Tentative agreement with North Korea
February 14, 2007 11:29 PM Subscribe
Tentative agreement reached with North Korea. The six-party talks in Beijing finally succeeded: under the agreement, North Korea will close its main nuclear reactor within 60 days, in exchange for food, fuel aid, and steps towards normal relations with the US and Japan. The deal still has to be approved by the six governments. Analysis from the New York Times. Background from Richard Bernstein in the New York Review of Books, and from the International Crisis Group. Previously.
Axis of EEEEEEVile: One down. Two to g... um...
Never mind.
posted by tkchrist at 12:11 AM on February 15, 2007
Never mind.
posted by tkchrist at 12:11 AM on February 15, 2007
Q: You have two states you don't like, one that threatens you and one that doesn't. Which do you invade?
A. The one with the oil.
as opposed to
B. The one that can turn Seoul into a smoking, poisoned, infected charnel house at the drop of a hat?
The US can't invade North Korea without losing most of South Korea to to biological, chemical, and conventional artillery shells.
Frankly, if I were an imperialist, I'd go for Iraq over NK too,
posted by sebastienbailard at 12:51 AM on February 15, 2007 [1 favorite]
A. The one with the oil.
as opposed to
B. The one that can turn Seoul into a smoking, poisoned, infected charnel house at the drop of a hat?
The US can't invade North Korea without losing most of South Korea to to biological, chemical, and conventional artillery shells.
Frankly, if I were an imperialist, I'd go for Iraq over NK too,
posted by sebastienbailard at 12:51 AM on February 15, 2007 [1 favorite]
So, in essence, this is exactly the same deal the Clinton administration reached, the one that had the conservatives foaming at the mouth?
Sorta. But now North Korea actually has nukes. It's amazing that any other "rogue" state -- :cough: Iran :cough: -- would want the same weapons.
posted by ryoshu at 1:28 AM on February 15, 2007
Sorta. But now North Korea actually has nukes. It's amazing that any other "rogue" state -- :cough: Iran :cough: -- would want the same weapons.
posted by ryoshu at 1:28 AM on February 15, 2007
What malor and ryoshu said.
When DPRK got nukes, Rice was quick to tell people "Well, but under Clinton it was just a hollow bunch of words with no enforcement power." Now they have nukes. And we have a new set of just a hollow bunch of words.
Un-fricking-believable, as usual. We have no adults working on foreign policy in the Bush administration. It's hilarious and terrifying at the same time. Magical thinking as prime directive.
posted by bardic at 1:56 AM on February 15, 2007
When DPRK got nukes, Rice was quick to tell people "Well, but under Clinton it was just a hollow bunch of words with no enforcement power." Now they have nukes. And we have a new set of just a hollow bunch of words.
Un-fricking-believable, as usual. We have no adults working on foreign policy in the Bush administration. It's hilarious and terrifying at the same time. Magical thinking as prime directive.
posted by bardic at 1:56 AM on February 15, 2007
The Norks play the American administration, and most everyone else, like a banjo. It would be amusing to watch them leading everyone around by the nose if the stakes weren't so high, and if the regimes in question weren't so corrupt.
Obligatory Young-hae Chang Heavy industries link [Flash].
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:06 AM on February 15, 2007
Obligatory Young-hae Chang Heavy industries link [Flash].
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:06 AM on February 15, 2007
> Un-fricking-believable, as usual. We have no adults working on foreign policy in the Bush administration.
Just for general interest, what would an adult do about NK? The nukes, and the concentration camps?
posted by jfuller at 2:51 AM on February 15, 2007
Just for general interest, what would an adult do about NK? The nukes, and the concentration camps?
posted by jfuller at 2:51 AM on February 15, 2007
I'd try airdropping JCPenney catalogs from B-2s and see what develops.
posted by pax digita at 4:29 AM on February 15, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by pax digita at 4:29 AM on February 15, 2007 [2 favorites]
NK is, in my opinion, a very real threat, and we've rendered ourselves incapable of dealing with it.
And what other methods are there to dealing with NK?
During the past five years in which the Bush administration has engaged in tough but empty rhetoric, NK has done more to develop their nuclear capacity then they ever did under the "appeasing" framework set up by the Clinton administration. We could never take any military action against them because they could incinerate Seoul and attack portions of Japan. We could never really put the screws on their regime economically since it isn't in the interest of the only party in the position to do so (Beijing, which would fear the waves of refugees coming across the border.)
Negotiation, with the eventual promise of security guarantees for that odious regime, is the only credible way to prevent the proliferation of nukes out of NK.
posted by alidarbac at 4:39 AM on February 15, 2007
And what other methods are there to dealing with NK?
During the past five years in which the Bush administration has engaged in tough but empty rhetoric, NK has done more to develop their nuclear capacity then they ever did under the "appeasing" framework set up by the Clinton administration. We could never take any military action against them because they could incinerate Seoul and attack portions of Japan. We could never really put the screws on their regime economically since it isn't in the interest of the only party in the position to do so (Beijing, which would fear the waves of refugees coming across the border.)
Negotiation, with the eventual promise of security guarantees for that odious regime, is the only credible way to prevent the proliferation of nukes out of NK.
posted by alidarbac at 4:39 AM on February 15, 2007
There are a couples directions one could go jfuller. None of them ideal. All of them better than six years of stern looks and absolute inaction.
Buying them off with food and oil to keep the seals on their plutonium was certainly a better plan that striking a Benito Musoliniesque pose, announcing that we don't "deal" with rogue states, letting them break the seals, and then after they actually make a nuke (maybe) buying them off with food and oil to replace those seals on their now looted plutonium storage.
Yes North Korea was trying to enrich uranium and come at nukes from another direction, but after the "agreed framework" broke down they didn't have to. Now that the horse is gone the best they've come up with is to put the locks that Clinton installed back on the barn? Pathetic.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 4:50 AM on February 15, 2007
Buying them off with food and oil to keep the seals on their plutonium was certainly a better plan that striking a Benito Musoliniesque pose, announcing that we don't "deal" with rogue states, letting them break the seals, and then after they actually make a nuke (maybe) buying them off with food and oil to replace those seals on their now looted plutonium storage.
Yes North Korea was trying to enrich uranium and come at nukes from another direction, but after the "agreed framework" broke down they didn't have to. Now that the horse is gone the best they've come up with is to put the locks that Clinton installed back on the barn? Pathetic.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 4:50 AM on February 15, 2007
Why not just kill Kim Jong Il? I know we're not supposed to assassinate leaders, but the country isn't really the problem, the leader is.
I think we could make a very good case for a surgical strike, death squad, space laser, or whatever, that would kill Kim Jong Il. I know we tried with Castro, but it was a very different situation then.
If we did kill him, then were first at the door with offers of financial aid, favorable trade and other offers of help, but never specifically admitted to the assassination, everyone is a winner.
Heck, we could build the giant space laser, give away gobs of money and still come out ahead of some other wars we've engaged in.
In terms of international respect, we can't go down much further. In terms of trouble, we view North Korea as a whole as an enemy now, so we can only really go up there. With respect to perceptions, no one currently disbelieves that we would assassinate people, so no change there either.
It might be a tough job to plan, but you can't tell me South Korea doesn't have a few ideas...
posted by BeReasonable at 5:53 AM on February 15, 2007
I think we could make a very good case for a surgical strike, death squad, space laser, or whatever, that would kill Kim Jong Il. I know we tried with Castro, but it was a very different situation then.
