Alexander F. Yuan/AP

North Koreans visit a flower show Friday featuring thousands of Kimilsungia flowers, named after the late leader Kim Il Sung, while models of a rocket and missiles are also displayed in Pyongyang.

Faced with annoyed allies and unblinking enemies, North Korea is likely to pull the plug on the current crisis by test-firing a missile or two and declaring victory ahead of a national celebration on Monday, analysts say.

After weeks of escalating tensions and threatening nuclear war, shooting off a missile that causes no damage will give Kim Jong Un the opportunity to save face with his people -- and appease his military -- without inviting serious retaliation, experts say.

"It's all a kind of Kabuki theater," said Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute, a libertarian Washington think tank.

Observers caution, however, that with so much unknown about the political situation inside the secretive rogue state, it's possible that North Korea could take more aggressive action that would goad a fed-up South Korea into a forceful reaction.

"That would be uncharted waters," said David Straub, associate director of Stanford's Korean studies program.

Gordon Chang, author of "Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes on the World," said Sunday is the most likely day for a missile launch.

Before that, Secretary of State John Kerry will be in Beijing and shooting off a medium-range missile during that visit would be seen as a slap in the face of China, which has chided North Korea for its bellicose stance.

By Sunday, Kerry will be in Japan.

"This is going to be a launch while Kerry is in Tokyo," Chang said. "Send a missile over the Ginza [Tokyo's shopping district], humiliate the U.S., please the Chinese, who will be chortling about it for weeks."

The next day, conveniently, is a day of enormous significance in North Korea -- the birth date of Kim Il Sung, the founder of North Korea and Kim Jong Un's grandfather.

Korea-watchers expect there would be a declaration of a victory unrecognized anywhere else in the world, dancing in the streets, and then quiet until the drama repeats itself at some point in the near future.

"We've been there, done that," Straub said of a possible missile launch. "Unless they lobbed these things onto Japan, there's not going to be some huge sanctions from it."

Experts agree, however, that because the leadership dynamics in Pyongyang are murky, it's impossible to know how far Kim, or whoever is running the country, will go.

Many believe Kim's incessant saber-rattling -- irritating even China and Russia -- is an effort to recompense North Korea's powerful military leaders and consolidate a weak power base.

North Korea has prepped two medium-range Musudan-1 missiles waiting on its east coast, but Chang said a bolder move would be firing longer-range missiles from deeper inside the North's territory.

Noting the hubbub in Washington over reports that North Korea may have miniaturized nuclear warheads, Chang said Kim would "roil the world" if he tested a warhead in the atmosphere.

"I think Kim Jong Un would get a lot of credit from the generals. They would just love that," he said.

Straub said his fear would be a repeat of 2010, when North Korea sank a South Korean ship without provocation, killing 46 people, and then shelled a South Korean island.

After the 2010 attacks, Seoul told Pyongyang it would not tolerate a similar act of aggression and North Korea has heeded that warning.

"But one worries that they might do that again or even something a little worse," Straub said.

Bandow said the danger of trying to predict North Korea's next move is the lack of intelligence about who holds the upper hand there: Is it the party or the military? Is it young Kim, his aunt and uncle, or the generals?

If the threats and even a test-fire are just "chest-beating" to shore up the support from the starving masses, Bandow and others aren't overly worried about the repercussions.

"The danger," he said, "is if there really is some kind of power struggle going on, if the military wants more."

Slideshow: North Korea's young leader, Kim Jong Un

The youngest son of Kim Jong Il succeeded his late father in 2011, becoming the third member of his family to rule the unpredictable and reclusive communist state.

Launch slideshow

Related:

Kerry to North Korea: We will 'defend our allies'

Analysis: China grows weary of North Korea

Full North Korea coverage from NBC News

This story was originally published on Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:08 PM EDT

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's brinkmanship is in full bloom. He's ordered the missiles prepped, dismissed the armistice and announced plans to bring a nuclear reactor back on line.

The U.S. response -- a restrained show of force by fighter jets and warships, along with comments that simultaneously decry and downplay the threat -- has not stopped the threats.

Foreign-policy analysts agree the situation is troubling, though there's a deep difference of opinion on what approach would convince Kim to play nice.

Ignore him
The U.S. routine of flexing its muscles whenever Pyongyang lobs another threat Washington's way is playing right into Kim's hands, said Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Like many a parenting expert, he believes the White House should react to North Korea's bad behavior by ignoring it.

Ordering fighter and bomber flyovers meant to show the U.S. means business "just reinforces their behavior," Bandow said. "It gives them attention, showing how this bankrupt, starving country can get a response from the great superpower.

"We are acting as if we are worried about them. To my mind, the response should be, 'Who? Oh, THEM.'"

Yes, Kim could respond to the cold shoulder by ramping up the provocations to get some kind of response, but he's already used up so many that "at some point it's hard to imagine what new threats he could make," Bandow said.

