Just to be clear: we are talking about the U.S. and NK leadership. The U.S. leadership is actively attempting to start a war in Iraq, and is pursuing a nuclear strategy that will place humanity on the brink of annhilation. In comparison, the NK leadership has done nothing even remotely as dangerous.
You may bring up the fact that NK is a much more oppressive society. This is true. But, the U.S. administration would very much like to turn the U.S. into a police state. It is not the leadership which creates freedom and liberty, it is popular pressure. If Bush could get away with it, he would be every bit as oppressive as the NK leadership.
Also, as regards the treaty. A very important part of the treaty was this:
“Both sides will work together to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.”
This was important, as it is an attempt to make the non-nuclear countries feel safe from attack by the nuclear powers. Not only has the U.S. not done this, but it has done the exact opposite. Therefore, North Korea is under no obligation to abide by a treaty that the U.S. has already broken.
I’m curious - do you sincerely believe this is a more defensible position than a simple “North Korea good, US bad”?
So Kim Chong-Il is justified in breaking the treaty because it hurt his “feelings”? Or are you claiming that it is the US’ fault that the North Korean government doesn’t feel safe?
Mojo has posted a much better response than I did (thanks). I am getting the same feeling of drowning in ideological quicksand that I often do in reading what you write, so I will simply ask you to address what he said.
Chumpsky, just what do you think the U.S. should do to appease NK? From your posts I get the impression that it doesn’t matter what Kim Chong-Il does, its that the U.S. and Bush are never right and are the real evil in the world.
Impaired in the sense that you don’t seem to be aware that the pre-emptive strike in question was conducted by the Japanese on the Americans.
If you ponder the question deeply, you might ruminate on the notion that the US vs the rest of the world is not the best plan. Does the name “Custer” ring a bell?
When you’ve earned it lad, it will be forthcoming. Thus far, you are merely ill-informed and, presumably, quite young.
Ah! Now you’ve earned it! If your approach to reasonable debate is to accuse someone who disagrees with you of celebrating a national tragedy, you are not long for these boards, and will not be missed.
It always best to be underestimated. When you’re older, you’ll understand.
Such childish over-simplifications are the domain of CNN, CBS, NBC, etc. The world is more complicated than that.
This isn’t even debatable. The U.S. openly announces that North Korea could be a nuclear first-strike target.
But, like I said, when one party breaks a treaty, the other party is not bound by it. The U.S. broke the treaty by undermining the non-proliferation treaty. Here is the text of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
Appease? I love how this word is always bantied about when talking about an official enemy. The implication is, of course, that we are dealing with another Hitler out to conquer the world. In fact, North Korea has not attacked any foreign countries in the last few decades. The same cannot be said about the U.S.
What should be done? Well, for one thing, the U.S. could abide by its treaty commitments, like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the U.N. Charter, and the Geneva Convention, to mention a few. It could work for peace and for nuclear dis-armament. That would be a start.
What it has done, on the other hand, is to use treaties like the one with North Korea, to weaken other states while strenghtening its own military hand. It wants the rest of the world to be disarmed, while it itself continues to build more and more weapons of mass destruction.
The U.S. leadership is the most dangerous force in the world today. It is a threat to itself and the rest of the world. No other state is nearly as aggressive as the U.S., and no other state poses a threat that even remotely compares to the threat the U.S. poses to the world.
I use the term “the U.S.” as shorthand for “the ruling class of the U.S.” It is not America, as in the citizens of America that pursue these policies. It is the ruling class who pursues them for its own interests.
Why do I live here? It’s my country. There is a lot of freedom here that has been won against the ruling class, and a lot of potential for change. I think it is better to work for change against a bloodthirsty oligarchy than to flee to another country.
Today’s news is not encouraging. South Korea is reporting that North Korea is removing spent fuel rods from their reactor, presumably to make more nuclear weapons. North Korea, in the meantime, is saying that there will be a ‘huge conflagration’ if the U.S. does not recognize the legitimacy of their nuclear program.
This is a big, big problem. It looks like diplomacy is failing, and I don’t see how the west can allow North Korea to build up a large nuclear weapons program. And given the recent interception of the hidden missile shipment to the Middle East, the U.S. has to be extremely worried about this nuclear material winding up in the hands of Hussein, or Hezbollah, or al-Qaida.
2003 is going to be a very interesting year. In the Chinese curse sense.
Bush tried diplomacy ? I’ve seen reports that Powell’s been trying to put a bandaid over the crisis, but actual substantive diplomacy would involve holding talks with the NPRK, and working towards some sort of mutually agreeable resolution to the problem. AFAIK, that’s not happening. Do you have a cite that claims otherwise ?
Why would any nation use a nuclear weapon? Wouldn’t it set off a chain of events that would end life on the planet? What would be left?