If we did kill him, then were first at the door with offers of financial aid, favorable trade and other offers of help, but never specifically admitted to the assassination, everyone is a winner.
Heck, we could build the giant space laser, give away gobs of money and still come out ahead of some other wars we've engaged in.
In terms of international respect, we can't go down much further. In terms of trouble, we view North Korea as a whole as an enemy now, so we can only really go up there. With respect to perceptions, no one currently disbelieves that we would assassinate people, so no change there either.
It might be a tough job to plan, but you can't tell me South Korea doesn't have a few ideas...
posted by BeReasonable at 5:53 AM on February 15, 2007
Bolton said that the North Koreans merely used tghe nukes to extort morez nd morez...not to be trusted. and he is a Bushite.
posted by Postroad at 6:01 AM on February 15, 2007
posted by Postroad at 6:01 AM on February 15, 2007
Why not just kill Kim Jong Il? I know we're not supposed to assassinate leaders, but the country isn't really the problem, the leader is.
Yes, look at how well things have turned out since we killed Saddam Hussein.
posted by briank at 6:02 AM on February 15, 2007
Yes, look at how well things have turned out since we killed Saddam Hussein.
posted by briank at 6:02 AM on February 15, 2007
Axis of Evil" . Iraq= Saddam taken out
N. Kore= no more nukes
On to Iran! our Chief is on target and getting done what he says needs doing...let's get behind him with full support. And yes, lefties too.
posted by Postroad at 6:12 AM on February 15, 2007
N. Kore= no more nukes
On to Iran! our Chief is on target and getting done what he says needs doing...let's get behind him with full support. And yes, lefties too.
posted by Postroad at 6:12 AM on February 15, 2007
NK is, in my opinion, a very real threat, and we've rendered ourselves incapable of dealing with it.And what other methods are there to dealing with NK?
Pretty much. The thing is, when all your options are bad, and you're basically faced with a huge crisis down the road or a huge crisis right away, punting it down the road is still the right choice even though it's a bad option; at the very least you let tens of thousands of people live a bit longer, and in the best case maybe some outside event will open new options.
So really, this new plan is probably the way to go at the moment, no matter how much it chafes that the Bush administration scored points by bagging on Clinton's North Korea policy only to re-implement it 6 years later. The real tragedy, as Kid Charlemagne points out, is that the plutonium is out now; it is very much easier to produce nuclear weapons with plutonium than with enriched uranium, and keeping the Pu in check was a key element of the Clinton deal; we knew they'd be enriching uranium.
The NYTimes article does say that the "nuclear facilities" will be "sealed," so maybe we're back to status quo ante after all. But I'd be interested in seeing a diplomat / security expert parse the exact language to be sure.
posted by rkent at 6:33 AM on February 15, 2007
Oh yeah, sorry, we're obviously not really back to status quo ante because now they do in fact have nuclear weapons. I meant in terms of producing additional fissile material. Pretty big caveat, though. Heh.
posted by rkent at 6:36 AM on February 15, 2007
posted by rkent at 6:36 AM on February 15, 2007
Why not just kill Kim Jong Il? I know we're not supposed to assassinate leaders, but the country isn't really the problem, the leader is.
Well that whole "He's super paranoid about getting assassinated by the U.S or SK or Japan and so he's super-secretive about his whereabouts" thing might be problematic. I mean, just how would we kill him? Where is he located? How would we get an assassin close enough with a weapon? Where would we bomb? If we did bomb, why wouldn't they retaliate by shelling Seoul?
Besides, from what I've read "his generals" are supposedly even more hard-line then he is. The people who took over could be even worse.
posted by delmoi at 6:39 AM on February 15, 2007
Well that whole "He's super paranoid about getting assassinated by the U.S or SK or Japan and so he's super-secretive about his whereabouts" thing might be problematic. I mean, just how would we kill him? Where is he located? How would we get an assassin close enough with a weapon? Where would we bomb? If we did bomb, why wouldn't they retaliate by shelling Seoul?
Besides, from what I've read "his generals" are supposedly even more hard-line then he is. The people who took over could be even worse.
posted by delmoi at 6:39 AM on February 15, 2007
Why not just kill Kim Jong Il?
Better the devil you know....
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:11 AM on February 15, 2007
Better the devil you know....
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:11 AM on February 15, 2007
Why not just kill Kim Jong Il? I know we're not supposed to assassinate leaders, but the country isn't really the problem, the leader is.
Because it is wrong.
posted by srboisvert at 7:13 AM on February 15, 2007
Because it is wrong.
posted by srboisvert at 7:13 AM on February 15, 2007
Exactly what threat does North Korea pose, again? They aren't about to invade, or nuke, anybody, because the cost is far too great - self-assured destruction.
Nothing wrong with a little diplomacy or anything, but this idea "something must be done" is just childish.
posted by Chuckles at 7:19 AM on February 15, 2007
Nothing wrong with a little diplomacy or anything, but this idea "something must be done" is just childish.
posted by Chuckles at 7:19 AM on February 15, 2007
I don't want to seem flip, but that's just logistics. If we really wanted to kill the guy, we could. And the act itself would probably be a pretty stern warning to his successors that any sort of worse behavior might be met with more assassinations.
It seems to be the case that historically leaders don't mind sending others to die, but when they are personally threatened their actions change somewhat.
As far as comparing such an act to Saddam Hussein's death, it's not even the same thing. We invaded a country, put their despotic leader on trial, and then they hanged him. That plan diverges twice from my far simpler plan of finding the despotic leader and killing him.
On preview, srboisvert, I obviously don't agree that it's wrong and I believe history agrees with me.
Also, chuckles, here's a guy that believes North Korea is not a threat, and two reasons to be afraid, biological weapons and missile sales.
posted by BeReasonable at 7:38 AM on February 15, 2007
It seems to be the case that historically leaders don't mind sending others to die, but when they are personally threatened their actions change somewhat.
As far as comparing such an act to Saddam Hussein's death, it's not even the same thing. We invaded a country, put their despotic leader on trial, and then they hanged him. That plan diverges twice from my far simpler plan of finding the despotic leader and killing him.
On preview, srboisvert, I obviously don't agree that it's wrong and I believe history agrees with me.
Also, chuckles, here's a guy that believes North Korea is not a threat, and two reasons to be afraid, biological weapons and missile sales.
posted by BeReasonable at 7:38 AM on February 15, 2007
Exactly what threat does North Korea pose, again?
To their own people they pose a huge threat. To my way of life? So very little compared to the very real threat my own Government and America poses.
Same goes for Iran. They are not concerned with my way of life so long as I'm not going to meddle with theirs. Fair enough.
posted by twistedonion at 7:41 AM on February 15, 2007
To their own people they pose a huge threat. To my way of life? So very little compared to the very real threat my own Government and America poses.
Same goes for Iran. They are not concerned with my way of life so long as I'm not going to meddle with theirs. Fair enough.
posted by twistedonion at 7:41 AM on February 15, 2007
if you kill Jim Join Il, are you sure you know how his military will react? are you sure he won't be immediately replaced by someone just as nutty but even more angry?
posted by paradroid at 7:54 AM on February 15, 2007
posted by paradroid at 7:54 AM on February 15, 2007
In terms of international respect, we can't go down much further
Wait till you have to go to the prom with a big black smoking glass-bottom zit on your Northeast Coast.
posted by CynicalKnight at 8:07 AM on February 15, 2007
Wait till you have to go to the prom with a big black smoking glass-bottom zit on your Northeast Coast.
posted by CynicalKnight at 8:07 AM on February 15, 2007
If you're trying to justify or condemn killing a dictator based on moral right or wrong, the U.S. crossed that bridge a long time ago. And then burned it.