Photos of Kim surveying U.S.-bound missile routes aside, Bandow finds it hard to believe that he's truly the supreme commander "with the power by himself to careen off into war."

"There's nothing to suggest they're suicidal," he said of the regime. But "it's easy to make a mistake" when tensions are escalating fast, he added.

The solution is for the U.S. to disengage. "Why is North Korea our problem?" he said.

KCNA via EPA

In a picture released by North Korea's official news agency, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un convenes an operations meeting March 29 at an undisclosed location where he ordered strategic rocket forces to be on standby to strike U.S. and South Korean targets.

Punish him
Ignoring the threats would be a terrible mistake, according to Gordon Chang, author of "Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes on the World," who says the U.S. should be stepping up action against a nuclear-capable North Korea.

He said B-2 bomber and F-22 Raptor overflights should continue, if only to send a message to the South Korean public, which is increasingly losing confidence in America's ability to defend them and pushing for Seoul to develop its own nuclear program, which would destabilize the region.

The time has come for stepped-up interdiction of North Korean shipping and aircraft movements, to stop Pyongyang from selling nuclear technology to Iran with the cooperation of China, he said.

And Chang said the Obama administration should be driving a wedge between North Korea and China by telling Beijing there will be consequences if it continues cozying up to Kim. "North Korea would not be making these threats if they felt like the Chinese were going to clamp down on them," he said.

Chang does not buy the argument that North Korea doesn't have many more tricks up its sleeve, noting that Kim could make good on his threat to shut down the jointly run Kaesong Industrial Region, the main symbol of cooperation with the South.

Hours after this interview, North Korean authorities were not allowing South Korean workers into Kaesong, according to the South Korea's Unification Ministry and Reuters.

Bae Jung-Hyun/Yonhap via AP

A U.S. Air Force F-16 fighter jet lands on the runway during military exercises at the Osan U.S. Air Base in Pyeongtaek, south of Seoul, South Korea, on Tuesday.

The U.S. should one-up Kim's declaration that the armistice in place for 60 years has been replaced by a state of war -- and agree that the armistice is over, so the U.S. is legally able to use force.

"That would shake up the North Korean regime," he said. "It would show there's a new attitude in Washington."

"What I argue for has very substantial downsides, but they are the least worst solutions," he added. "Nobody wants to provoke a crisis, but it's that type of thinking that got us into this situation."

Hug it out
Little more than a year into the job held by his father and his grandfather, Kim has managed to paint himself into a corner -- and the U.S. needs to give him a way out, says Han Park, a University of Georgia professor who has served as an unofficial negotiator in North Korea.

Because he has not consolidated his power at home, the fledgling leader cannot back off. "There has to be a face-saving device," Park said.

"Sanctions will not work. They have never worked," the professor said. "It will aggravate the North Korean leadership even more."

Now that it has some nuclear capability, Pyongyang will not relinquish it unless its security is assured, he said. And the only way to do that is bestowing diplomatic recognition on North Korea and working toward a peace treaty.

Without good-faith talks, Kim will stay on a collision course with the U.S.

"Military confrontation would be unthinkable, but unthinkable things can happen," Park said.

There's no question North Korea would be on the losing end of a conflict, he said. Regardless, "war is something that we cannot afford."

"Giving North Korea peace? What's wrong with that?" he said.

Slideshow: Glimpses into the hermit kingdom of North Korea

David Guttenfelder / AP

As chief Asia photographer for the Associated Press, David Guttenfelder has had unprecedented access to communist North Korea. Here's a rare look at daily life in the secretive country.

Launch slideshow

Related:

U.N. chief: North Korea crisis has gone too far

US Navy shifts destroyer in wake of North Korea missile threats

US official warns North Korea is no 'paper tiger'

Analyst: Threats are predictable, Kim Jong Un is not

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 2, 2013 7:42 PM EDT

Analysis

Is Kim Jong Un crazy -- or crazy like a fox?

Analysts said Friday there's a familiar method to the madness coming out of North Korea, where the rookie supreme leader has put rockets on standby, threatened to "settle accounts" with the U.S., and posed near a chart that appeared to map missile strikes on American cities. On Saturday, North Korea said it had entered a "state of war" against South Korea, according to a statement reported by the north's official news agency, KCNA. 

Kim Jong Un's father and grandfather were also serial saber-rattlers when they headed the secretive regime, and experts said there are clear strategic reasons why the world's youngest head of state is ramping up the rhetoric now, after little more than a year in power.

But if the bluster is predictable, the results may not be.

North Korea has enhanced its nuclear capabilities and Kim Jong Un has something to prove to his people and the world. Some outside observers are warning that a misstep, or overstep, by Pyongyang could bring north Asia to the brink of war.

"I think there is always room for miscalculation and things spiraling out of control," said Sung-Youn Lee, professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. "But he is following the playbook set by his father and grandfather."

