North Korea has ratcheted up tensions on the Korean peninsula another notch, this time barring South Korean workers from accessing an industrial complex shared between the two countries.

Beginning on Wednesday, North Korea announced, the Kaesong industrial complex would no longer be allowing in workers from the South, nor shipments of goods, effectively shutting down the one remaining open entry point between the two countries. Seoul has indicated that its 850 citizens working at the complex’s factories at the time of the announcement will be allowed return, but few have done so yet:

The BBC’s Lucy Williamson, at the border, says many have decided not to return immediately because they fear they will not be allowed back in.

One South Korean worker who returned from the complex said some of his colleagues had been held up because they had no transport.

“Other people couldn’t return because they were supposed to be taken home on trucks scheduled to carry supplies into North Korea, but the trucks couldn’t get into the North,” said the worker.

South Korea has demanded that the access point be reopened immediately, and warned of retaliation in the event that South Koreans are harmed. More than 100 South Korean industries have production facilities at the Kaesong complex, which combined pay over $90 million in North Korean salaries every year.

Opened in 2004 as a gesture of goodwill between the states, the Kaesong complex is one of the few legal methods remaining for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — as the reclusive communist regime is formally known — to acquire hard currency. This isn’t the first time the complex has been closed; it was briefly shutdown in 2009, as a protest over joint United States-South Korea military exercise, but there’s no indication as to how long this closure may last. Meanwhile, the Demilitarized Zone — the 2.5 mile wide stretch of land between the two countries — is still being patrolled so far, ruling out any immediate threat of renewed fighting between the two countries.

The move from North Korea is the latest in a long string of moves that has observers of the situation on edge. While no new military movements have been detected on the part of North Korea, its rhetoric has made predicting the North’s next action difficult. On Tuesday, North Korea announced that it intended to restart its shuttered nuclear facilities, which are capable of producing plutonium and enriched uranium.

General U.S. James Thurman — commander of the U.S. forces in Korea and head of the United Nations Command there — spoke with ABC News about the continuing escalations on Tuesday in a rare interview. Asked whether he felt that North Korea’s rhetoric was just empty threats, Gen. Thurman replied, “No, I don’t think that they are. We’ve got to take every threat seriously.” In response to provocations from the North, the U.S. has positioned two warships capable of downing ballistic missiles off the Korean coast.

(Photo: Trucks re-enter South Korea from the North. Credit: European Pressphoto Agency)

With all the saber-rattling from North Korea and the at times equally loud responses from the South and the United States, there’s a conspicuous voice missing in the din — Japan.

Since North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un turned up the heat, going as far as declaring that a “state of war” exists on the Korean peninsula once more, the U.S. and South Korea have responded in kind. South Korean President Park Geun-hye on Monday gave the military the leeway to respond directly to any attack without “any political consideration.” The United States, for its part, flew B-2 stealth bombers over South Korea in a show of force meant to the show North Korea that it could strike without warning and has F-22 stealth fighters on stand-by to participate in a training exercise with South Korea.

China has expressed its displeasure with North Korea in the months since its third nuclear test, even as Beijing continues to back its fellow communist state. Even Russia has taken the opportunity to voice its opinion of the heated words coming from Pyongyang, Seoul, and Washington. So of the members of the Six-Party Talks, why is Japan the only one staying quiet about the DPRK’s bellicose rhetoric?

Given the proximity of Japan to the Koreas, and the DPRK’s history of threats against the Japanese people and U.S. bases in Japan, it’s surprising that Japan has yet to speak out during the last several weeks, particularly considering Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s reputation for hawkish behavior towards North Korea and in general.

Part of Abe’s campaign platform was editing Japan’s post-World War II constitution to allow a broader definition of “self-defense” than is currently allowed. Abe has most definitely acted on those policies once taking office, including launching a series of military exercises designed to simulate a Chinese invasion of Japan, though it never directly referenced China. Military spending is up, as well, but what’s still missing has been an active role for Japan during the crisis on the Korean peninsula.

So what’s the reason behind Abe’s seemingly counter-intuitive lack of public statements in recent weeks? Dr. Sheila Smith, Senior Fellow for Japan Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, spoke with ThinkProgress on the matter, saying that the silence from Tokyo is the wise choice. In Smith’s view, the Abe government understands that the focus of Pyongyang’s rhetoric is on South Korea, with its statements designed for consumption in Washington and Seoul. Smith also believes that Tokyo is reassured by the United States’ security pledges and doesn’t see an advantage in inserting itself into the current crisis.

