I realize there were protests concerning those two teenage girls being killed, but I don’t think that generally true. I was under the impression that the recent elections had more to do with opening up relations with N. Korea and thats not necessarily synonymous with a U.S. presence. Which is why I don’t understand N. Korea’s actions. With the “sunshine” guy who just got elected it seems like N. Korea would want to open up the relations a little, giving the U.S. less reason to station troops in S. Korea. N. Korea’s actions don’t make any sense, they are not winning any fans. Actions of goodwill should be reserved for countries trying to do the right thing, not for countries trying to bully their way through things.
You have no way of knowing that. If we(U.S.) pull out our troops to prevent conflict then S. Koreans could very well say that we don’t care about their security(besides not giving us an insurance policy on the Korean peninsula). This bribery thats being mentioned seems almost like the U.S. being blackmailed. We pay them off, that doesn’t mean they can’t just ask for more, or just start a war for the hell of it because it isn’t enough.
Well sure, that’s why I listed it as a possible outcome. I made no mention of pulling troops. There’s no way to do it in the short term without irritating the South anyway, so why do you even bring it up; red herring ?
Oddly, no one seems to be able to come up with a scenario that is both acceptable to the administration, and likely to enhance our foreign policy objectives. There’s lots of carping about evil-genocidal-madman-dudes, and a bit about somehow convincing China, South Korea and Japan to cut off trade/food; but that’ll just amount to negotiation through 3rd parties. Germany and France have nearly as much trade with the PRNK as does China. I wonder why we’re not publicly pressuring them on this issue. Could it be that we’ve burnt too many diplomatic bridges in the past two years ?
**
No, and I realized you never mentioned pulling out troops, but I don’t agree that bribery is a proper course of action and I don’t think not resorting to it hinder good relations with S. Korea.
I realize the full plan hasn’t been laid out by the administration, but it seems the US is seeking a peaceful solution, which is a good thing as long as N. Korea halts their activity in the DMZ and its weapons program. We should let Japan and S. Korea pursue their open policies, but at the same time apply pressure on them to apply pressure on N. Korea(make sesne?:)) to halt their weapons program. Since a preemptive on a nuclear facility doesn’t seem like such a good idea(right now) for a number of reasons(plutonium in atmosphere, not likely to subdue program, open war), then U.S. should give a clear statemtent thats draws a line in the sand as far as military conflict goes, just to give reassurance to N. Korea that an U.S. preemptive is not imminent.
Speaking of red herring, wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest to apply pressure on N. Korea to stop its weapons program? What does this have to do with U.S. burned diplomatic bridges(if you would, I’d also like you to explain that further). If France and Germany did decide to maintain trade relations with N. Korea despite the U.S. because they were angry with us for past events, it would seem like pretty childish diplomacy. How does the saying go “Cutting off the nose, in spite of the face.”?
“Speaking of red herring, wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest to apply pressure on N. Korea to stop its weapons program?”
Yes but not necessarily to the extent of putting so much pressure that the complete collapse of North Korea , with incalculable consequences for the peninsula, is threatened. There is no consensus on such a strategy.
What the less-than-stellar diplomatic performance of the Bush administration means is that it has substantially lower chances of persuading it allies to adopt a common strategy they don’t agree with.
“How does the saying go “Cutting off the nose, in spite of the face.”?”
No, this assumes that the allies agree on the correct strategy but refuse to back it out of spite. The problem is that there is no agreement on the correct strategy. If the US wants to exercise leadership it needs to persuade its allies and reach a consensus which currently doesn’t exist.
Of course, and also all the more reason for N. Korea to cooperate.
I realize a consensus hasn’t been reached and I know some dislike Bush and that their personal opinions of him may diminish any cause he takes up no matter how good, hence my saying. I just don’t think those Bush opinions should apply since according to Squink’s link he seems to be doing an good job so far.
I think Squink’s link only shows the administration backing down discreetly from its foolish position of not even talking to North Korea. I am not sure why it means that Bush “has been doing a good job so far”.
One possibility is that there might be back-channel talks and a secret deal like in the Cuban missile crisis. Then the administration can claim public victory while N. Korea gets the economic aid it wants.
Maybe it doesn’t, but when I hear “peaceful solution” and see the word “talk” instead of “war”, I usually think thats a good thing, what was I thinking?. I don’t think refusing to talk to N. Korea is as bad thing as you claim. Powell even said Bush inherited the problem and didn’t create it. They broke the treaty, so talking to them didn’t do much good. If they want more money, maybe they can just stop spending 30% of their budget for defense and while they’re at it make more sound economic and diplomatic choices.
“They broke the treaty, so talking to them didn’t do much good”
Well since there is no realistic military solution there will have to be some kind of talks eventually to solve the crisis. The sooner the better unless you want to wait till North Korea acquires more and more bombs. Talking , per se, doesn’t mean giving in to North Korea.