North Korea is "very adept at engaging at psychological warfare," Lee said. It cranks up the tensions, putting pressure on Seoul and Washington, and is rewarded with aid and concessions when it tones things down, Lee said.

"No leader wants a foreign policy crisis created by North Korea on their hands ... the impulse is to de-escalate," Lee added. "North Korea has been very good at playing this game -- nuclear diplomacy, even extortion -- for the past 20 years."

This time around, foreign-policy watchers said, a confluence of circumstances have set the stage for Kim Jong Un's provocations:

-- Pyongyang is stewing over the U.N. Security Council, with the support of China, tightening sanctions after satellite and nuclear testing that suggested they could one day attack the U.S.

Jon Chol Jin / AP

North Koreans punch the air during a rally at Kim Il Sung Square in downtown Pyongyang, North Korea, in support of their leader Kim Jong Un's call to arms.

-- There are new administrations in South Korea, China and Tokyo, and President Barack Obama is making second-term changes to his defense and national-security leadership, so the timing is right to test the waters.

-- Kim Jong Un may need to consolidate his political power at home. A strong response by the U.S. or South Korea, such as this week's B-2 bomber flyover, helps rally domestic support and distract from economic problems.

-- North Korea's last nuclear test showed progress. "You feel you can afford to threaten because you feel you have a deterrent," said Scott Snyder, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. 

Joel Wit, visiting fellow at the US-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University, said that from the North Korean perspective, Kim Jong Un and his lieutenants "aren't crazy" and are falling back on a tried-and-true strategy.

"They're a very small country dealing with much more powerful countries, and they can't show any weakness. For them, the best defense is a good offense," he said.

Yet Snyder said Kim Jong Un's standing as a new, untested ruler is "the real wild-card factor that makes this different."

The 30-year-old appears to be modeling himself on his grandfather, Kim Il Sung, who is more revered inside the country than the recently departed Kim Jong Il, he said.

"But you have to remember that even though Kim Il Sung came into power in his 30s, the first thing he did was start a war with South Korea," Snyder said.

Stephen Noerper, senior vice president of the Korea Society, noted that 2013 has special significance: it's the 60th anniversary of the armistice that ended that war.

Kim Jong Un's decision to cut the hotline used to arrange cross-border crossing by workers with Seoul was "worrying," he said.

KCNA via EPA

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at a meeting with his generals where he ordered strategic rocket forces to be on standby to strike U.S. and South Korean targets.

"The wordage is hot and what you don't want is the evolution of a hot conflict," he said. "There should be heightened vigilance even if the expectation is that it will blow over."

A hit on U.S. targets seems highly unlikely and would be "suicidal," Lee said. But South Korea and Japan are within striking distance, and many experts say it's not impossible that Kim Jong Un could act rashly.

"While these weapons can't reach the U.S., it's an extremely tense situation, and wars don't always start logically," Wit said.

Experts were waiting to see the actual impact of North Korea's "state of war" declaration early Saturday.

"Talk is one thing, actions are another," Snyder said.

Related:

• North Korea puts rockets on standby as U.S. official warns Kim Jong Il is no 'paper tiger'
• For most North Koreans, Internet access doesn't exist
• PhotoBlog: North Koreans rally in support of leader's call to arms
• Despite rhetoric from North, South Koreans carry on

Kcna Via Kns / AFP - Getty Images

A North Korean military spokesman announcing the end of the armistice that ended the Korean War in 1953.

South Korea's military said it will strike back at North Korea and target its top leadership if Pyongyang launches a threatened attack.

A top North Korea general, in a rare appearance on state television on Tuesday, threatened military action against the U.S. and South Korea because of military drills between the two western allies countries that began March 1.

Tensions have ratcheted higher across the Korean peninsula since the North, under youthful leader Kim Jong Un who took office just over a year ago after the death of his father, launched a long-range rocket last December.

Slideshow: North Korea's young leader, Kim Jong Un

The youngest son of Kim Jong Il succeeded his late father in 2011, becoming the third member of his family to rule the unpredictable and reclusive communist state.

Launch slideshow

He followed this with a third nuclear test on February 12, triggering the prospect of more U.N. sanctions that are due to be formally announced on Thursday after the United States and China, the North's one major diplomatic ally, struck a deal to punish Pyongyang.

At the same time, North Korea has stepped up its military threats against South Korea and the United States, prompting the terse warning from Seoul on Wednesday that it would not stand idly by if its territory was attacked.

"We have all preparations in place for strong and decisive punishment, not only against the source of the aggression and its support forces but also the commanding element," Major General Kim Yong-hyun of the South Korean army told a press conference.

North Korea's bellicose rhetoric rarely goes beyond that, although in 2010 it sank a South Korean naval vessel, killing 46 sailors and in the same year shelled a South Korean island, killing civilians.