Smith may be right, given the lack of direct threats toward Tokyo from Pyongyang lately. Also playing into Japan’s decision may be that it does not view Pyongyang as likely to take action. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told journalists at the daily briefing that there are no signs of troop movement from North Korea to match its rhetoric. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), Ranking Member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Monday also said that he believes that “nothing is going to happen.” Despite that, military preparations from the U.S. are ongoing. On Monday, the Pentagon announced that the U.S.S. John S. McCain, an anti-missile destroyer, was being moved to the coast of Korea, with the the U.S.S. Decatur following on Tuesday.

Tensions on the Korean peninsula are nothing new — historically, North Korea frequently rattles its saber for one reason for another. But the recent escalation in tensions between the North and South have experts worried that this time might be different, that the threat of the United States being drawn into a devastating war with the nuclear-armed North is real in a way that it might not normally be. At the very least, it’s worth paying special attention this time around.

The escalation of tensions began in mid-February, when North Korea conducted its third-ever nuclear test. While the North’s ability to strike the United States is limited at best, the Obama administration interpreted the test as a violation of international law, and pushed through stricter, though still porous, sanctions on North Korean elites.

North Korea responded in turn by threatening to nullify the armistice that ended the original Korean War, reverting the North and South to a legal state of war. Two days ago, it shut off the last remaining line of communication between the two Korean militaries, warning that “Not words but only arms will work on the U.S. and the South Korean puppet forces.”

Thursday night, the United States responded in kind, conducting a bombing drill with two B-2 bombers over South Korea. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel described the thinking behind the move: “The North Koreans have to understand that what they’re doing is very dangerous.”

North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un got the message Friday morning. He ordered his country’s missile arsenal be readied to strike South Korea and the United States if necessary. While North Korean Unha-3 missiles could theoretically reach the West Coast, it’s not clear the missiles actually work. Moreover, North Korea lacks the technology to arm the missiles with nuclear warheads and to deliver them accurately even if they can get them in proper working order. (One expert has noted that “there is little to no chance that [North Korea] could successfully land a missile on Guam, Hawaii or anywhere else outside the Korean Peninsula that U.S. forces may be stationed.”)

So how is this different from the last 60-odd years of North Korean provocations? Many think it isn’t. Writing in the National Interest, Rajon Menon says the current Northern provocations are an example of the Hermit Kingdom’s “measured madness,” an attempt to wring more concessions out of an overcompensating international community.

But North Korea experts Victor Cha and David Kang disagree. They argue that Kim Jong Un’s inexperience (he’s only been running the country since December 2011), together with the South’s new President and more aggressive military stance, means there’s a greater risk (not certainty by any stretch, but risk) of escalation this time around:

So why worry? Two reasons. First, North Korea has a penchant for testing new South Korean presidents. A new one was just inaugurated in February, and since 1992, the North has welcomed these five new leaders by disturbing the peace. Whether in the form of missile launches, submarine incursions, or naval clashes, these North Korean provocations were met by each newly elected South Korean president with patience rather than pique. The difference today is that South Korea is no longer turning the other cheek…for half a century, neither side believed that the benefits of starting a major war outweighed the costs. The worry is that the new North Korean leader might not hold to the same logic, given his youth and inexperience.

Read more

Model international actors Iran and North Korea came together to block the adoption of a treaty regulating the $70 billion dollar arms trade at the United Nations on Thursday, no doubt endearing them to the National Rifle Association.

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) has been in negotiations for the past two weeks, the second attempt to gain a unanimously agreed upon text. The final draft was put before the delegates on Wednesday, with the assumption that it was set to cruise to an easy approval. That assumption was trampled once the Iranian delegation rose to break the required consensus for the treaty’s passage. Iran’s disapproval opened the door for North Korea to join in blocking the treaty. Syria also took umbrage at the text, leading to it and Iran reportedly both objecting to the lack of reference in the treaty’s final draft to foreign occupation or “crimes of aggression.” The President of the Conference quickly suspended the debate before a final vote could be held, leaving the door open to bringing the Iranian and North Korean delegations around, but the chances remain slim.

While not perfect, the treaty had still managed to appease the concerns of many advocates for stronger treaty-language. In particular, a hard fought clause regulating the import and export of ammunition and munitions made its way into the final text. Given the United States’ past hesitance in moving forward on the treaty — including its insistence that the ATT Conference work through consensus — and its current support, the late hour block from Iran and North Korea comes off as slightly ironic. The irony is even more pronounced when one considers that the Iranian delegate, in explaining his objection to the treaty, denounced the U.S.’ influence in shaping the treaty. “The right of individuals to own and use guns has been protected in the current text to meet the constitutional requirements of only one State,” Iranian ambassador Mohammad Khazeee said.