The U.S. pre-emptively invaded a country, and then continued to preach as gospel that same intel when it's been proven false time and again. When a decision is made based on bad information (and yeah, maybe at the time you didn't know it was bad), someone who cares about moral right and wrong would allow their actions to be modified and/or reversed in accordance with what they've now discovered to be false.
I'm not advocating killing Kim Jong. In fact, I would be proud to be a part of a country that could find a way to successfully talk him down and diplomatically resolve the situation.
posted by ninjew at 8:11 AM on February 15, 2007
The U.S. pre-emptively invaded a country, and then continued to preach as gospel that same intel when it's been proven false time and again. When a decision is made based on bad information (and yeah, maybe at the time you didn't know it was bad), someone who cares about moral right and wrong would allow their actions to be modified and/or reversed in accordance with what they've now discovered to be false.
I'm not advocating killing Kim Jong. In fact, I would be proud to be a part of a country that could find a way to successfully talk him down and diplomatically resolve the situation.
posted by ninjew at 8:11 AM on February 15, 2007
When I first read this post, I wondered how many comments it would take before it turned into a Conservative-bashing thread.
The answer: One.
posted by tadellin at 8:25 AM on February 15, 2007
The answer: One.
posted by tadellin at 8:25 AM on February 15, 2007
We tried a decapitation strike against Saddam Hussein right before we invaded Iraq. We missed him and killed 15 civilians instead.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:39 AM on February 15, 2007
posted by kirkaracha at 8:39 AM on February 15, 2007
bereasonable -- there are a couple of basic flaws with your assumption of physical harm as deterrence. Dictators in the past, have faced or succumbed to assassination attempts before and they and their regimes have, according to history, not responded by being kinder and gentler but by being more repressive and despotic. You posit that when faced with a dire threat, tyrants will have fight or flight (acquiesence) provoked, and you bet that acquiesence will be chosen. However, for most it's the fight response that's chosen (indeed, one can argue that in order to climb the Cruelty Ladder to succeed as a tyrant, one must always choose the Fight option). Also, you expect that the DPRK would produce a replacement for Kim Jong-Il. In situations where the replacement candidate isn't strong, then you invite anarchy instead.
Did Hamas lay down arms after the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin? No, they just put Rantisi in place, who called for more terror attacks, and Israel had to go kill him, too. Since then, has Hamas acknowledged Israel's right to exist? Has it disavowed violence? Let's check the news.
The assassination of President Habyarimana in Rwanda did not bring an end to Hutu aggression against Tutsi, but actually unleashed the Rwandan genocide.
And, of course, to overuse a dead horse -- Hitler had faced a couple of assassination attempts but still clung to the idea of the Reich and his ultimate victory.
The scenarios where an assassination brings about lasting regime change is usually reliant on a cohesive military organization that survives the leader's death and can reasonably make succession decisions. (cf. Pakistan with General Zia's death) but most general knowledge of North Korea's military indicates that this isn't the case. If anything, it's a feudal collection of generals as warlords, and it would disintegrate into a failed state as soon as the Kim family is eliminated. You're basically inviting the Iraq failure, except this time with nuclear weapons.
posted by bl1nk at 8:48 AM on February 15, 2007
Did Hamas lay down arms after the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin? No, they just put Rantisi in place, who called for more terror attacks, and Israel had to go kill him, too. Since then, has Hamas acknowledged Israel's right to exist? Has it disavowed violence? Let's check the news.
The assassination of President Habyarimana in Rwanda did not bring an end to Hutu aggression against Tutsi, but actually unleashed the Rwandan genocide.
And, of course, to overuse a dead horse -- Hitler had faced a couple of assassination attempts but still clung to the idea of the Reich and his ultimate victory.
The scenarios where an assassination brings about lasting regime change is usually reliant on a cohesive military organization that survives the leader's death and can reasonably make succession decisions. (cf. Pakistan with General Zia's death) but most general knowledge of North Korea's military indicates that this isn't the case. If anything, it's a feudal collection of generals as warlords, and it would disintegrate into a failed state as soon as the Kim family is eliminated. You're basically inviting the Iraq failure, except this time with nuclear weapons.
posted by bl1nk at 8:48 AM on February 15, 2007
There's also the whole cult of personality thing going on. It would be rather like assassinating the Pope, and then wondering why Italy is getting so uppity.
posted by sebastienbailard at 8:58 AM on February 15, 2007
posted by sebastienbailard at 8:58 AM on February 15, 2007
I was reading bl1nk's comments and congratulating myself on my awesome correctitude when I got to the part about the feudal collection of warlords. That is scary. I don't think killing Kim Jong Il would be a good idea if that's going to be the result, especially if he really does have this giant cult of personality going for him.
But, I don't know, I think my position still has a little validity. I don't think the cult of personality will survive beyond the dictator's death and I don' t think he will be missed, especially if North Korea is suddenly hit with a massive influx of humanitarian aid.
I also believe we will have South Korea and China as very interested allies in assuring that the power struggles stay small and don't go nuclear. I believe that will help a lot.
Also, I think such a resolution will lead us into a situation we've experienced before (the dissolution of the USSR) and we are better prepared for the problems we will encounter. Hopefully we can stop all of their biological weapons and such from disappearing into the black market.
It's a risky proposition, which kind of makes me think maybe we ought to just leave them alone, but then again, if we do that, maybe someone gets bombed or gassed just to gain attention. I don't see the middle road that discourages other tinpot dictatorships from doing this same thing someplace else.
posted by BeReasonable at 9:47 AM on February 15, 2007
But, I don't know, I think my position still has a little validity. I don't think the cult of personality will survive beyond the dictator's death and I don' t think he will be missed, especially if North Korea is suddenly hit with a massive influx of humanitarian aid.
I also believe we will have South Korea and China as very interested allies in assuring that the power struggles stay small and don't go nuclear. I believe that will help a lot.
Also, I think such a resolution will lead us into a situation we've experienced before (the dissolution of the USSR) and we are better prepared for the problems we will encounter. Hopefully we can stop all of their biological weapons and such from disappearing into the black market.
It's a risky proposition, which kind of makes me think maybe we ought to just leave them alone, but then again, if we do that, maybe someone gets bombed or gassed just to gain attention. I don't see the middle road that discourages other tinpot dictatorships from doing this same thing someplace else.
posted by BeReasonable at 9:47 AM on February 15, 2007
Just for general interest, what would an adult do about NK? The nukes, and the concentration camps?
One thing that could be done: actual democracy promotion.
We could condition any concessions, aid, thawing of relations on actual internal reform. Tell them that if they want trade, food, oil, and normal relations they need to stop killing dissidents and allow people to leave the country if they choose to.
There's a reason NK is so seemingly aggressive. They need to create external enemies to keep their oppressed populations from revolting. The regime is inherently unstable in that it must continue investing more and more resources into keeping its population afraid and submissive.
Force them to show actual attempts at human rights reform instead of empty promises that they will stop their nuclear program, which could still be continued clandestinely. This would be actual negotiation and diplomacy, forcing your enemies to make difficult choices rather than letting them blackmail you for food and fuel aid which will almost certainly not get to the people that actually need it. Of course, this presumes a moral high ground on our part that hasn't existed for America in 6 years or so, but even now I'd still say the US has a better human rights record than NK.