South Korea's new President Park Geun-hye had pledged to engage with the North if it dropped its nuclear plans but now faces the prospect of a hostile challenge early in her 5-year term.

The proposed fresh sanctions would explicitly ban the sale to Pyongyang of items coveted by North Korea's ruling elite, such as yachts and racing cars, a U.N. Security Council diplomat said on condition of anonymity.

In 2009, Italian authorities blocked the sale of two yachts worth more than $10 million that they believed were headed for Kim Jong Il, the current Kim's father, who enjoyed copious amounts of luxury brandy and fresh sushi in a country where a third of the population is malnourished.

The new sanctions will target North Korea's financial transactions, which often involve using cash couriers that make them hard to trace, and its criminal activities such as drugs and counterfeiting.

North Korea was slapped with sanctions in 2006 that banned the import of a range of luxury goods from jet skis to Harleys following its first nuclear test in a bid to hit the high-life of the Kim family and its hangers-on.

The impoverished country, whose economy is smaller than it was 20 years ago, has been subject to sanctions of some kind from the United States for almost all of its existence and since 2006 has seen U.N. sanctions imposed for its long range rocket and nuclear tests.

Despite the sanctions Pyongyang now has a nuclear stockpile sufficient for around half a dozen warheads, has made substantial progress in developing a long-range missile and is working towards miniaturizing a nuclear warhead for an intercontinental ballistic missile.

China has backed all rounds of sanctions and fell into line with the latest move in the Security Council, risking relations with its prickly ally.

About 200,000 Korean troops and 10,000 U.S. forces are expected to be mobilized for their "Foal Eagle" exercise, under the Combined Forces Command, which goes until the end of April. Separate computer-simulated drills called "Key Resolve" start on March 11.

Related: 

Kerry dismissive of Rodman's North Korea visit

Huge military exercise highlights 'rebalancing of US policy toward Asia'

North Korea's propaganda poets stay true to their muse

Courtesy Joseph Melrose

Foreign Service veteran Joseph Melrose, who was coordinator for the State Department's post-Sept. 11 Task Force, on a recent trip to Iraq.

Joseph Melrose was for many years the State Department's emergency repairman, having been dispatched to help U.S. diplomatic facilities recover after terrorist attacks, assassinations or civil wars. He is now a professor of international relations and ambassador-in-residence at Ursinus College in Collegeville, Pa., his alma mater. 

Robert Windrem is senior investigative producer for NBC News.

Melrose was coordinator for the State Department's post-Sept. 11 Task Force and  headed the Emergency Support Team deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, after the U.S. Embassy bombings in the late 1990s. He also played roles in the reopening of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut after terrorist attacks there in 1983, as well as the evacuation of U.S. diplomatic personnel after an attack on the Karachi consulate.

Melrose spoke to NBC News about how a foreign mission can recover after a catastrophe like the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last week, in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other consulate employees were killed:

For years, you were the State Department's Mr. Fixit, sent to help embassies begin operating again after a terrorist attack or after other hostile actions. What were some of the places you went, and what were the circumstances?

I suppose the two best-known situations are the bombing of our embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983 and the bombing of our embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1998.  In both cases, there was significant loss of life, but although injured neither Ambassador (Reginald) Bartholomew in Beirut or Ambassador (Prudence) Bushnell were killed. The same day as our Nairobi embassy was bombed, our embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, was also bombed but not as seriously damaged. 

In the Beirut situation, I went in as part of the assessment team and stayed behind to help reestablish embassy operations. In the Nairobi situation I led the Foreign Emergency Response Team which deployed to Kenya. In other situations, such as Freetown, Sierra Leone, which was emerging from a period of virtual civil war, I was already on the ground, and we were able to plan somewhat ahead.

What was the first thing you did when you got word that you were being sent in?

I grabbed some clothes and headed to the airport (Dulles in 1983 and Andrews AFB in 1998) while calling around trying to find out as much as I could about what had happened.

Open Channel: Benghazi emerges as key recruiting ground for al-Qaida, US intel analysts say

What was the first thing you did when you hit the ground?

In Beirut, we arrived at night, so we went to the ambassador's residence and began collecting information. There was shooting that night, and in the morning we went to the embassy to assess the situation on the ground. In Nairobi, we arrived shortly before dawn and went directly to the embassy. 

The first priorities are to make sure that the injured are being cared for, other personnel are safe and to make sure that sensitive material and equipment are not further compromised.

Describe the team that would go in with you — their mission and what they would bring.

Our response to these disasters has evolved, and each one is a bit specific to the situation. In Beirut, it was a small group of State Department officials who went in by commercial aircraft. A State Department M.D., along with several others, met us at the airport and updated us on the injured. Since the situation in Beirut had been volatile for some time, additional security personnel were already on scene. and our main priority was making sure the injured were being taken care of and getting the embassy up and running. In Kenya, an interagency team assembled at Andrews and consisted of State Department personnel, including diplomatic security personnel, military personnel, FBI agents and a team from the Fairfax County (Va.) Urban Search and Rescue Unit, including a German shepherd dog. We also took some emergency medical supplies with us. 