Does North Korea think we plan to strike them first and they are preparing to defend themselves?
Are they looking to sell these weapons?
Do they just want to do it so they can say… hey we did it… some kind of status thing?
Are they establishing some kind of bargaining position?
Are they just “misbehaving” because they know we are concerned with other foreign policy issues? They just want to be a pain? They want a little negative attention?
What are the other possibilities? They wish to destroy the planet?
BTW Sam a few months ago you were crowing that the North Korean situation had improved because of Bush’s tough words in his “axis of evil” speech. Now that the situation is spinning out of control does Bush get part of the blame? Or is Bush responsible only when the good stuff happens?
What this crisis illustrates is the near uselessness of the famed “moral clarity” that is supposed to the hallmark of Bush’s foreign policy. North Korea is probably the ghastliest and most dangerous regime in the world. But what to do about it? Military action is highly problematic because of the proximity of Seoul to N. Korean artillery. The primary focus has to be diplomacy. But what line to take, when to compromise, when to stand firm? “Moral clarity” tells us nothing about this even assuming it ever meant anything at all.
As for the current situation the administration has definitely dug itself into a hole by refusing to even talk with North Korea unitil it renounces its nuclear weapons. Since there is no credible military alternative to diplomacy that pretty much means drifting along doing nothing as North Korea advances to nuclear status. And diplomacy is complicated by the fact that the Bush administration has managed to piss off the South Koreans during the last two years.
They’ve been trying to get the U.S. to negotiate with them for two years now. We’ve refused to do so on “moral” grounds. Now they’re upping the pressure, on us and our onetime allies. NPRK continues to ask for negotiations with U.S. Giving the U.S. alliance an atomic wedgie
Until this most recent crisis, the north Korean regime had been reaching out to the south and Japan. Cutting off the fuel oil shipments pissed them off though, and they’re responding as they think best.
Cyberpundit: Well, it sure looks like the rhetoric didn’t work with North Korea, and may in fact have made things worse. I’ll concede that.
The Axis of Evil rhetoric HAS worked in Iran, however. And now it’s being backed up by the Bush administration extending olive branches to the Iranian people, who look to be getting more and more agitated with their government.
Back to North Korea. Bush’s strategy doesn’t seem to be working, but on the other hand, Clinton’s policy of negotiation and appeasement didn’t work either. We now know that North Korea basically played the U.S. like a chump - getting them to give them oil and food while almost immediately breaking their end of the bargain anyway.
I have no idea how to solve the North Korea problem, and I don’t think anyone else does, either. They just aren’t rational. Kim had a great opportunity to move his country into the world of civilized nations. South Korea was working towards ending hostilities. Japan was working with them to improve the economy. Now all of a sudden they’ve become a nuclear nightmare, and they’re apparently proud of it. Sheesh.
Squink: It’s more than just cutting off the fuel shipments. After all, they could have avoided that and chose not to. I think it’s a deeper problem. For example, North Korea makes a large chunk of money exporting weapons. The U.S. wants to cut that off. Dictators like Kim Jong-il and Saddam want nuclear weapons just to have the power, to be able to throw their weight around, and to be consulted on world events. The U.S. doesn’t want that. And of course, the U.S. has to be terrified with the prospect of North Korea selling nukes to people like Saddam, given that North Korea sells everything else. North Korea probably wants to sell nukes to Saddam - huge profit, and it would benefit North Korea for the west to become entangled in a nuclear middle-east.
“The Axis of Evil rhetoric HAS worked in Iran, however.”
That is highly debateable to put it mildly. I read a NY Times op-ed piece by one of the pro-democracy activists which specifically claimed that the “axis of evil” speech hurt their movement because it allowed the hardliners to paint them as being American stooges. There are probably many people in Iran who are critical of their government but who don’t like their country described as evil. If Bush wanted to offer rhetorical support to the pro-democracy Iranians there were better ways to do it.
About N Korea I agree it's a devilishly difficult problem and Clinton's policies were no great success either. However given recent events it's hard not to believe that Bush has made a bad situation worse. In particular he has alienated the South Koreans at a time when its vital that all countries in the region present a united diplomatic front against the North Koreans.
I expect the relations between the US and North Korea to resemble those between the US and Stalinist-era USSR - except that North Korea cannot (apparently) be trusted to abide by arms control treaties.
I don’t think this is correct. What they seem to want to negotiate is how much oil we send them while they develop nuclear weapons and blackmail South Korea. We haven’t refused to negotiate on ‘moral grounds’, we just don’t want them to have what they want - the Bomb. They already violated the agreement under which we give them fuel while they develop civilian nuclear power plants - how can we negotiate another treaty if they don’t keep their word?
I think China will need to be involved in this. If they can recognize the problems involved in a nuclear-armed country run by a maniac on one of their borders.