March 6, 2003
EVERYBODY'S TALKIN' AT ME:
Time for jaw-jaw with North Korea (James Goodby and Kenneth Weisbrode, March 5 2003, Financial Times)Kim Jong Il, North Korea's leader, seems to have a sense of strategy, even though it may be driving his country to the brink of destruction. He will almost surely continue to take advantage of the heavy US commitment to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. If the US becomes engaged in a full-blown war in Iraq, Mr Kim is likely to escalate his nuclear challenge to dangerous levels, perhaps by detonating a nuclear test explosion.The Bush administration is right to insist on a regional solution to the crisis, but wrong to reject bilateral talks with Mr Kim. Direct talks should be aimed at setting an agenda for multilateral talks. And that agenda should be as broad as America's negotiating partners can be persuaded to accept. "More for more" should be the objective.
According to recent reports, President George W. Bush remains firmly against talks with the man he "loathes", despite mounting North Korean provocations. But if direct negotiations are off the table, and if calculated deterrence fails, what is the alternative? Are we looking at another pre-emptive war? The issue is not regarded as a crisis by the US administration, at least in public, probably because it can handle only one crisis at a time. It may be able to handle only one war at a time, too.
This strikes us as completely wrong: a first strike on the North Korean missile and nuclear facilities makes far more sense than conceding to negotiations. This is so because the seemingly benign agreement to negotiate a dispute in and of itself nearly always represents a victory for one side and a loss for the other, regardless of what the negotiations produce. In this case it would be America that loses as the principle that would thereby be established is that so long as you have nukes you can saber-rattle us into doing what you want. This is a recipe for proliferation and we'd have no one to blame but ourselves--as indeed we are to blame for this current flare-up, because this was the lesson that N. Korea learned in the last round of negotiations. Meanwhile, an assault would establish the principle that nukes are not a deterrent as regards the United States but are instead an open invitation to war. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 6, 2003 8:15 AM
The liberal media has been making the case that possession of nukes makes a state immune from attack. While this supports the Bush admin argument for a "pre-emptive" attack on Iraq, before they get nukes, it's wrong. Possession of nukes should make us more
likely to attack them. Otherwise, every country is going to have nukes soon, as you say, and we'll never track how the terrorists got them.
It's like the old question of negotiating with Hitler. What are you prepared to let him have?
End of discussion.
The problem with a strike is the amount of artillery NK has aimed at Seoul. That is the linchpin on which a proposal will turn. It appears that doing nothing is currently the best option, but when nuclear material becomes available, we will be forced to act or talk. The hard choice will be talk rather than place 5 million SK's in danger of annihilation.
Posted by: abi babi at March 6, 2003 2:29 PMHarry is right. Useful negotations require that both parties want to reach a reasonable agreement. Kim Jong Il isn't reasonable. If you offered him the entire universe, he would be offended by your stinginess.
I think Den Beste has an excellent point. Let them eat grass, keep an eye on them but do not negotiate with them.
I read the whole article and was amazed by the authors' glowing praise for the creative leadership of former Defense Secretary Perry. Since he was in charge of the negotiations which led to the Agreed Framework and North Korea systematically violated its agreement thereunder pretty much from day one - I am puzzled as to why this whole process (process is very important with such ones as the authors - much more important than substance) should be replicated with new negotiations (either bilateral or multilateral - it really does not much matter) resulting in an inspections framework that everybody knows will never be carried out by the North Koreans. The ex-Clintonistas attempt to put lipstick (and all other variety of make up) on this pig never ceases to amaze.
Posted by: lester j. czukor at March 6, 2003 2:44 PMIt is not a question of if the US will strike North Korea, but when. Better to have the better part of your military in the vicinity, to discourage China from a replay of the 1950s.
Nuclear proliferation is the disaster from which there is no recovering. It must not be allowed to proceed.
Of course, Secretary Perry, came from Hambrecht & Quist, which
had commercial dealings with
COSTIND (The Chinese version
of DARPA) which had no small
role in the maintenance of the
Yongbyon reactor & further
plants & installations (It was also
the chief funder for Salon
Abi is right: we are limited in our range of action because South Korea is timid about an aggressive posture toward the North (understandly so with Seoul threatened). Striking North Korea may provoke a war that would end our Asian alliances and drive us out of the Pacific, leaving the whole region open to Chinese irrentism.
On the other hand, nuclear proliferation is a horror we cannot allow. Our options are Bad, Worse and Unthinkable.
(See my post here
.)