Is there a plan for reconstituting a diplomatic facility? Do you game it, rehearse it?

Yes, there is contingency planning for many possible situations. I assume today there are similar exercises to when I was a Foreign Service officer, but in general, exercises are held at the embassy level to prepare for a potential emergency. I have also participated in training exercises with the Marines, who would be sent to assist in hostile situations which require both additional security and possible evacuations of American personnel. We try our best to prepare for any potential emergency and have general guidelines (or) plans but often the situation on the ground dictates what we do, so there's a need for some flexibility.

How do you secure the embassy and conduct diplomacy during the period?

That would vary with the situation and in large part depends on the current state of relations with the host country, the presence of other embassies to work with and things like communications, the ability to move around and the general environment on the ground. Today, things are much easier than the '80s with technological advances like the Internet and cellphones making communications a lot easier.

What were the differences between reopening a diplomatic facility that had suffered a terrorist attack, like Nairobi, and reopening a facility that had been closed for years, like Freetown in Sierra Leone?

In Beirut and Nairobi, where I was deployed after the event, our embassy was functioning before the event, and our job was to re-establish secure operations at an alternate location and ensure its safety, so that our responsibilities to protect American citizens and carry out relations with the host country can continue.

Freetown, Sierra Leone, was still different. We suspended operations and evacuated the staff following the coup. In 1998, we reopened the embassy, and I was the ambassador assigned to resume operations in Freetown and arrived in November of 1998. The next several weeks saw a resurgence of rebel activity, and in December of that year the U.S. and the U.N. evacuated personnel shortly before the rebels entered the capital city. 

On Christmas Eve, the small American staff and I flew out after we had recommended that Americans and Canadians leave and offered assistance to do that. To protect sensitive information and equipment, we removed hard drives and other equipment and took it with us to Cote d'Ivoire, where we secured it at our embassy. I later went to Conakry, Guinea, where we along with the U.N. set up temporary operations flying in and out as possible until we could go back on a more permanent basis. When we did, it was easy to resume operations. Although the embassy building took a number of RPG hits, only three did major damage, and the building itself was not breached. 

In early 2000, rebels again took up arms, and we evacuated everybody except a security officer and myself, who remained behind until we felt it was safe to bring back the rest of the staff and the humanitarian aid workers.

The major difference between the two situations is the human one. Looking for survivors, ensuring safety, treating the injured, repatriating remains and assessing the psychological trauma inflicted can be emotionally draining and is hard to preplan for. In an emergency response situation, short-term needs take precedence, because time is much more of in issue and things need to be taken care of immediately. But on the plus side, since the embassy was previously up and running, there is much more of a built-in support network to help with the task. 

What were some of the other diplomatic facilities where you were assigned in a crisis situation, and what were the issues you had to deal with in those locations?

When I was assigned to Damascus (1976-80) there were several demonstrations with large crowds in front of the embassy and objects' being thrown at the building. We took precautions, such as dispersing personnel and vehicles, but thankfully they were short-lived, and we were able to resume normal operations quickly. In most if not all of those situations, the demonstrations were organized by the government and did not generally represent the views of the average citizen.

I was also assigned as consul-general and principal officer in Karachi, Pakistan, when President Zia (ul-Haq) and the U.S. ambassador (Arnold Raphel) died in a plane crash, and later when we evacuated most of our personnel and U.S. private citizens at the beginning of the first Gulf War. I stayed in Karachi with a skeleton staff.

What was the most difficult task you faced and why? The most rewarding and why?

That is a hard question to answer — all of these events had different challenges. I guess what was most rewarding is the situation in Sierra Leone today, which has made substantial progress and is now providing personnel to U.N. peacekeeping operations. Secondly, the fact that except for the two bombings in Beirut and Nairobi, there was no loss of life and in those two, additional lives were not lost.

Did you have a deadline and a budget in each case, or were things open-ended, depending on what you found on arrival? Were you in direct contact with the secretary?

I don't remember ever having a deadline per se. Our goal was always to get the job done as quickly as possible. When I was assigned to missions where these kinds of events took place, we did have a budget but that was adjusted as necessary to deal with the event. In the Nairobi and Beirut situations, I did not have a budget and was always given the resources I needed. Resource implications were adjusted as we looked at the potential duration of the problem. For example, when we were out of Freetown, we stayed in a hotel. Had the situation persisted, we may have had to look for a more permanent solution there or another location.

In most of the situations I have referred, to I relied heavily on the undersecretaries for management and political affairs and the relevant assistant secretaries, although Secretary (of State Madeleine) Albright did visit Nairobi after the bombing and Freetown after we had reopened and the situation had stabilized.

