Uh, well, China invaded the Korean Peninsula in 1951 in support of the North Korean government. Japan subjugated and annexed the Korean Peninsula (along with most of north China) in the early 20th century. The Korean peninsula was split in two in the first place because Soviet and American troops occupied different portions of it as part of their conquest of Japanese holdings at the end of WWII. It was never intended that two different countries would be made of the peninsula, which had a common language and culture throughout. But just like with Germany, the USSR refused to release control over its portion, and installed a Communist regime. The same regime rules N. Korea today.
Given all the above, it will be a VERY cold day in Hell when S. Korea allows either Chinese or Japanese troops on its territory. N. Korea hates the Japanese as much as they hate the U.S. And you will NEVER see Japan and China work together on any matter of military cooperation in our lifetimes.
Okay, I’m asking this seriously now. What would you do about North Korea. Just saying, “We should negotiate” isn’t good enough. If you think negotiation is the way to go, you have to explain why it would work better now than it did in 1994. I think we can all agree that, 9 years after the agreed framework was signed, the North Korean situation is far more dangerous than it was then.
Also, bear in mind that North Korea’s demand is that the U.S. sign a non-agression pact with them. Do you think that’s wise? Why?
It’s always easy being in opposition. You can just rant about everything the guy you hate does, without having to propose alternatives. But the stakes are incredibly high now, and it’s incumbent on those who disagree with the administration’s position to provide reasonable, realistic alternatives.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’m stumped by the North Korean situation. I don’t see any possible actions one way or the other that don’t carry huge risks. There are no good cards to play. But some of you on the left seem to be so certain that the administration is wrong that you must have SOME idea of an alternative strategy.
“And besides, the U.S. at this point in time might not WANT to retaliate, now that North Korea has nuclear weapons. I suspect that the new strategic thinking will be to arm South Korea with nukes, let Japan build its own nukes, and then let China and other regional powers worry about the whole mess.”
Huh? So now you want to accept North Korean nuclear status as a fait accompli? In previous threads you waxed eloquent about how this was completely unacceptable and how a nuclear North Korea would be a massive proliferator. Seems to me that you are moving the goalposts now that the Bush policy apparently is to sit back and do nothing as North Korea goes nuclear.
As for alternatives I sketched one in a previous thread. Negotiations can work if in return for more aid North Korea is made to accept more intrusive inspections than last time. IIRC Richard Armitage has made a detalied policy proposal along these lines. I don’t see any problem with a non-agression treaty with North Korea so long as it gives up its nuclear weapons. It’s not as if a full-scale invasion is a serious option.
And as for the previous agreement failing that was only true of the clandestine uranium-based facilities which are more less of an imminent danger. The recent escalation for which Bush bears a large part of the blame is especially serious because North Korea has removed the plutonium rods, kicked out the inspectors etc. IOW Bush made a bad situation much worse.
Tempting as it is Bush can’t just blame everything on Clinton.
EVERYONE accepted that North Korea has one or two nukes, and that they probably had them in the early 90’s.
The difference now is that soon they’ll be able to pop out enough fissile material to make a dozen nukes a year.
One or two nukes would be retained by the government for their own purposes. A dozen a year might be sold on the black market to prop up the North Korean economy.
North Korea has sold EVERY weapons system they’ve built. I have no reason to believe they wouldn’t sell nuclear material. Especially since the regime would be more than happy to see a world in which the U.S. was tied down by the prospect of nuclear weapons in the hands of every tinpot dictator or terrorist group.
I agree the two situations are different. But what is the Bush government doing about it? And you seem to be saying: “then let China and other regional powers worry about the whole mess” as if the US now has no stake in what North Korea does.
Once again hand-wringing about how difficult the situation is and blaming everything on Clinton isn’t a strategy.
I didn’t blame anything on Clinton. It was the North Koreans who cheated. Not Clinton. And he was in just as tough a spot then as Bush is in now, almost. North Korea still had one or two nukes. They still had reactors, they still had all that artillery pointed at Seoul. The only thing they didn’t have was their new ICBM. So Clinton was also in a very tough spot.
