“There’s going to be a global shaming campaign.” -- Professor Andrei Lankov of Kookmin University in Seoul, South Korea, on an international plan to rein in North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, Sept. 11, 2016, the Washington Post.

Earlier this month, North Korea celebrated the 68th anniversary of its regime with an underground nuclear blast, its fifth since 2006. A few days before that, the North launched a round of medium-range ballistic missile tests toward Japan.

The responses have been predictably feeble, including:

A theatrical sputtering of outrage from President Barack Obama and world leaders.

Threats of more international sanctions via the United Nations.

Dark mutterings about cranking up the heat on China to pressure North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. (China resists doing that for reasons we discuss below.)

And, potentially, a new strategy: A “global shaming” campaign, which would rein in North Korea’s practice of sending workers overseas to earn cash for the Kim regime. Those workers funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to help keep Kim supplied with fine whiskey and cognac, Kobe beef, French designer cigarettes and Iranian caviar.

The US and South Korea are reportedly urging host countries such as China to stop letting in North Korean guest workers as part of the “shaming” campaign.

That’s worth a try. But we’re dubious that Kim and his kleptocracy can be shamed. Remember, this is a regime that let millions of its people starve to death rather than pull the plug on its nuclear program.

Kim won’t capitulate to reasoned appeals or halfhearted sanctions. The only chance to halt North Korea’s nuclear progress is to dial up the costs for Kim if he continues the country’s nuclear program. The only thing that matters to Kim? His grip on power.

The key player in this is China. China is North Korea’s biggest trading partner and major lifeline, propping up the Kim regime with food and oil deliveries. But China won’t seriously crimp its border trade with North Korea for three reasons.

First, it doesn’t want to destabilize its ally, potentially sending tens of thousands of North Korean refugees into China.

Second, if the Pyongyang regime collapses, China risks facing a newly united Korea. Why would Beijing exchange an ally, even a goofy ally, for an emboldened rival?

The third reason is a paraphrase of Mad Magazine’s Alfred E. Neuman famous dictum: What, us worry? China knows that North Korean missiles won’t be pointed at Beijing or Shanghai. They’ll be aimed at Tokyo, Paris, Washington and Berlin.

Washington has a few new levers besides the “shaming” campaign to twist up the pressure on the Chinese.

Earlier this year, US Congress gave Obama the power to sanction companies that “materially contribute” to North Korea. That includes a broad range of products, including luxury items that Kim Jong-un favors. Many of those suppliers are Chinese companies. Sanctions wouldn’t shut off all trade with North Korea, but slapping Chinese companies could get Beijing’s attention.

Another possible bargaining chip to gain Chinese buy-in: The U.S. plans to deploy a missile-defense system in South Korea. It is designed to protect Seoul from North Korean missiles, but the Chinese fear that it could also track Chinese missiles and dilute China’s nuclear deterrent. The Chinese strongly oppose the Seoul missile shield.

Three presidents and two decades of diplomacy haven’t persuaded North Korea to reverse course. Kim Jong-un is carrying on his family’s tradition: Take care of No. 1 first, last and always.

North Koreans are fed 1950s propaganda and warned about enemies who allegedly seek to conquer the rogue nation. If too many North Koreans caught a glimpse of truth -- if they had unfettered internet access, for instance -- Kim’s regime would crumble.

Instead, the threat from North Korea grows. The next nuclear test, the next missile test, is days or months away. The most powerful nations on Earth shrug as if there’s nothing much that can be done to rein in the Boy King.

That conclusion is wrong.

(Tribune Content Agency/Chicago Tribune)
Editorial