In the traumatic aftermath of a terrorist attack, who would be the United States' best partner in reconstituting embassy operations — the host country, friendly nations' diplomats or other U.S. embassies in the region? Or was it a mix?

It is a mix, and it was dependent on the situation. In Sierra Leone, the host country was not in a position to do much, and the only significant diplomatic presence in Freetown besides the U.S. (were) the United Kingdom and the U.N. In Nairobi, the host country and the diplomatic community were in a much better position to assist, but in the end we have to rely heavily on ourselves.

What was it about you, your experience, your skill set that made you the person State turned to? Did you volunteer, or were you selected? Were there others like you? A task force?

I am not sure how to answer. In the Beirut case, the position I held in the Middle East Bureau made me the logical choice. Later on, I guess it was the fact that I had dealt with these situations before … and survived. In the Kenya situation I was asked if I would go, and I said, "Sure." I guess I have volunteered to some extent by taking some of the posts I have held, but it's a bit of being in the wrong places at the wrong time enough that I became a bit of an expert.

In Libya, the ambassador was killed. How does that change things?

Each situation is looked at in its own right. Obviously, removing the person in the key leadership position changes things, but that is why State pays a great deal of attention to assigning people to the No. 2 position (deputy chief of mission) so that he or she can replace the chief of mission when needed as seamlessly as possible. In the case of my assignment to Karachi, Pakistan, I was asked to go because there was concern as to what could happen. When I agreed, the assignment that I then held was curtailed, and I left for Pakistan. I got to Karachi just a very short time before President Zia and the U.S. ambassador (Raphel) were killed in a plane crash. In the Pakistan case, a senior officer was dispatched from Washington to act as charge (d'affaires) given the importance of Pakistan with regard to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan until things could be sorted out.

On 9/11, you were leaving Freetown to return to the U.S. What role did you have in the days and weeks afterwards? How did your experiences in the field help you in that job? 

I left Freetown on 9/11 shortly after the attack on the Twin Towers. We had heard about the attacks. When I got to Paris, U.S. air space had been closed, so I assisted the embassy there. There was a very moving makeshift memorial set up not far from the front of the embassy by Parisians. There were also a number of threats being called in to the Parisian authorities. 

I left Paris on one of the first flights out of Paris to the U.S., and the next day I was walking to State when I was stopped and asked if I would work on the task force. I was asked to chair the midnight-to-8 shift because they wanted somebody senior with both area experience and crisis experience so that they would not wake the principal unnecessarily. I do think my experience both in some of these situations abroad and dealing with others — such as the evacuation of Beirut — from Washington was extremely valuable.

More from Open Channel:

• Benghazi emerges as key recruiting ground for al-Qaida, US intel analysts say
• Skulduggery at sea: Iran uses tankers off Malaysia to evade oil embargo
• Evidence piles up that Bush administration got many pre-9/11 warnings 
  
• Dead Gitmo detainee had waged long legal battle for freedom
• Iran sanctions exceed expectations but don't change Tehran's behavior
• Revealed: The real source of Apple device IDs leaked by Anonymous
• Should felons vote? In some states it's easy; in others, it's impossible

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

BEIJING -- China and the United States were divided on Wednesday over how to end the bloodshed in Syria and defuse tension in the South China Sea and other global troublespots, but stressed hope for steady ties as they navigate political transitions at home. 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi vowed goodwill after talks which had been preceded by criticism from Beijing of Clinton's calls for a multilateral solution to the territorial disputes in the South and East China Seas.

Clinton told reporters that such disagreements did not have to hobble cooperation.

Jim Watson / Pool via Reuters

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks with Chinese President Hu Jintao at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Wednesday.

"I'm very proud of the strength and resilience that we have built into our relationship," she said after talks with Yang in the cavernous Great Hall of the People in Beijing. 

"It makes it possible for us to talk about anything, and to find ways to tackle issues frankly and forthrightly," Clinton said, adding that the two sides would not see eye-to-eye on all the issues that are part of their vast relationship. 

Chinese media: 'Many Chinese people dislike Hillary'

Yang also cast relations in a positive light, saying both sides could work together as long as "mutual respect for each other's core interests and major concerns" continues. 

"History and facts have repeatedly proven that China and the United States have interwoven interests," said Yang. 

The remarks underscored efforts by both sides to contain quarrels, especially as they focus on domestic politics. China's Communist Party is preoccupied with a once-in-a-decade leadership change over the coming months, while President Barack Obama is focused on a re-election fight culminating in November. 

Praise, little consensus
Clinton praised China for helping to apply pressure on Iran over its nuclear activities, and Yang sounded a moderating note on Syria by balancing opposition to outside intervention with support for a "political transition." 

"China is willing to maintain and strengthen dialogue, communication and coordination with the U.S.," Chinese President Hu Jintao told Clinton, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry's website. 