“If they want more money, maybe they can just stop spending 30% of their budget for defense and while they’re at it make more sound economic and diplomatic choices.”
There are many things it would be nice if the North Koreans did but unfortunately you have to take the world as it exists and try to work from there. Denouncing hostile regimes as “evil” and babbling about “moral clarity” doesn’t get you very far.
If by talking, you mean negotiations leading to some agreement, the problem is that we already know for certain that the North Koreans cannot be trusted to do what they promise.
Why? Because they - or their leaders - are evil. Nasty, treacherous, untrustworthy people, whose hands drip with the blood of their own people. People who kidnap Japanese to get language teachers. People like that.
So the “moral clarity” of which you seem to think so little means, in part, keeping steadily in mind that these are the folks on the other side of the table. So that we don’t do anything stupid, like expect them to abide by any agreements if they think they gain more from breaking them.
So “moral clarity” seems to have gotten us farther than the last attempts at bribery. At least we have fewer opportunities for self-deception.
Whoops, I feel Clinton-bashing coming on. And I wanted to try to avoid that.
Regards,
Shodan
Since you have failed to propose any meaningful alternative to diplomacy I am not sure what you are suggesting. Yes, North Korea is unreliable but the US doesn’t have much choice. The best it can do is to structure the negotiations and final deal so that North Koreans have better incentives to stick with it. One possibility is to go ahead with “tailored containment” and at the same time make a secret deal. This would be the like the Cuban missile crisis where the US enforced a quarantine and at the same time made a secret deal with the USSR.
Wouldn’t there be a way to covertly destroy a nuclear reactor without a smoking gun?
Unlike the United States.
In fact, there is no nation less trustworthy than the U.S. But, just because you can’t trust somebody doesn’t mean you can’t enter into agreements. Everybody knows that the U.S. can’t be trusted–the U.S. breaks every treaty it can, almost if it does so just for the principle of showing that it can–yet many nations enter into agreements with the totally untrustworthy U.S. It is sort of like when you enter into an agreement with a corporate lawyer or other such paid liar. You can’t trust them, but at least you know you can’t trust them.
The blood dripping off the hands of the NK leadership pales in comparison to the rivers of blood that flow copiously from the U.S. leadership, and that continue to flow every day. The number of people killed by the U.S. and its proxies every day is simply staggering. Right now somebody is probably being killed by a death squad in Columbia, or being tortured by a Saudi military officer, or having their village burned down in Turkey, etc.
You certainly don’t need any more of that.
Mind you, your jingoism and blinding hypocrisy are kind of impressive there, though. I hope I haven’t kept you too long from flag waving practice or tub thumping exercises.
Just checking back to make sure that everybody is appropriately focusing on the evilness of our enemies.
FOCUS!
Never let your eye off of their sheer evilness. You must not for a second glance away from that evil over there, unless it is to give praise to our magnificent defender and giver of light, George Bush, he who saves us from all the evil that would form itself into an axis.
It’s EEEEVVVILL I tell you! Soooo evil!
Those lying little bastards cannot be trusted, cannot be trusted. By god, they even broke a treaty! And are trying to develop a nuclear weapon! How much more evil can you get!!!
We must trust our leaders and focus on that evil over there…over there that is not here, because there is nothing to see here, nothing that could possibly compare to the just pure, irredeemable evil that exists …over there.
I’m a little surprised to find you championing a people’s oppression, Chump.
Despite an abundance of natural resources, massive scale international aid, and a nearly completely literate population, North Koreans suffer from chronic food shortages, impoverished living conditions, and increasing economic disorder.
True, the socialist economy is substantially to blame. But reckless government spending on things like nuclear power (they have abundant hydropower sources) and weapons is certainly contributory, don’t you think?
Hi, Chumpsky -
I have already posted that I don’t think I can debate your position, since it doesn’t seem to be based on the same definitions as I use. For instance, it is hard for me to figure out why what the Saudis do should be blamed on the US.
And I don’t think someone who looks at the North Korean government, and George Bush, and then condemns Bush as the worse of the two, can be sharing the same definition of morality as me.
Sorry. I got enough of that “the US is the Great Satan” stuff from Khomeini and bin-Laden. And we have seen where it led us.
Regards,
Shodan
It sure is. That’s why it’s so nice to see forward-looking nations like South Korea doing their level best to get the Peoples Republic hooked on that most powerful economic drug: Free Market Capitalism. That could be a real breath of fresh air for the north. After nearly 50 years of variations on the “tailored containment” theory, it’s about time that the hawks got off their moral high-horse and started work on a plan that has a reasonable chance of bringing North Korea back into the fold of civilized nations. If the U.S. won’t lead here, someone else has to.
And what would such a plan look like?
Again, a genuine question. What should the US or the rest of the world be doing, how will it differ from what is being done now, and why does it have a more reasonable chance of success than current strategy?
Regards,
Shodan
"And what would such a plan look like? "
Take a look at the link.