often discussed in terms of its domino effect: for example, higher temperatures around the world melt the icecaps, releasing methane stored in the polar ice that contributes to the rise in temperature, which both reduces available land for agriculture due to drought and makes parts of the ocean uninhabitable for different animal species, wreaking havoc on the food chain, and ultimately making food more scarce.

Maybe we should start to consider climate change's domino effect in more human and political terms. That is, in terms of the dominoes of sociopolitical events spurred on by climate change and the missing resources it gobbles up.

What the future may hold

(NASA via Getty Images)

Increasingly severe weather events will make it more difficult for nations to avoid conflict.

Part of why this is difficult to see is because climate change does not affect all countries proportionally — at least, not in a direct sense. Germanwatch, a German NGO, releases a climate change index every year to analyze exactly how badly different countries have been affected by climate change. The top five most at-risk countries are Haiti, Zimbabwe, Fiji, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. Notice that many of these places are islands, which are at the greatest risk for major storms and rising sea levels. Some island nations are even expected to literally disappear — the leaders of these nations are actively making plans to move their citizens to other countries.

But Germanwatch's climate change index is based on weather events. It does not account for the political and social instability that will likely result. The U.S. and many parts of Europe are relatively low on the index, but that is precisely why these countries will most likely need to deal with the human cost of climate change. Refugees won't go from the frying pan into the fire: they'll go to the closest, safest place available.

Many people's instinctive response to floods of immigrants is to simply make borders more restrictive. This makes sense — a nation's first duty is to its own citizens, after all. Unfortunately, people who support stronger immigration policies tend to have right-wing authoritarian tendencies. This isn't always the case, of course, but anecdotally, we can look at the governments in Europe that have stricter immigration policies. Hungary, for example, has extremely strict policies against Muslim immigrants. It's also rapidly turning into a dictatorship. The country has cracked down on media organizations and NGOs, eroded its judicial system's independence, illegalized homelessness, and banned gender studies courses.

Climate change and its sociopolitical effects, such as refugee migration, aren't some poorer country's problem. It's everyone's problem. Whether it's our food, our homes, or our rights, climate change will exact a toll on every nation on Earth. Stopping climate change, or at least reducing its impact, is vitally important. Equally important is contending with the multifaceted threats its going to throw our way.