He went the negotiation route. Let me ask you - do you think that worked out well? If not, why would you advocate the same policy again, except this time instead of offering them a light-water reactor, you have to promise not to ever attack them, and also to allow them to keep their current reactors going, thus turning them into a major nuclear power and supplier of fissile material to the nutbars of the world. Is that a good solution?
If not, just what do you suggest? You claim I don’t have a strategy. You’re right. Do you have one? If not, why are you bashing the administration? They’re trying a different route with North Korea, and we don’t know yet if it will work. But isn’t it worth a try?
“Let me ask you - do you think that worked out well?”
It succeeded in preventing full-blown nuclear weapons production from the Yongbyon reactor. Sure it couldn’t prevent the clandestine facilities but there is always the possibility of governments engaging in secret weapons production. Would it have been better if the North Koreans had BOTH calandestine and open nuclear weapons facilities and gone nuclear by now?
“you have to promise not to ever attack them, and also to allow them to keep their current reactors going, thus turning them into a major nuclear power and supplier of fissile material to the nutbars of the world”
This is a straw man. Obviously any non-agression pact would depend on North Korea abandoning nuclear weapons and would be void if it didn’t do this.
“Do you have one? If not, why are you bashing the administration?”
Yes I do have a strategy (in broad terms) and I explained what it was. You may think it won’t work but it’s better than doing nothing which appears to be the administration’s approach. It doesn’t have a military strategy, it doesn’t have a diplomatic strategy all it seems to be doing is waiting and hoping the problem goes away.
And you expect them to abide by this agreement? Would it be acceptable to let them produce, say, one bomb a year for the next ten years rather than 12? Would a world in which North Korea has 15 nuclear weapons be a safer one?
Look, I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you. Negotiation may simply be the best of a whole bunch of really bad options. But that’s not saying much.
“And you expect them to abide by this agreement?”
The point is that if they don’t abide by it the non-agression pact becomes null and void. So there is no harm to the US in offering one. It’s just an additional incentive for the North Koreans to stay nuclear-free.
I agree that they can’t let it drift further. Something has to be done within the next four months.
However, the Bush administration’s position, I think is that the country best able to lean on North Korea and get them to shape up is China. China is the only country that really has any influence at all over North Korea.
No, North Korea is not a regional problem. However, it is a bigger threat to its region than to the world at large, and it’s a big threat to China if it forces China’s neighbors to arm themselves with nukes.
Or at least, I think that’s the administration’s argument with China. Pulling troops out is the latest strategem to force them to realize that. I think the U.S. positiion is that China feels it doesn’t have to do anything because the U.S. and North Korea are stalemated. So the U.S. is saying, "Fine. We’ll resign, and let you deal with the ramifications of that. If there’s another Korean war, it will be devastating to the entire region, especially if it happens in five years after South Korea and Japan have nukes.
I don’t know if that strategy will work. China may simply decide that it can tolerate the risk of advanced democratic countries around it having nukes.
But it’s worth a try. I don’t think you should automatically discount everything the Bush adminstration tries. They have some awfully smart foreign policy people in that administration, and even more very smart people behind the scenes advising them. People like George Bush Senior and James Baker. The difference between you and I on this comes down to the fact that you, by inclination assume that everything the Bush adminstration tries is wrong until proven otherwise, and I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
This especially applies to North Korea, because there are no really good options. It’s much harder to figure out the best of two bad options than to sort out the good from the bad.
First of all do you have a source that there is an explict “strategy” of sitting back and letting China take the lead?. It sounds to me like an ex-post justificiation for paralysis rather than a realistic policy.
Secondly when exactly has the US decided to leave its vital national security interests dependent on the PRC getting its act together? And this is assuming that the PRC is capable of doing the job which strikes me as unlikely since the North Koreans are making US-specific demands.
Finally let us suppose that against the odds China manages to solve this problem. What signal does this send to the region? That America is retreating from its commitments and that China is filling the void. Is that really what the US wants?
