Is this guy nuts? Oh wait, he is isn’t he. He is threatening the whole international community that if they try to pursuade them to stop thier nuke program diplomatically (ie; sanctions) then it would mean war. And the only way they would not consider a “merciless war” would be if the US negotiates. Now all I hear is about Bush’s and the US governments warmongering. But this guy is not only the chihuahua barking at the tiger, but he is standing in front of the whole pride barring their way with teeth bared. They go on to say that the US of seizing (then releasing) the illicit missile transfer and the suspicious acts during it when Yemen denied buying them at first, is an act of piracy and said the US would pay a “very high price for such reckless acts”.
Now, I know that bluff and bluster is a big part of soveriegn diplomacy, and insinuations is as good as a threat but not promised. But this guy has brass ones. Kinda makes you wonder if it would be worth possibly losing a couple of prezzies just to be able to take these guys out with a well placed shot.
SHould we “negotiate” with them in the sense that we have to give them what they want in order to get what we want? And with a threat of war, wouldn’t such “negotiations” be more of a blackmail of the whole international community? And a hostile one at that. I know other countries use their power to twist the arms of other countries and sometimes all other countries. Esp the US. But notonce have I heard the US threaten a war against the int comunity, much less a “merciless” one. And when we do threaten war it is usually with the blessing of the IC.
I sure hope the Bush administration gets out of this situation in some miraculous fashion, because this is a tough, tough problem. Caving to them now sets a very dangerous precedent for the future. On the other hand, North Korea is ratcheting the heat up so high that anything short of abject capitulation looks dangerous.
Oddly, the offical site of the North Korean News agency has no such statement, although it does mention the complaint about US seizure of Yemen-bound frieghter carrying missiles.
Assuming the report is correct, with no particular allies, and nothing much available for political leverage except the threat of military action against South Korea, this sort of statement seems inevitable.
Really, I think the next step is up to the South Koreans. I would hope that enough sense prevails in the administration to not try and force sanctions without SK agreement.
That particular remark is the usual over-the-top NK bluster, but it doesn’t exactly hurt the case for face-to-face negotiation, either, does it?
Right now all we have are dueling sound bites, and this merely encourages Kim to believe that the padded door to his cell might just be unlocked. Someone American, preferably Powell, needs to go in there before this.
The IAEA has already threatened sanctions but decided to give them a bit more time to reconsider before asking the UNSC to impose them. After El Baradei made that statement then the DPRK says this. Then El Baradei says that they have “clearly a matter of weeks” before he goes and tells the big boys it’s time.
IANAD, but it seems to me when the opposition threatens your only diplomatic weapon with war it would make the room a bit …lukewarm to say the least. And I highly doubt that they would send Powell into such a hostile atmosphere. I would be surprised if they even let him go to SK for talks.
Personally, I’d simply take a hands-off appraoch and tell NK to stuff it. I wouldn’t deal with them at all until they come to terms with the fact that I don’t care about their pathetic threats.
“If you want to to play with the big boys, learn to act like one.”
Sure, they can attack South Korea, but I don’t think they are insane. Rather, they think they can succeed in their “renegotiations”. They know that any actual war would likely result in their own annihilation, Period.
smiling bandit, they can also sell nukes and/or missiles to various unsavories. N. Korea has a long history of doing this with missiles, and really has nothing to stop them from doing the same with nukes.
Sua has it right. The US will have to deal with NK one way or the other. I just don’t think they can afford to “negotiate” under such extraneous circumstances. And, IMO, the DPRK is making any negotiations that the US would have decided on as a no-go for threatening reasons.
There was a poster on another thread that mentioned the north trying to use the tension between the US and SK to lessen the US influence in the region. These charades would coincide with such a goal. And I would think that the only choice the admin has is to show the north that they had bit off more than they could chew with this little endeavor. The only question is can Bush avert a war.
That is one strange, frightening document. North Korea is known for its wild rhetoric, but this is pretty bad even by their standards. There’s language in there accusing the U.S. of already declaring a ‘nuclear war’ on NK. I hope they don’t use this ‘declared war’ to stage a ‘reprisal’ somewhere, as they have been known to do before. I don’t think the U.S. would be in the mood to tolerate another shot-down airliner or having a Navy vessel fired on, or having a ‘missile test’ whistle over Alaska.
Perhaps Bill Richardson can pull the president’s nuts out of the fire. While it’s good to finally see someone with experience getting a crack at dealing with the North Koreans, the administration must really be getting desperate if they’re willing to let a Clinton appointee handle negotiations for them.
I dunno, I’ve never had the sense that Bush really cared where he got his help from. I believe him when he says he doesn’t want to be partisan. Look at all the flak Norman Mineta has gotten, and Bush has stood beside him the whole time.
With a situation this serious, I think any administration would simply send out a call for the best-qualified person for the job. If they think that’s Richardson, great. Who cares who he worked for before?
But the article you quoted came before the latest news, which is a pretty scary ratcheting of the rhetoric.
“the article you quoted came before the latest news” Yeah, It’s been a odd day with all the bits of stories floating about. Kim and company seem to be groping along several different lines towards a satifactory (to them) conclusion to the crisis. The South Korean press says that government talks with the North are back on. That combined with a possible withdrawal from the nonproliferation treaty, and Richardson’s “back-channel” meeting combine to form a perplexing stew. The North obviously feels that it needs to keep the pressure up, but at least we’ve moved past gridlock here.
This is a long term policy problem for the US government. They have a history (for example Red China) where the US gvt cuts off ties and communication. Keep your friends close and enemies even closer. It seems like there is some great fear of caving in or losing or something if you continue negotiations during difficult times.
There is a marked tendancy in US foreign policy, at least in Asia over the past 50 years, to create a all-or-nothing face off. Clearly, given the amount of mischief that N. Korea can get up to, the US has to have ties. Nothing wrong with a carrot and stick approach, and using that stick, but countries need to keep the engagement during the process. Heck even the US and the Kremlin had their hot line during the worst of the cold war.
Good point. On the other hand, if they want to send those thigns somewhere, they must send them by ship.
USA = world’s best Navy. It would take very little to shut down that avenue of trade. And I don’t believe they would be willing to start a sttoting war over it.
-here
Just because the U.S. is the world’s sole remaining superpwer doesn’t mean that we’re the only country that can play diplomatic hardball. The North Korean’s have got the administration praying for a miracle. That’s pretty good for a nasty, backwards little scumbag dictator like Kim.
I have a genuine question for you, China Guy. Swear it’s not loaded or anything like that. You have an excellent perspective which I do not have.
I agree with you about the U.S. “all or nothing” policy toward Asia. Do you think it could be based upon a fundamental American misunderstanding of the occasionally hyperbolic rhetoric employed by some Asian nations?
I get the impression that the U.S. is sometimes guilty of calling a “bluff” which is in reality just diplomatic bluster, in this instance on the part of North Korea. Is it possible that NK is just playing a bit of brinksmanship in order to secure something else, say a better food subsidy deal or something?