Yes, this is a bit naive, but it's kind of crazy that we aren't addressing human rights at all in our negotiations with NK. Their record on human rights is a weakness that should be exploited. If the administration even had one part of the principles they claim to to a hundred parts realpolitik and self-interest, we might actually see some progress.
posted by SBMike at 10:47 AM on February 15, 2007
One thing that could be done: actual democracy promotion.
We could condition any concessions, aid, thawing of relations on actual internal reform. Tell them that if they want trade, food, oil, and normal relations they need to stop killing dissidents and allow people to leave the country if they choose to.
There's a reason NK is so seemingly aggressive. They need to create external enemies to keep their oppressed populations from revolting. The regime is inherently unstable in that it must continue investing more and more resources into keeping its population afraid and submissive.
Force them to show actual attempts at human rights reform instead of empty promises that they will stop their nuclear program, which could still be continued clandestinely. This would be actual negotiation and diplomacy, forcing your enemies to make difficult choices rather than letting them blackmail you for food and fuel aid which will almost certainly not get to the people that actually need it. Of course, this presumes a moral high ground on our part that hasn't existed for America in 6 years or so, but even now I'd still say the US has a better human rights record than NK.
Yes, this is a bit naive, but it's kind of crazy that we aren't addressing human rights at all in our negotiations with NK. Their record on human rights is a weakness that should be exploited. If the administration even had one part of the principles they claim to to a hundred parts realpolitik and self-interest, we might actually see some progress.
posted by SBMike at 10:47 AM on February 15, 2007
Chuckles: Exactly what threat does North Korea pose, again? They aren't about to invade, or nuke, anybody, because the cost is far too great - self-assured destruction.
You are right that North Korea does not impose a direct threat. But the real problem is that if the west does not address their demands for food and energy aid, they will get it some other way and that means selling plutonium and nuclear expertise to other more dangerous actors.
It is the plutonium cat that the Bush administration has let out of the bag with their juvenile posturing the last six years and it has made the world a much more dangerous place.
posted by JackFlash at 11:08 AM on February 15, 2007
You are right that North Korea does not impose a direct threat. But the real problem is that if the west does not address their demands for food and energy aid, they will get it some other way and that means selling plutonium and nuclear expertise to other more dangerous actors.
It is the plutonium cat that the Bush administration has let out of the bag with their juvenile posturing the last six years and it has made the world a much more dangerous place.
posted by JackFlash at 11:08 AM on February 15, 2007
SBMike, and the basic flaw with your plan is that it probably poses a greater threat to Kim Jong-Il's continued survival than a CIA assassination attempt. The Kim family, by all rights, has been a poor ruler of North Korea and the only reason why they haven't been seized by their people, dragged into a square and torn apart by horses, is because of the totalitarian regime that they've imposed.
If KJI allows free travel across his borders, then he's basically inviting people to travel to Seoul, see how advanced and wonderful everything is over there, realize how shitty the DPRK has been, what lies have been told by the regime, and essentially institute regime change from within. He knows what happened to Ceausescu when Romania fell, and that the fate that would befall would be that squared. Kim Jong-Il doesn't want that.
What Kim Jong-Il might secretly dream to be is China. They negotiated the transition quite successfully, opening up their nation and allowing for free traffic without losing control and retaining the right to get all repressive when it suits their purposes. The biggest difference, of course, is that China is a superpower economy with tons of natural resources, cheap but decently educated citizens, and competent if not inspired manufacturing industries. The DPRK has ... forestry, coal and long range missiles. Oh, and a citizenry that's been taught nothing but how the Kims are, like, totally awesome.
China has juggled the creation of a more open society and a slightly less repressive regime by essentially bribing their population into acquiesence ("we'll open up our economy and make a lot of you fabulously prosperous. Just don't pull any more Tiananmen Squares, dig?"). The DPRK does not have that option. At this stage, the only method by which it can escape its fate as a basketcase is to either allow itself to be absorbed as a Chinese client state (partially complete, given the amount of Chinese investment in Pyongyang) or negotiate a reunification package with South Korea that either guarantees the survival of the Kim family or wholesale cooperation of the DPRK military.
posted by bl1nk at 12:00 PM on February 15, 2007
If KJI allows free travel across his borders, then he's basically inviting people to travel to Seoul, see how advanced and wonderful everything is over there, realize how shitty the DPRK has been, what lies have been told by the regime, and essentially institute regime change from within. He knows what happened to Ceausescu when Romania fell, and that the fate that would befall would be that squared. Kim Jong-Il doesn't want that.
What Kim Jong-Il might secretly dream to be is China. They negotiated the transition quite successfully, opening up their nation and allowing for free traffic without losing control and retaining the right to get all repressive when it suits their purposes. The biggest difference, of course, is that China is a superpower economy with tons of natural resources, cheap but decently educated citizens, and competent if not inspired manufacturing industries. The DPRK has ... forestry, coal and long range missiles. Oh, and a citizenry that's been taught nothing but how the Kims are, like, totally awesome.
China has juggled the creation of a more open society and a slightly less repressive regime by essentially bribing their population into acquiesence ("we'll open up our economy and make a lot of you fabulously prosperous. Just don't pull any more Tiananmen Squares, dig?"). The DPRK does not have that option. At this stage, the only method by which it can escape its fate as a basketcase is to either allow itself to be absorbed as a Chinese client state (partially complete, given the amount of Chinese investment in Pyongyang) or negotiate a reunification package with South Korea that either guarantees the survival of the Kim family or wholesale cooperation of the DPRK military.
posted by bl1nk at 12:00 PM on February 15, 2007
bl1nk, you're right that these terms are not favorable to Kim Jong Il. That's kind of the point. North Korea is working from a position of weakness, for all the reasons you and I listed. Therefore, in negotiations, the advantage is with us. We have things that the regime wants: trade, technology, food, offers of international legitimacy, and monetary aid. Therefore, we should be able to force KJI into doing something he doesn't want to (reform). That's the point of negotiating and diplomacy. You have to get something in return. It might not work, but it's certainly worth a try.
Maybe if we could get the whole world to be talking about NK's atrocious human rights record, rather than their nuclear program, we could build some sort of popular international consensus. Confronting governments about their weapons programs is always a difficult thing, because somebody can always make a compelling point that it is hypocrisy to let some governments have nukes and bar other countries from having them. Yes, I know it's also hypocrisy to tell governments to improve human rights when our stance on human rights has been deteriorating lately, but I think the difference in scale and proportion makes this hypocrisy slightly more acceptable.
You talk about internal regime change like it would be a bad thing. I know Iraq has us soured on the idea of regime change, but there are reasons why it could have a better chance of working in North Korea. There are few ethnic or sectarian dividing lines in NK that would be a source of major conflict if the government were deposed. Not much religious fundamentalism. In fact, I would wager that most people in NK want to be reunited with the south. Culturally, they are really one country with a shared history. Many families were broken up by the division and want to reunite. Far from being an artificial construct thrown together haphazardly by the British Empire, Korea is a country largely tied together by common culture, language, and ethnicity. If we could foment internal regime change without bombing or invading them, it would probably be the best possible result for the North Koreans and the world at large. It won't be easy of course, but shouldn't we at least give ideological support (if not material) to those brave dissenters and reformers in NK who often give their lives to speak out against their government?