Much at stake for US as tensions rise in troubled China Seas

"Maintaining stable development of Sino-U.S. economic and trade ties has an important impact on the two countries, as well as the revival and growth of the world economy." 

Neither side gave ground on the South China Sea disputes, which have emerged as a persistent irritant, reflecting suspicions in Beijing that the Obama administration is seeking to curb Chinese influence. 

China's claims over much of the South China Sea, including the Spratly and Paracel islands, have put it at loggerheads with Vietnam, the Philippines and other Southeast Asian nations. A similar dispute has set China against Japan in the East China Sea. 

China has been especially irked by the U.S.-backed proposals for a multilateral approach to resolving such disputes, preferring to negotiate separately with each of the far less powerful Asian claimants. 

'Big enough for all of us': Clinton says US can work with China in Pacific

A U.S. official told traveling reporters that Vice President Xi Jinping, who is overwhelmingly likely to succeed Hu as president, had to cancel his meeting with Clinton. Vice Premier Li Keqiang would meet her instead, said the official. 

Xi canceled an earlier meeting with Singapore's prime minister, a sign his absence was not a snub at Clinton. 

"We hope people will not make unnecessary speculation," Yang said of Xi's absence. 

'Fishing for advantage' 
The overseas edition of state mouthpiece the People's Daily laid out China's concerns ahead of Clinton's meetings, suggesting the United States was seeking to gain leverage from China's tensions with Japan and Southeast Asian countries. 

"The United States' recent conduct concerning the Diaoyu islands and South China Sea issues cannot but create the suspicion that it is attempting to sow discord in order to fish for advantage," said a front-page commentary in the paper, which broadly reflects official thinking. 

China and Japan have rival claims to the uninhabited Diaoyu islands -- called Senkaku in Japan -- and surrounding fishing areas and potentially rich gas deposits. 

"Regarding the South China Sea, the position of the Chinese government has been consistent and clear cut. China has sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and their adjacent waters," Yang, the foreign minister, told reporters. 

"Nowhere else do China and the United States share more converging interests and interact more frequently than in the Asia-Pacific region," he said. 

Pacific micro-nations cash in on US-China aid rivalry

Clinton repeated that the United States took no position on the contending claims but wanted China and Southeast Asian states to agree on a code of conduct to avoid flare-ups.

"The United States does not take a position on competing territorial claims ... but we believe the nations of the region should work collaboratively to resolve disputes without coercion, without intimidation and certainly without the use of force," she said in Jakarta on Tuesday.

"That is why we encourage ASEAN and China to make meaningful progress toward finalizing a comprehensive code of conduct in order to establish rules of the road and clear procedures for peacefully addressing disagreements."  

Reigning in North Korea
The Obama administration also wants greater Chinese cooperation on other international problems, including reining in the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs and finding a solution to the Syria crisis. 

China backs a "political transition" in Syria to end worsening bloodshed after 18 months of unrest, Yang said while repeating Beijing's opposition to forceful foreign intervention in the crisis. 

As Clinton preps for Asia-Pacific tour, is North Korea capable of reform?

Clinton said it was "no secret" the U.S. government was disappointed by the positions of China and Russia on Syria, and she reiterated that the best course of action remained tough U.N. Security Council action. 

Yang also said his government opposed the efforts of any country, including Iran, to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran denies having such ambitions. 

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

More world stories from NBC News:

• Mexico arrests 'El Gordo,' alleged leader of Gulf Cartel drug gang
• Cringe! Britain's finance chief booed at Paralympic Games
• Chinese media: 'Many Chinese people dislike Hillary'
• In parts of China, BYO school supplies include desks
• Pistorious sorry for timing, not content, of Paralympics outburst
• 77-year-old Japanese man asks US mayor to look for items lost in tsunami
• Sun Myung Moon, founder of Unification Church, dies at 92

Follow World News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Jim Watson / AP

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks during an event on peace and security in the Pacific, in Rarotonga, Cook Islands, on Friday.

RAROTONGA, Cook Islands -- The United States will buttress security partnerships across the Pacific as it strengthens ties with island nations, but also hopes to work more closely with China as Beijing expands its own influence in the region, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Friday.

Clinton arrived in the tiny Pacific outpost of the Cook Islands for this year's Pacific Islands Forum, part of Washington's effort to woo nations across the Asia-Pacific which are increasingly coming under China's shadow.

Clinton told the gathering, which represents 16 independent and self-governing states ranging from Australia and New Zealand to smaller islands such as Tuvalu and Nauru, that the United States was in the region for the long haul.

But she also played down growing perceptions of a U.S.-China rivalry in the region, declaring "the Pacific is big enough for all of us" and dismissing the notion that expanded U.S. activity was "a hedge against particular countries."

Much at stake for US as tensions rise in troubled China Seas

"We think it is important for the Pacific Island nations to have good relationships with as many partners as possible, and that includes China as well as the United States," Clinton told a news conference with New Zealand Prime Minister John Key.