As for giving the Bush foreign policy team the benefit of the doubt I would have been prepared to do that two years ago when I had a moderately good opinion of people like Rice and Cheney. But there have been too many mess-ups in the period since to have too much confidence in the administration. Even if you believe that a war against Iraq is a good idea they have been breathtaking incompetent in making their case and winning support. The forged papers discussed in the other thread is only the lastest blunder.
So no I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Oh and btw about the OP itself: I don’t oppose a strategy of removing US troops from the peninsula in the long run. The US doesn’t have an obligation to help defend South Korea indefinitely.
However to do so during the current crisis would be a disaster IMO. It would signal that even a two-bit regime like North Korea can drive out the US by raising the heat. The US has to wait till after the crisis is resolved before it reduces its troops.
It’s not in Iraq, because Hussein has the money and resources, and theoretically at least, gets stronger as time goes by. There are no countries in his neighorhood who can deal with him effectively, and some will covertly aid him.
NK has no money, and every day makes their government weaker. They have no real freinds, and the neighbors are mostly responsible types.
It seems to me that there might well be justification for a policy of letting NK sort itself out.
At the very least, as was pointed out earlier by Sam, moving our troops to Japan or wherever gives us more flexibility. If we squeeze NK’s diplomatic nads while troops are in SK, KJI has the option of shelling our troops, which will force us to respond, and the Eurocrowd can say the US started the war with its provocative moves. If we move the troops out, then realistically all he can do is attack Japan or SK, which will make him the aggressor. We don’t want to fight a ground battle anyway, and we can take out NK’s command and control from the air from Japan. Eight hours onto the war, NK troops have been cut off from their leadership, find themselves facing better-armed cousins, and if they’ve invaded across the DMZ, they find out that all the rumors they’ve heard of SK being a place of (comparitively) unlimited wealth and prosperity … you think they’re going to fight?
“Why isn’t “doing nothing” a viable policy?”
If North Korea starts weapons production via its Yongbyon reactor and becomes a major nuclear power it will have enough nuclear bombs to be able to sell some. It could very profitably sell such bombs to both terrorists and nasty regimes with disastrous consequences for the world.
Furthermore if North Korea goes nuclear other countries will almost certainly follow. South Korea and Japan for starters. After that who knows? Taiwan,Malaysia,Indonesia, Australia are all possibilities. It woulld likely global non-proliferation efforts.
True… but my point is that that is a somewhat down-the-road possibility. I think it’s blindingly apparent that we can’t trust NK father than we can spit. It’s hard to envision a treaty that we can sign that we can count on them honoring.
Nonproliferation will require 1) something like a blockade and 2) a committment from the Chinese to seal their border.
without 2) is pointless, and the the best way to get the Chinese to be involved is to make them fear the possibility of a nuclear Japan. And the best way to get that possibility firmly in Beijing’s mind is to adopt at least the pose of “hands off.”
Once the PRC sees that we aren’t going to do their work for them, they will start seeing NK as a problem, not a tool. And then we can step back in.
well, NK is gonna get screwed eventually anyways… Removing the troops is a good idea now, and like already said, it let’s us enter the war where and when we want rather then being forced into a defensive stance. NK knows that in order to fight a million man army with any hope of surviving, we are going to have to use tactical nuclear devices. However, if we can invade where we want, when we want, we can take down their government, when we feel like it.
The US will never be tied down by nuclear weapons possessing terrorists, because the moment one nuke goes off, a shitload of countries are going to be glass in 20 minutes.
“I think it’s blindingly apparent that we can’t trust NK father than we can spit.”
Then include a tough inspection regime in any future deal and make any concessions like a non-agression pact void if North Korea is caught cheating.
North Korea is too vital a security issue to leave it to the Chinese. There is little evidence that they have either the will or means to force North Korea to abandon nuclear weapons especially when it insists on bilateral talks with the US. Doing nothing in the hope that the Chinese will somehow make the problem go away is a feckless non-strategy.