I know this will never happen, since the Bush administration doesn't actually care about democracy or human rights, but we should call them on abandoning the rhetoric of democracy. First, we weren't "negotiating with 'evil'." Now, we are, which is probably a good thing, but shouldn't we try to actually lessen their "evil" through negotiations? The Bush administration and the DPRK definitely don't want to talk about human rights, but there's no reason the rest of us shouldn't be talking about them to whoever will listen.
posted by SBMike at 1:09 PM on February 15, 2007
Maybe if we could get the whole world to be talking about NK's atrocious human rights record, rather than their nuclear program, we could build some sort of popular international consensus. Confronting governments about their weapons programs is always a difficult thing, because somebody can always make a compelling point that it is hypocrisy to let some governments have nukes and bar other countries from having them. Yes, I know it's also hypocrisy to tell governments to improve human rights when our stance on human rights has been deteriorating lately, but I think the difference in scale and proportion makes this hypocrisy slightly more acceptable.
You talk about internal regime change like it would be a bad thing. I know Iraq has us soured on the idea of regime change, but there are reasons why it could have a better chance of working in North Korea. There are few ethnic or sectarian dividing lines in NK that would be a source of major conflict if the government were deposed. Not much religious fundamentalism. In fact, I would wager that most people in NK want to be reunited with the south. Culturally, they are really one country with a shared history. Many families were broken up by the division and want to reunite. Far from being an artificial construct thrown together haphazardly by the British Empire, Korea is a country largely tied together by common culture, language, and ethnicity. If we could foment internal regime change without bombing or invading them, it would probably be the best possible result for the North Koreans and the world at large. It won't be easy of course, but shouldn't we at least give ideological support (if not material) to those brave dissenters and reformers in NK who often give their lives to speak out against their government?
I know this will never happen, since the Bush administration doesn't actually care about democracy or human rights, but we should call them on abandoning the rhetoric of democracy. First, we weren't "negotiating with 'evil'." Now, we are, which is probably a good thing, but shouldn't we try to actually lessen their "evil" through negotiations? The Bush administration and the DPRK definitely don't want to talk about human rights, but there's no reason the rest of us shouldn't be talking about them to whoever will listen.
posted by SBMike at 1:09 PM on February 15, 2007
SBMike -- I'm not against internal regime change. What I am against is doing it blindly, without structuring the probable outcome towards one that would be favorable to the world at large. People talk about regime change like it's a pull of a slot machine. Don't like the current ruler? yank the regime change lever and see who you get next, can't be worse. Might be better. I'd be all for that if I got to hack the machine first and get it to guarantee a jackpot before I pull.
You are right that the DPRK's cultural monolithicness would make the religious factionalism that we've seen in Iraq a non-issue, but there are other factors for factionalism that aren't cultural or ethnic. cf. my rebuttal to BeReasonable -- North Korea's military is a fragmented collection of petty warlords that hold alternating loyalties to Kim Jong-Il, the People's Republic of China, or the abstract notion of a Greater Korea. DPRK special ops commandos don't get along with regular army. Northern garrisons don't trust the southern ones. Pyongang units don't like the ones in the hinterlands, etc. If you off, replace or sideline Kim, it is unlikely that a lieutenant will automatically fill the power vacuum to hold these troops in line who is neither
a) Kim Jong Il 2.0
b) Chinese puppet
c) South Korean puppet
Option A) leaves you at status quo with the same structural issues that the current DPRK faces. Option B) or C) will split the army and reinstigate the Korean War with the loose nukes random fun factor.
I'm not saying that one shouldn't campaign for human rights and attempt to place whatever diplomatic pressure can be placed, but I am saying that one should be realistic about what such measure could achieve. If anything, it could also hamper other goals. You could press the North Koreans on disarmament and bribe them with some food, rice and power and they'll say yes. Ask for disarmament and human rights, and they'll say, "pick one. Either let us crush our people's will so that we don't need nuclear weapons. Or allow us to keep our nukes so that when greater freedoms eventually lead to our version of Tiananmen Square, we can hold you at bay while we freely massacre our dissidents."
posted by bl1nk at 1:37 PM on February 15, 2007
You are right that the DPRK's cultural monolithicness would make the religious factionalism that we've seen in Iraq a non-issue, but there are other factors for factionalism that aren't cultural or ethnic. cf. my rebuttal to BeReasonable -- North Korea's military is a fragmented collection of petty warlords that hold alternating loyalties to Kim Jong-Il, the People's Republic of China, or the abstract notion of a Greater Korea. DPRK special ops commandos don't get along with regular army. Northern garrisons don't trust the southern ones. Pyongang units don't like the ones in the hinterlands, etc. If you off, replace or sideline Kim, it is unlikely that a lieutenant will automatically fill the power vacuum to hold these troops in line who is neither
a) Kim Jong Il 2.0
b) Chinese puppet
c) South Korean puppet
Option A) leaves you at status quo with the same structural issues that the current DPRK faces. Option B) or C) will split the army and reinstigate the Korean War with the loose nukes random fun factor.
I'm not saying that one shouldn't campaign for human rights and attempt to place whatever diplomatic pressure can be placed, but I am saying that one should be realistic about what such measure could achieve. If anything, it could also hamper other goals. You could press the North Koreans on disarmament and bribe them with some food, rice and power and they'll say yes. Ask for disarmament and human rights, and they'll say, "pick one. Either let us crush our people's will so that we don't need nuclear weapons. Or allow us to keep our nukes so that when greater freedoms eventually lead to our version of Tiananmen Square, we can hold you at bay while we freely massacre our dissidents."
posted by bl1nk at 1:37 PM on February 15, 2007
“So, in essence, this is exactly the same deal the Clinton administration reached, the one that had the conservatives foaming at the mouth?”
Many elements of it. Bringing the East in on this is a very significant difference. I dislike the use of the ‘conservatives’ monicker (here and by the NYT) since it’s painting all right wingers with hard liners (assholes like Bolton - although I agree with his “tyrannical dictator” and “a hellish nightmare” assessment), etc., with the same brush. Inspectors makes me very happy, denuclearization would have made me happier, but this is at least engagement. Change moves slowly and takes patience and time. What could be more conservative an idea than that?
“If they break their word again, it'll be at least the third time. You could see maybe giving them a second chance, but a third? Pretty questionable.”
Ridiculous. That statement is predicated on the idea that they’re seeking some advantage over and above the guarantees. The terms of the agreement renders moot the reasons for them to seek a nuclear weapons program. The only reason they would break their word is if ‘we’ didn’t keep ‘our’ word. Which indeed, is what happened last time. Not that we lied or sought advantage, but there was a lot of pussyfooting around and things weren’t moving. Like a guy who owes you some money but keeps ducking you. NK doesn’t really go for that, and (rationally) shouldn’t - given their position. They might seek a weapons program later, but right now the deal is too valuable for them to pass up because it frees up other resources and gives them a greater legitimacy. They need to build up some of that credibility in the world’s eyes, but more importantly, in their local neighborhood. Certainly they’re capable of treachery, but let’s face it, you can’t be betrayed by your enemies, it takes a friend to do that.
And yes, yes, Bush bad, Clinton good. We’re all sanctimonious friends now. (Yeah, the NKs would NEVER have broken the deal under Clinton)
That bullshit aside - who cares who brokers the deal as long as it sets the doomsday clock back a few seconds? I’d friggin’ go hunting with Cheney if that’s what it took to get a deal like this done. It should have been done damned sooner. And if jerk-offs like Bolton hadn’t held it up, there wouldn’t have been the nuke test and all the other crap that hung egg on our faces now. But again, at least it’s there.