"We want to see more international development projects that include the participation of China," Clinton said, citing disaster relief, maritime security and preserving bio-diversity.

"We think that there's a great opportunity to work with China and we're going to be looking for more ways to do that," she said.

For more coverage on China, visit NBC's Behind The Wall

China's Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai is also attending the Pacific forum and told reporters Beijing's presence in the Pacific was not about geo-political influence.

"We are here in this region not to seek any particular influence, still less dominance," Cui told a news conference before Clinton made her remarks.

"We are here to work with island countries to achieve sustainable development, because both China and the Pacific island countries belong to the rank of developing countries.

"Although we are far away geographically, although we have different national conditions....we are faced with very similar tasks of achieving sustainable development, of improving the lives of our peoples."

$32 million in new aid
Despite her softer tone on China -- which comes just four days before she pays a visit to Beijing next week -- Clinton also sought to underscore the benefits of the "American model of partnership" in a region where China has in recent years dramatically stepped up its diplomacy and foreign assistance.

She announced more than $32 million in new U.S. programs on issues ranging from sustainable development, climate change and marine protection.

Ex-US consulate guard admits trying to sell secrets to China

But Clinton also stressed that the United States plays a crucial security role in the region, noting that the U.S. Coast Guard already has formal partnerships with nine Pacific Island nations and was working to build more as part of a broader "pivot" to the Asia-Pacific.

"All of us have an interest in maintaining peace and security in the Pacific," Clinton said, adding the United States was committed to helping fight illegal and unregulated shipping, patrol fishing grounds, and combat other human trafficking.

In a signal of Washington's security emphasis on the region, U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) chief Admiral Samuel Locklear also traveled to Rarotonga to hail joint maritime exercises and cooperation on issues such as cleaning up unexploded ordinance left over from the Second World War.

"U.S. PACOM is committed to supporting our Pacific Island partners," Locklear said.

Rivalry with China
Clinton's trip to the South Pacific has spurred some criticism in China, where some commentators accused the United States of seeking to stir up trouble as Beijing's economic and political influence expands.

In recent trips to other regions of the world, most notably Africa, Clinton has sought to contrast the U.S. approach to cooperative economic development with other models such as China's, which focus more on condition-free loans and extractive industries such as mining and timber.

Beijing is financing projects across the region including constructing parliament buildings, airports, roads and hospitals and giving out grants for Chinese language instruction.

Clinton depicted these efforts, which some local analysts say appear aimed at building Beijing's influence in multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, as not necessarily at odds with U.S. interests -- although she pointedly noted that sometimes China's methods were open to criticism.

As Clinton preps for Asia-Pacific tour, is North Korea capable of reform?

"Here in the Pacific we want to see China act in a fair and transparent way," Clinton said.

The three-day visit by Clinton and the 60-odd person U.S. delegation to the Cook Islands - which is in free association with New Zealand - was a major event for the nation's main island of Rarotonga, which has only about 11,000 people.

"We are encouraged by you and your government's commitment to strengthen the United States government's engagement in our region," Cook Islands Prime Minister Henry Puna said in his welcoming remarks.

Clinton's trip will continue to Indonesia and China next week, where her new conciliatory tone will be put the test in talks expected to focus on rising tensions in the South China Sea where Beijing is at odds with several of its southern neighbors over territorial claims.

A summit of regional leaders in July failed to reach consensus on how to handle the disputes. Clinton will press them to find common ground and hash out a framework for negotiating with China, U.S. officials said.

One senior official told reporters that it was "absolutely manifest" that ASEAN nations find a way to deal with China. "It's not a matter of geo-strategy, it's a matter of geography," the official said.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly preview the discussions, said Clinton would be stressing the U.S. view "that it is absolutely essential that cooler heads prevail in every capital and that great care be taken on these issues."

The U.S. takes no position on the sovereignty of the disputed territories, though some are claimed by allies such as South Korea, Japan and the Philippines as well as China, but "insists that they are dealt with diplomatically, without coercion (and) without the threat of the use of force." 

Clinton will finish the trip with stops in Brunei and East Timor before heading to the Russian port city of Vladivostok, where she will represent U.S. President Barack Obama at this year's Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit of regional leaders.

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

More world stories from NBC News:

• ISAF: 2 US service members killed in Afghanistan
• Report: Ireland hospitals to send some patients home on weekends
• Assad stays cool amid reports of bread-line slaughter
• Ex-Marine on her journey from homelessness to the Paralympics
• Red Cross halts most Pakistan aid in wake of beheading
• Unexploded WWII bomb disrupts Amsterdam airport
• Pakistani Christians live in fear after girl's blasphemy arrest
• 'A less polar pole': Arctic sea ice at record low
• Botched restoration turns Spanish church into tourist attraction

Follow World News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook