North Korea’s firing on Saturday of seven medium-range ballistic missiles, no doubt to mark US Independence Day, has produced predictable international reactions, not least from South Korea and Japan. Both condemned the latest launches as “a provocative act.” The question, however that needs to be asked is “provoking what?”

North Korean policy must be analyzed on two levels. Strategically, its acquisition of nuclear weaponry and the building of missiles with which to deliver atomic warheads is a survival strategy. Pyongyang calculated that in order to preserve its political order in the face of economic failure and international isolation, it needed to make itself a nuclear power. The on-off-on again-off again six-party talks since 2003 with China, Russia, South Korea, Japan and the US were designed to persuade the Kim Jong Il regime to abandon its nuclear ambitions. In fact they were a smokescreen behind which the regime rushed to do the very things the negotiations were meant to prevent.

It does not matter that Pyongyang may not yet have the technology to mount an atomic warhead on a missile and target it with pinpoint accuracy. The reality that it is now a nuclear state means it has moved into a far stronger position in world affairs. This is also indicated by the regime’s secrecy and unpredictability. The stark fact is that if attacked, someone in the North Korean leadership would now very probably give the order to detonate a nuclear device one way or another. So far this strategy is defensive. It tells the world to leave North Korea alone. But for Pyongyang to win further much-needed international food aid and ensure the continued flow of oil and power from China, the strategy must inevitably become — at least in principle — offensive. South Korea and Japan are the obvious targets. In defense of these countries, the regime may be calculating that the United States will give in to many demands. North Korea will be thus too dangerous to attack and too dangerous to ignore.

Analyzing the tactical level at which North Korea is operating is far more difficult. Is there a power-struggle to replace the ailing Kim Jong Il, possibly with his youngest son, 26 year-old Kim Jong Un under the protection of the shadowy figure of Kim Jong Il's brother-in-law Chang Song Taek? It has been suggested that the latest launches were designed as much with a domestic as an international audience in mind. Since ordinary North Koreans have absolutely no political say, this latest demonstration can only have been designed to effect some powerful members in this largely faceless regime.

But China’s attitude is hardening. It backs tougher UN sanctions, including the inspection of North Korean vessels which Pyongyang has said it would consider an act of war. What will happen if it is a Chinese warship that first halts and inspects one of Pyongyang’s ships? Beijing must now be wondering how long it will be before the regime that it has consistently protected will feel strong enough in its quest to dare to defy its last international friend.

US-Colombia ties

The Los Angeles Times in its editorial on Friday commented on the thaw in US-Colombia relations. Excerpts:

US President Barack Obama, who withheld his support for a free-trade agreement with Colombia when he was a senator, recently sounded a more positive note on the issue. At a joint news conference this week with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, Obama commended him for the progress his country has made in addressing human rights violations. In particular, he remarked on the more hospitable environment in Colombia today for labor organizers — one of the sticking points for Obama and other Democrats in Congress. “We’ve seen improvements when it comes to prosecution of those carrying out these blatant human rights offenses,” Obama said. Furthermore, he added, he has instructed US Trade Rep. Ron Kirk to work with his Colombian counterparts to bring the free-trade agreement to fruition. All of which suggested that Colombia has turned a corner since Obama’s election, and that the United States may now be more favorably inclined to free trade with this Andean nation. Obama is right to see progress, but wrong to assume that it began only recently. The improvements he cited this week were under way long before he became president; indeed, Colombia was moving in the right direction even when Sen. Obama opposed the trade pact that now, as president, strikes him as more appealing.

The concern over the hazards faced by labor organizers is legitimate. Colombia is the world's most dangerous country for union leaders, who risk their lives to seek working conditions that North Americans have long taken for granted. And until Colombia demonstrated a willingness to equalize the status of employers and employees, it was difficult to accept that free trade would benefit its people generally. Thankfully, Uribe too acknowledged those difficulties and began addressing them more than a year ago. Today, the government provides personal protection for labor leaders and has appointed a special prosecutor whose task is to improve the country's dismal record of prosecuting those who attack them.

Colombia is not done yet. The lure of the trade agreement has yielded positive results, which Democrats should acknowledge not by continuing to dwell on Colombia's grim history but rather by approving a pact that is in the interest of both nations.