(+what alidarbac sed)
“It might be a tough job to plan, but you can't tell me South Korea doesn't have a few ideas...” - posted by BeReasonable
What’s the antonym of ‘eponymous’?
“Exactly what threat does North Korea pose, again? ...but this idea "something must be done" is just childish.” - posted by Chuckles
We have treaties with S. Korea and Japan, et.al. in terms of security, trade, lots more sorta stuff. NK could nuke them. That’s what cha might call ‘bad.’ In that we can’t just turn our backs when Tokyo is nuked and say “sucks to be you.” You see, like money, the current realpolitick situation is such that our treaties are worth exactly what we make them worth. If we didn’t respond to protect our allies and/or the folks we have security agreements with than what reason would they have to hold up their end of - whatever benefits us?
People don’t HAVE to accept the dollar, for example. It’s this kind of short sightedness that led to Pakistan and India having the bomb.
“If we really wanted to kill the guy, we could” - posted by BeReasonable
Who’s “we” kemosabe? Plan on doing a HALO yourself are ya?
(+ what bl1nk sed)
It’s the fallacy of going back in time and killing Hitler, man. That wouldn’t have changed the geopolitical situation(s) which led to the second world war, nor the anti-semitism in Germany (and indeed widely spread over Europe) at the time.
Similarly, Kim Jong Il is supported by a political network of like minded individuals with similar goals. He might be the focal point, but he’s not in a vacuum. I have nothing against the assassination of non-democratically elected leaders, particularly when killing one man could spare many many lives, but this could touch off a major war. Particularly with countries who might get antsy if he was assassinated, even without proof that the U.S. was behind it. It’s not as easy an operation as one might think. It’s not merely zip in, shoot him, zip out. Lots of intelligence gathering required, those people have to be funded somehow with as little trace back to the U.S. as possible. Not to mention transport and other kinds of logistics, you might have to grease local officials, military officers and cops, not only for intel, but an exit, and etc. etc. Not to mention, how do you know they’ll stay bribed? Of course much of that is ‘maybe’ but it leaves tracks. Far too risky. It’d be more secure as a suicide mission, go in, kill him, burn up yourself and your team...good luck finding volunteers. And even then, no guarantees on how it will affect the situation politically. And assassination is a political tool, not a deterrent. A deterrent is something that smashes a great deal of infrastructure and takes a lot of lives such that your soldiers won’t follow you along whatever course if they know it’s coming. Nuclear weapons are a swell example. Nukes trump assassinations. If someone knows that nuclear retaliation are a possiblity, even a fairly remote one, they probably won’t risk assassinating you. Which is pretty much why Bush is around. Plenty of countries with operatives with the expertise to nail him. But it’s just not worth the response. And indeed, wouldn’t change anything given the redundancies in a republic form of government.
Which is what your assessment seems to be based on - the lack of redundancy in a dictatorship. But indeed, a modern dictatorship requires a great deal more redundancy due to modern sophisticated infrastructure. Someone in NK is running the water supply, someone else is delivering power (not much, but...) not to mention military and political officials - any one of those people have a critical amount of connections to enable them to take over leadership. And, as has been said above, the new boss would be a devil we didn’t know.
The deterrent factor doesn’t exist for assassination on the geo-political scale for that reason. The next guy doesn’t think it will happen to him, and even if he thinks it might, he’s only losing himself, not anything he really cares about (political types tend to identify more with their goals than themselves - religious types even more so).
Perhaps if we took Kim Jong Il’s family hostage - but that’d work against us politically, make him really sympathetic.
No, because he’s not isolated, the physical solution here would be to smash up the place so he can’t execute his goals, and people stop following him, and that’s the deterrent. Of course, that’s also “war.”
Or perhaps we could (non-physically) pry people away from his position such that he has little support. Then we could assassinate him. Or his own people would do that. But that takes time. And in the mean time more people might die as he grasps back for power. And I agree with bl1nk that he’s proven quite good at internal manipulation, so that’d be a tough job as well.
But I agree with SBMike in the long term. We can address the human rights issues slowly over time and attack the totalitarian structure with dialogue and various kinds of incentives.
....Perhaps very slowly, but it’s still an objective.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:10 PM on February 15, 2007
Many elements of it. Bringing the East in on this is a very significant difference. I dislike the use of the ‘conservatives’ monicker (here and by the NYT) since it’s painting all right wingers with hard liners (assholes like Bolton - although I agree with his “tyrannical dictator” and “a hellish nightmare” assessment), etc., with the same brush. Inspectors makes me very happy, denuclearization would have made me happier, but this is at least engagement. Change moves slowly and takes patience and time. What could be more conservative an idea than that?
“If they break their word again, it'll be at least the third time. You could see maybe giving them a second chance, but a third? Pretty questionable.”
Ridiculous. That statement is predicated on the idea that they’re seeking some advantage over and above the guarantees. The terms of the agreement renders moot the reasons for them to seek a nuclear weapons program. The only reason they would break their word is if ‘we’ didn’t keep ‘our’ word. Which indeed, is what happened last time. Not that we lied or sought advantage, but there was a lot of pussyfooting around and things weren’t moving. Like a guy who owes you some money but keeps ducking you. NK doesn’t really go for that, and (rationally) shouldn’t - given their position. They might seek a weapons program later, but right now the deal is too valuable for them to pass up because it frees up other resources and gives them a greater legitimacy. They need to build up some of that credibility in the world’s eyes, but more importantly, in their local neighborhood. Certainly they’re capable of treachery, but let’s face it, you can’t be betrayed by your enemies, it takes a friend to do that.
And yes, yes, Bush bad, Clinton good. We’re all sanctimonious friends now. (Yeah, the NKs would NEVER have broken the deal under Clinton)
That bullshit aside - who cares who brokers the deal as long as it sets the doomsday clock back a few seconds? I’d friggin’ go hunting with Cheney if that’s what it took to get a deal like this done. It should have been done damned sooner. And if jerk-offs like Bolton hadn’t held it up, there wouldn’t have been the nuke test and all the other crap that hung egg on our faces now. But again, at least it’s there.
(+what alidarbac sed)
“It might be a tough job to plan, but you can't tell me South Korea doesn't have a few ideas...” - posted by BeReasonable
What’s the antonym of ‘eponymous’?
“Exactly what threat does North Korea pose, again? ...but this idea "something must be done" is just childish.” - posted by Chuckles
We have treaties with S. Korea and Japan, et.al. in terms of security, trade, lots more sorta stuff. NK could nuke them. That’s what cha might call ‘bad.’ In that we can’t just turn our backs when Tokyo is nuked and say “sucks to be you.” You see, like money, the current realpolitick situation is such that our treaties are worth exactly what we make them worth. If we didn’t respond to protect our allies and/or the folks we have security agreements with than what reason would they have to hold up their end of - whatever benefits us?
People don’t HAVE to accept the dollar, for example. It’s this kind of short sightedness that led to Pakistan and India having the bomb.
“If we really wanted to kill the guy, we could” - posted by BeReasonable
Who’s “we” kemosabe? Plan on doing a HALO yourself are ya?
(+ what bl1nk sed)
It’s the fallacy of going back in time and killing Hitler, man. That wouldn’t have changed the geopolitical situation(s) which led to the second world war, nor the anti-semitism in Germany (and indeed widely spread over Europe) at the time.
