What’s different this time in Korean standoff

  • By FOSTER KLUG
  • Monday, August 31, 2015 10:50pm
  • Opinion

SEOUL, South Korea — For years, North Korea’s litany of threats has been largely dismissed. Seoul, after all, is still not drowning in a “sea of fire,” despite Pyongyang’s repeated promises to make it so.

Even though the Koreas held high-level talks Saturday following the North’s deadline for the South to remove propaganda loudspeakers or face war, the standoff has raised concerns that Pyongyang could finally mean what it says. So what has been different this time?

Partly, it’s North Korea’s apparent willingness to back up an earlier vow to attack the anti-Pyongyang loudspeakers and also on the specificity of its Saturday deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT
0 seconds of 0 secondsVolume 0%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
00:00
00:00
00:00
 

There was surprise when South Korea’s military reported Thursday that North Korea had fired across the border, and was then met by dozens of shells from the South. If the North attacked once, some argue, it may be more likely to back up its newest threat, especially if a very specific deadline was ignored, as Seoul had indicated it would do. The new sense of worry also comes from uncertainty about the young, third generation leader now at the helm in the North, Kim Jong Un.

Earlier North Korean leaders — the country’s founder, Kim Il Sung, and his son Kim Jong Il — were masters of brinksmanship, men who knew how to play a dangerous game where threats and provocations were pushed to a straining point, but not to breaking, to extract concessions and aid. Kim Jong Un, however, is seen as lacking the same savvy, experience and, after a series of bloody, high-level government and military purges, the necessary good counsel.

With tens of thousands of troops and military hardware facing off along a border within easy striking range of Seoul’s 10 million residents, a nagging uncertainty about what Kim will do makes it harder to ignore threats of war, even if past declarations have often been bombast.

There has been bloodshed in skirmishes in recent decades, but the fighting has not escalated. The risk of things getting out of hand seems greater now because South Korea, in the wake of a humiliating exchange in 2010, when a surprise North Korean artillery attack killed four, has instructed its military to hit back much harder if attacked.

Even so, and granting the important caveat that predicting North Korea’s behavior in advance is largely a fool’s errand, there are still some important signs that tensions will ease. For the most part, North Korea’s authoritarian leadership, while considered unpredictable by outsiders, is overwhelmingly consistent on one major point: The Kim family’s rule must be protected.

While proud and incredibly sensitive to perceived slights from the outside, and therefore furious over the criticism being piped across the border on the South Korean loudspeakers, Pyongyang is reluctant to do anything to jeopardize the all-powerful position the Kims have enjoyed since founding the country in 1948.

Insults must be answered, of course, in over-the-top state media propaganda and declarations from troops and citizens showcasing a willingness to crush the enemy. But this is largely for the benefit of a domestic audience that cannot be allowed to see Kim Jong Un in anything but a heroic light.

Pushing things to a full military conflict would be suicide. The United States stations tens of thousands of troops in South Korea, and both Seoul and Washington far outclass Pyongyang in their weapons’ technology and effectiveness. North Korea could do serious damage to Seoul — even rusty artillery, when plentiful and close-by, can be deadly — but a war would eventually destroy the Kim family.

North Korea has constructed face-saving scenarios and turned back from the brink before, and both sides seem to have pulled their punches in the initial conflict, reportedly sending their shells into remote areas. De-escalation may also be more likely because this standoff comes as 80,000 troops from the United States and South Korea participate in annual summer war games. While North Korea hates the drills and calls them preparation for a northward attack, now is a particularly bad time to start a war.

More in Opinion

Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R-Alaska) speaks to reporters about his decision to veto an education funding bill at the Alaska State Capitol on Thursday, April 17, 2025. (Jasz Garrett / Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: The fight for Alaska’s future begins in the classroom

The fight I’ve been leading isn’t about politics — it’s about priorities.

Dick Maitland, a foley artist, works on the 46th season of “Sesame Street” at Kaufman Astoria Studios in New York, Dec. 15, 2025. (Ariana McLaughlin/The New York Times)
Opinion: Trump’s embarrassing immaturity Republicans won’t acknowledge

Sullivan should be embarrassed by the ignorance and immaturity the president is putting on display for the world to see.

Rep. Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna, speaks in support of debating an omnibus education bill in the Alaska House Chambers on Monday, Feb. 19, 2024 in Juneau, Alaska. (Ashlyn O’Hara/Peninsula Clarion)
Capitol Corner: Choosing our priorities wisely

Rep. Justin Ruffridge reports back from Juneau.

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman, R-Nikiski, speaks in support overriding Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s veto of House Bill 69 at the Alaska Capitol in Juneau, Alaska, on Tuesday, April 22, 2025. (Mark Sabbatini/Juneau Empire)
Capitol Corner: As session nears end, pace picks up in Juneau

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman reports back from Juneau.

Alaska Department of Education and Early Development Commissioner Deena Bishop and Gov. Mike Dunleavy discuss his veto of an education bill during a press conference March 15, 2024, at the Alaska State Capitol. (Mark Sabbatini/Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: Strong policy, proven results

Why policy and funding go hand in hand.

Former Gov. Frank Murkowski speaks on a range of subjects during an interview with the Juneau Empire in May 2019. (Michael Penn / Juneau Empire File)
Opinion: The Jones Act — crass protectionism, but for whom?

Alaska is dependent on the few U.S.-built ships carrying supplies from Washington state to Alaska.

Cook Inlet can be seen at low tide from North Kenai Beach on June 15, 2022, in Kenai, Alaska. (Photo by Erin Thompson/Peninsula Clarion)
Opinion: Solving the Cook Inlet gas crisis

While importing LNG is necessary in the short term, the Kenai Peninsula is in dire need of a stable long-term solution.

Sockeye salmon caught in a set gillnet are dragged up onto the beach at a test site for selective harvest setnet gear in Kenai, Alaska, on Tuesday, July 25, 2023. (Jake Dye/Peninsula Clarion)
Capitol Corner: Creating opportunities with better fishery management

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman reports back from Juneau.

The ranked choice outcome for Alaska’s U.S. Senate race is shown during an Alaska Public Media broadcast on Nov. 24, 2022. (Alaska Division of Elections)
Opinion: Alaska should keep ranked choice voting, but let’s make it easier

RCV has given Alaskans a better way to express their preferences.

The Alaska State Capitol on March 1. (Ashlyn O’Hara/Peninsula Clarion)
Opinion: Keep Alaska open for business

Our job as lawmakers is to ensure that laws passed at the ballot box work effectively on the ground.

Image provided by the Office of Mayor Peter Micciche.
Opinion: Taxes, adequate education funding and putting something back into your pocket

Kenai Peninsula Borough taxpayers simply can’t make a dent in the education funding deficit by themselves, nor should they be asked to do so.

Brooke Walters. (Courtesy photo)
Opinion: A student’s letter to the governor

Our education funding is falling short by exuberant amounts.