The treaty will now likely move to the General Assembly, however, where it will find the two-thirds necessary to finally pass next week. Given the crazy rhetoric present the last time it almost passed, the eventual passage of the ATT will be sure to provoke even more inflammatory opposition now. In opposing this version of the treaty, the National Rifle Association was much quieter about its lobbying effort, including a push for provisions exempting so-called “civilian firearms” from the treaty’s effects. There is no sign of that influence in the final draft of the ATT. However, the NRA still seems set to come out with a win on this one. Either the treaty is delayed, allowing more time to take it down for good, or it passes with the individual protections it supports hard-coded into the final document.

Their domestic influence will be marshaled once more though once the treaty is signed. At that point, the ATT will go to the U.S. Senate for ratification, where several Republicans have already made abundantly clear their skepticism regarding the very idea of regulating the arms trade. For years now, conservatives have used the supposed threat that an Arms Trade Treaty would entail as a fundraising tool or way to burnish their right-wing credentials. The Heritage Foundation has been slamming each successive draft of the ATT, and will now likely begin a campaign alongside the NRA to doom it in the Senate.

Former NBA star Dennis Rodman has been riding a wave of publicity for weeks now by praising the leader of North Korea, completely glossing over the communist state’s recent threats of nuclear war and flagrant human rights abuses.

Rodman recently drew a renewed burst of attention and criticism for his visit to the DPRK with a camera crew from VICE in late February. Since his return to the United States, Rodman has blazed a trail of confusing interviews in which he expressed his friendship with the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un, propelling the ex-basketball star back into the spotlight.

The pattern continued in an exclusive interview with a Fargo, ND news station. In the interview, Rodman cited his friendship with Kim, which extends to Rodman wanting to go back to North Korea in August to vacation, when asked whether he still believes that North Korea doesn’t want war with the United States:

RODMAN: I sure do. I sure do. He doesn’t want to do anything. [...] I didn’t even want to try to meet the guy. The kid [Kim Jong-un] is awesome. But I think his grandfather and his father built this whole thing up. Because he has to do this. He doesn’t want to do anything. That much I do know.

“He wants to not fight. He asked me to tell Obama, ‘Please call me,’” Rodman continued. State Department officials have said repeatedly that Rodman’s trip to North Kore was not in any way sponsored by the U.S. government. “Dennis Rodman was a great basketball player, and as a diplomat, he was a great basketball player, and that’s where we’ll leave it,” Secretary of State John Kerry said when asked about the former Chicago Bulls star’s voyage.

Despite Rodman’s claims, North Korea has been doing a lot of saber-rattling since conducting its third nuclear test in December. Pyongyang on Monday declared that it had unilaterally withdrawn from the 1953 armistice agreement that ended fighting between the North and South, at least the second time it had made this claim. Ahead of new sanctions against the state, the North Korean state news agency issued its bluntest warning towards the U.S. yet:

“Since the United States is about to ignite a nuclear war, we will be exercising our right to preemptive nuclear attack against the headquarters of the aggressor in order to protect our supreme interest,” the North’s foreign ministry spokesman said in a statement carried by the official KCNA news agency.

Unimpressed, the United Nations Security Council on Thursday morning unanimously passed the sanctions package, following weeks of negotiation between the United States and China. The UN Human Rights Council also this week issued a new report on the atrocious human rights record on display from North Korea, including examples of torture, enforced disappearances, and an extensive system of prison camps. It is unclear whether the report will put a damper on Rodman’s summer plans.

Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, gave a striking answer when asked about the greatest threat the region faces: climate change.

Locklear spoke to the Boston Globe on the topic after spending two days in the Boston-area talking to scholars and foreign policy experts on the situation in the Pacific. As Locklear told the Globe, the changing climate “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’

Among the issues that the Admiral cited as most concerning was the possibility that rising sea-levels result in the disappearance of whole countries, producing influxes of “climate refugees” in neighboring states. The certainty that climate change is a phenomenon to be dealt with has affected the way that the Navy interacts with the various countries in the Indo-Pacific region that will be affected by shifting weather patterns:

“We have interjected into our multilateral dialogue – even with China and India – the imperative to kind of get military capabilities aligned [for] when the effects of climate change start to impact these massive populations,” he said. “If it goes bad, you could have hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced and then security will start to crumble pretty quickly.’’

The Navy has been at the forefront of attempting to shift U.S. policy on climate change through the influence wielded by the military. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus in 2009 announced the development of a “Great Green Fleet,” a Carrier Strike Group fueled by energy sources other than oil, as part of a strategy to reduce the Navy’s dependence on foreign oil. While currently more expensive, the Navy’s buying power would be able to bring down biofuel prices as supply catches up with demand. Mabus’ program was nearly shut down by Congress, but was revived by the Senate in November.

Locklear’s belief doesn’t indicate a full shift away from handling conventional state-based threats — such as from North Korea and China — but instead takes a broader look at the intersection between security and climate. The Center for American Progress recently co-published a series of articles on the links between climate change and the Arab Spring, highlighting the ties between rising food prices and civil unrest.