Similarly, Kim Jong Il is supported by a political network of like minded individuals with similar goals. He might be the focal point, but he’s not in a vacuum. I have nothing against the assassination of non-democratically elected leaders, particularly when killing one man could spare many many lives, but this could touch off a major war. Particularly with countries who might get antsy if he was assassinated, even without proof that the U.S. was behind it. It’s not as easy an operation as one might think. It’s not merely zip in, shoot him, zip out. Lots of intelligence gathering required, those people have to be funded somehow with as little trace back to the U.S. as possible. Not to mention transport and other kinds of logistics, you might have to grease local officials, military officers and cops, not only for intel, but an exit, and etc. etc. Not to mention, how do you know they’ll stay bribed? Of course much of that is ‘maybe’ but it leaves tracks. Far too risky. It’d be more secure as a suicide mission, go in, kill him, burn up yourself and your team...good luck finding volunteers. And even then, no guarantees on how it will affect the situation politically. And assassination is a political tool, not a deterrent. A deterrent is something that smashes a great deal of infrastructure and takes a lot of lives such that your soldiers won’t follow you along whatever course if they know it’s coming. Nuclear weapons are a swell example. Nukes trump assassinations. If someone knows that nuclear retaliation are a possiblity, even a fairly remote one, they probably won’t risk assassinating you. Which is pretty much why Bush is around. Plenty of countries with operatives with the expertise to nail him. But it’s just not worth the response. And indeed, wouldn’t change anything given the redundancies in a republic form of government.
Which is what your assessment seems to be based on - the lack of redundancy in a dictatorship. But indeed, a modern dictatorship requires a great deal more redundancy due to modern sophisticated infrastructure. Someone in NK is running the water supply, someone else is delivering power (not much, but...) not to mention military and political officials - any one of those people have a critical amount of connections to enable them to take over leadership. And, as has been said above, the new boss would be a devil we didn’t know.
The deterrent factor doesn’t exist for assassination on the geo-political scale for that reason. The next guy doesn’t think it will happen to him, and even if he thinks it might, he’s only losing himself, not anything he really cares about (political types tend to identify more with their goals than themselves - religious types even more so).
Perhaps if we took Kim Jong Il’s family hostage - but that’d work against us politically, make him really sympathetic.
No, because he’s not isolated, the physical solution here would be to smash up the place so he can’t execute his goals, and people stop following him, and that’s the deterrent. Of course, that’s also “war.”
Or perhaps we could (non-physically) pry people away from his position such that he has little support. Then we could assassinate him. Or his own people would do that. But that takes time. And in the mean time more people might die as he grasps back for power. And I agree with bl1nk that he’s proven quite good at internal manipulation, so that’d be a tough job as well.
But I agree with SBMike in the long term. We can address the human rights issues slowly over time and attack the totalitarian structure with dialogue and various kinds of incentives.
....Perhaps very slowly, but it’s still an objective.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:10 PM on February 15, 2007
Thanks for the thoughtful response bl1nk. I only have one thing to add, that another feature of strong negotiating techniques is to ask for more initially than you think you are likely to receive. In that sense, we should ask for disarmament and human rights. Getting either one would be an improvement over the status quo. It would be better than the capitulation to blackmail that is this current agreement, and might actually benefit the people of NK. Of course, it would be more effective if these ideas were applied broadly to our foreign policy and if it had begun years ago, but it's an avenue that should not be written off.
posted by SBMike at 2:17 PM on February 15, 2007
posted by SBMike at 2:17 PM on February 15, 2007
And yes, yes, Bush bad, Clinton good. We’re all sanctimonious friends now. (Yeah, the NKs would NEVER have broken the deal under Clinton)
Actually, I was thinking more..... Clinton trusted them and was wrong about it. Conservative talk radio was just LIVID about how badly Clinton bungled NK. So then we turn around and do it again, and now it's good? Knowing that they're liars? That just makes no sense to me.
However, I wasn't aware that we had reneged on our part of that original deal. If that's the case, then the new deal is not as dumb as it looks. My (rather catty) comments were probably misplaced.
I still think it's a very bad idea to give someone money after they threaten you, however, and I think over the long term we may regret doing this.
posted by Malor at 7:10 AM on February 16, 2007
Actually, I was thinking more..... Clinton trusted them and was wrong about it. Conservative talk radio was just LIVID about how badly Clinton bungled NK. So then we turn around and do it again, and now it's good? Knowing that they're liars? That just makes no sense to me.
However, I wasn't aware that we had reneged on our part of that original deal. If that's the case, then the new deal is not as dumb as it looks. My (rather catty) comments were probably misplaced.
I still think it's a very bad idea to give someone money after they threaten you, however, and I think over the long term we may regret doing this.
posted by Malor at 7:10 AM on February 16, 2007
"My (rather catty) comments were probably misplaced. "
No, I was attacking your opinion, not your tone. My apologies if it came off as a personal attack. I think your cynicism is well placed given the circumstances. And the bush bad/clinton good thing was a general assertion. I see no reason why any given principle is better or worse for having certain adherents - if we don't like Bush (and I'm with ya there) it still shouldn't matter how much they bitched about the 'Clinton deal' if it's the right tool for the job. Criticism is great, but it shouldn't get in the way of the work (especially this kind of thing, one can't play petty politics with nuclear weapons)
I'd have to agree, given your premise that offering the same deal to someone who threatens you is a bad idea generally.
But in realpolitick threat is just another impetus. I don't know if Bush or Clinton screwed the pooch on the deal. Lots of these things fall through when they're stuck between administrations. But I suspect someone advised the elected officials that NK doesn't have the balls or perhaps the technical know how to test a nuke. In fact Bushco's downplayed NK as a threat (even though they were on the axis of evil) right up until they tested the nuke. I think the Clinton admin did the same sort of thing, trying to gain maximum advantage. Although at the time NK actually didn't have a bomb ready, but it was a hop and a skip until they did, so...
Bottom line, any country that wants or is trying to build a nuke is doing it for security reasons. Perhaps national pride, but also, in the case of India and Pakistan - to cover their smaller scale conventional actions. NK doesn't have any hope of gaining anything through conventional warfare. China would sneeze and wipe them out, and invading the south would get them turned into a parking lot by us.
So they had to get our attention: "Boom"
Suddenly they're taken seriously. So you have cranks like Bolton who think now every tinpot dictator will realize that if they have nukes the U.S. will take them seriously.
Well, they all already knew that. And indeed, pursuing a nuclear weapons program is an excellent bargaining chip to have if the U.S. or some other major power bloc won't guarantee your security. And you can kick some ass in your local region using conventional forces because everyone is too scared to invade you.
So it becomes something of a cost-benefit analysis - how much is it worth to the U.S. to have stability in any given spot? And how much in conventional forces would it cost to cover any given situation? (You don't think all the money we spend on defense is just going to cover U.S. borders, do you? We get stuff back from these kinds of agreements - spend, say, $100 million to cruise a carrier fleet back and forth in the sea every year, maybe put some marines in a base nearby, etc. etc. - we get a nice trade package back and our guys make money and companies provide jobs, etc. etc - doesn't always work that well of course - so it's debatable in any given circumstance, but that's the deal)
In the case of India and Pakistan, we seem to have said "Fuck it" because we had nothing to really offer them, they've got big enough economies and have large enough conventional forces such that they don't really need us to cover their security - and indeed, they seem to be balancing each other...for now (minor conventional engagements aside).
The NKs on the other hand have a lot to worry about in their neighborhood. And it's really not a threat in the sense of a real threat. No people will collectively commit suicide just to boot an enemy in the ass (well, Sicilians maybe, but they don't have the bomb). So the NKs nuke LA or Maui, whatever. Kill a few million. Really, as bad as that is, it's a drop in the bucket. They're wiped off the face of the earth of course, but anyone even vaguely associated with them had better start chumming up with the U.S. fast. We'd probably do very well out of the deal on a certain scale (horrific loss of life, etc. aside - no one wants that in the first place). But, like money, it has a symbolic value and can be used to purchase other things. Cover our security needs, take us seriously as a trade partner and we'll put the bombs away. That's our schtick tho - the protection rackets.
And since playing the heavy is the U.S.'s job, we like having a monopoly on it - which is why we don't like China - et.al. in on this, but it's unavoidable.
Which addresses your second point that in the long term we might regret this.
We might still.
But having other nations in on this gives us some latitude and we're not shouldering the entire burden.
Which has been a big problem (mainfestly - Iraq). And one not seen by Bolton-types (and those talk-radio schmucks) who seem to think our supply of blood and treasure is limitless in supporting ideology. ( Vs. more tangibly beneficial deals).
I will agree though that the whole deal was Costanzaed (as in George Costanza who held out for LESS money on the show about nothing) by this administration.
But it's a foot in the door. And the alternative was worse. NK would be able to focus on other kinds of expansion with a greatly lessened threat of invasion by U.S. forces (I don't think anyone doubts he'd nuke his own turf).
So think of it in terms of a hostage situation. You might not like giving up city money to pay for pizza and trying to take the guy alive - but on the up side, you (eventually) get the gun away from him and he lets the hostages go. Much as you might want to kill the guy for doing it, you are still the cops and if you don't uphold the law, no one will. (And we know how hard regime change is)
posted by Smedleyman at 10:48 AM on February 16, 2007
No, I was attacking your opinion, not your tone. My apologies if it came off as a personal attack. I think your cynicism is well placed given the circumstances. And the bush bad/clinton good thing was a general assertion. I see no reason why any given principle is better or worse for having certain adherents - if we don't like Bush (and I'm with ya there) it still shouldn't matter how much they bitched about the 'Clinton deal' if it's the right tool for the job. Criticism is great, but it shouldn't get in the way of the work (especially this kind of thing, one can't play petty politics with nuclear weapons)
I'd have to agree, given your premise that offering the same deal to someone who threatens you is a bad idea generally.
But in realpolitick threat is just another impetus. I don't know if Bush or Clinton screwed the pooch on the deal. Lots of these things fall through when they're stuck between administrations. But I suspect someone advised the elected officials that NK doesn't have the balls or perhaps the technical know how to test a nuke. In fact Bushco's downplayed NK as a threat (even though they were on the axis of evil) right up until they tested the nuke. I think the Clinton admin did the same sort of thing, trying to gain maximum advantage. Although at the time NK actually didn't have a bomb ready, but it was a hop and a skip until they did, so...
Bottom line, any country that wants or is trying to build a nuke is doing it for security reasons. Perhaps national pride, but also, in the case of India and Pakistan - to cover their smaller scale conventional actions. NK doesn't have any hope of gaining anything through conventional warfare. China would sneeze and wipe them out, and invading the south would get them turned into a parking lot by us.
So they had to get our attention: "Boom"
Suddenly they're taken seriously. So you have cranks like Bolton who think now every tinpot dictator will realize that if they have nukes the U.S. will take them seriously.
Well, they all already knew that. And indeed, pursuing a nuclear weapons program is an excellent bargaining chip to have if the U.S. or some other major power bloc won't guarantee your security. And you can kick some ass in your local region using conventional forces because everyone is too scared to invade you.
So it becomes something of a cost-benefit analysis - how much is it worth to the U.S. to have stability in any given spot? And how much in conventional forces would it cost to cover any given situation? (You don't think all the money we spend on defense is just going to cover U.S. borders, do you? We get stuff back from these kinds of agreements - spend, say, $100 million to cruise a carrier fleet back and forth in the sea every year, maybe put some marines in a base nearby, etc. etc. - we get a nice trade package back and our guys make money and companies provide jobs, etc. etc - doesn't always work that well of course - so it's debatable in any given circumstance, but that's the deal)
In the case of India and Pakistan, we seem to have said "Fuck it" because we had nothing to really offer them, they've got big enough economies and have large enough conventional forces such that they don't really need us to cover their security - and indeed, they seem to be balancing each other...for now (minor conventional engagements aside).
The NKs on the other hand have a lot to worry about in their neighborhood. And it's really not a threat in the sense of a real threat. No people will collectively commit suicide just to boot an enemy in the ass (well, Sicilians maybe, but they don't have the bomb). So the NKs nuke LA or Maui, whatever. Kill a few million. Really, as bad as that is, it's a drop in the bucket. They're wiped off the face of the earth of course, but anyone even vaguely associated with them had better start chumming up with the U.S. fast. We'd probably do very well out of the deal on a certain scale (horrific loss of life, etc. aside - no one wants that in the first place). But, like money, it has a symbolic value and can be used to purchase other things. Cover our security needs, take us seriously as a trade partner and we'll put the bombs away. That's our schtick tho - the protection rackets.
And since playing the heavy is the U.S.'s job, we like having a monopoly on it - which is why we don't like China - et.al. in on this, but it's unavoidable.
Which addresses your second point that in the long term we might regret this.
We might still.
But having other nations in on this gives us some latitude and we're not shouldering the entire burden.
Which has been a big problem (mainfestly - Iraq). And one not seen by Bolton-types (and those talk-radio schmucks) who seem to think our supply of blood and treasure is limitless in supporting ideology. ( Vs. more tangibly beneficial deals).
I will agree though that the whole deal was Costanzaed (as in George Costanza who held out for LESS money on the show about nothing) by this administration.
But it's a foot in the door. And the alternative was worse. NK would be able to focus on other kinds of expansion with a greatly lessened threat of invasion by U.S. forces (I don't think anyone doubts he'd nuke his own turf).
So think of it in terms of a hostage situation. You might not like giving up city money to pay for pizza and trying to take the guy alive - but on the up side, you (eventually) get the gun away from him and he lets the hostages go. Much as you might want to kill the guy for doing it, you are still the cops and if you don't uphold the law, no one will. (And we know how hard regime change is)
posted by Smedleyman at 10:48 AM on February 16, 2007
Also Malor - I'll take catma over dogma any day.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:50 AM on February 16, 2007
posted by Smedleyman at 10:50 AM on February 16, 2007
"Because of a weapons program that may not even have existed (and no one ever thought was far advanced) the White House got the North Koreans to restart their plutonium program and then sat by while they produced a half dozen or a dozen real nuclear weapons — not the Doug Feith/John Bolton kind, but the real thing. It's a screw-up that staggers the mind."
posted by homunculus at 8:52 PM on March 1, 2007
posted by homunculus at 8:52 PM on March 1, 2007
« Older swedish cow-calling songs | "Take the gun. Leave the cannoli." Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
If they break their word again, it'll be at least the third time. You could see maybe giving them a second chance, but a third? Pretty questionable.
NK is, in my opinion, a very real threat, and we've rendered ourselves incapable of dealing with it. Iraq could never have hurt us; NK very possibly could.
Q: You have two states you don't like, one that threatens you and one that doesn't. Which do you invade?
A. The one with the oil.
posted by Malor at 11:53 PM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]