| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| No More Negotiating With North Korea |
| 2006-10-10 |
| The El Lay Times has hosed it by allowing this OpEd piece, lol. The Official Dhimmi Line is that Bush didn't talk enough - and now it's Dire Something or Other™ that he must immediately begin jabbering and appointing envoys and raiding the cookie jar to soothe Kimmie's Savage Breast™. Something like that - as with all Dhimmi Memes, it's a work in progress. This piece sorta rocks, heh. Kim Jong Il may think he's earned respect by testing a nuke; Bush needs to show him he's earned the top spot on Washington's hit list. After pursuing atomic weaponry for the better part of a generation, it now appears that North Korea has finally clawed its way into the "nuclear club." And that means that the global strategic game has changed forever. North Korea, which was barely tolerable to the major Asian powers back when it was merely a potential troublemaker, is now a real and present danger. The time for negotiations is over. Now it's about containment and deterrence. Assuming Monday's underground explosion is deemed to have been a successful nuclear test, North Korea is now the world's ninth nuclear power. Although its leaders may think that translates automatically into regional strength and increased global respect, it's time to show them what they've really won: unflinching international scrutiny and a spot at the top of Washington's list of nuclear targets. Kim Jong Il has entered a new era, one in which his pattern of brinksmanship, instead of extracting aid from his neighbors, risks provoking a nuclear holocaust. It is critical that Washington and other powers make crystal clear the responsibilities that come with North Korea's decision: A nuclear power must not bluff, must not provoke and must not make threats lightly. In contrast to the ambiguous behavior and bellicose rhetoric they've displayed in the past, North Korean leaders must now avoid steps that could lead to miscalculation and unintentional conflict. As long as Pyongyang's weapons capability was in doubt, the world could avoid answering the tough questions: Can we really live with a nuclear North Korea? How can we deter a country we don't really understand? The United States must ensure that North Korea's leaders understand the full force of our commitment to defend our Asian allies. President Bush's statement that the United States will hold North Korea accountable for its actions is a good first step. However, it took the United States years of face-to-face talks with the Soviet Union and China to work out a stable relationship based on mutual deterrence. Washington will have to find ways to ensure that Pyongyang does not overreach or miscalculate with its nuclear capability. However distasteful the Bush administration finds direct talks with North Korea, the president should nonetheless dispatch a personal envoy to Pyongyang with a clear message: Any attempt to use its nuclear arsenal offensively will bring immediate, disastrous and possibly nuclear consequences. Further, Kim needs to understand that any future North Korean missile tests that are not announced or that are aimed at or over U.S., South Korean or Japanese territory might warrant a U.S. nuclear response. That's because it would be impossible for any American leader to be sure that such "tests" were not the first signs of a nuclear attack. This envoy would not be empowered to negotiate. The six-party talks were moribund before and should be declared dead. The envoy's job would be merely to deliver an unambiguous, sober message about Pyongyang's new responsibilities. The Bush administration will undoubtedly try to step up the economic and political pressure on Pyongyang to disarm. But the naval blockade that it is contemplating is unlikely to succeed either in forcing North Korea to reverse course or in preventing it from exporting its nuclear weapons should it choose to do so. Fortunately, the fear that Pyongyang will try to export its nuclear weapons is not terribly realistic. Although it's true that North Korea has sold missiles to Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Yemen, it's unlikely Kim would be rash enough to sell his nuclear jewels to the highest bidder, knowing that the world could trace any nuclear bomb back to him by its radioactive signature. Just in case, however, the envoy should make clear that any export of nuclear weapons or materials would force the United States to reevaluate whether attacking North Korea, however horrific, would be preferable to allowing it to proliferate. Other financial sanctions against North Korea may be in the offing, but China is now even less likely to risk the collapse of a nuclear North Korea, for fear that the weapons might fall into the hands of North Korean military elements that are even less responsive to Chinese interests than Kim is. Having watched the U.S. accept China, India and Pakistan as nuclear powers, Kim probably reasons that he will eventually be an accepted and respected member of the nuclear club if only he waits long enough. (Tehran's calculations are probably the same.) But he might be whistling past the graveyard. China and India are each a billion people strong — too big to ignore or antagonize. Pakistan, while smaller, is only accepted because it's seen by Bush as indispensable to the global war on terrorism. Had Al Qaeda never attacked the U.S., Pakistan might well be high on the list of states deemed ripe by the Bush administration for regime change — though its nuclear weapons would have forestalled a U.S. invasion. Pyongyang enjoys no such clout. It's an economic basket case; no American businesses are panting to get in, and even South Koreans will be forced to rethink their engagement policies. The only interest the world can have now with North Korea is in avoiding Armageddon. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #8 It dawned on the LA Dog-Trainer that it's on the wrong coast... |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-10-10 21:37 |
| #7 OP: Interesting perspective. How exactly can NK be set back 50 years though. they were probably far better off in 1956 than now. Maybe 100,000 years. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-10-10 21:00 |
| #6 I knew a Korean ROK Marine MSgt in Vietnam. He said he had lots of relatives in NKor, but that he didn't think very highly of them because they didn't try to defect. Apparently the entire family, both branches in NKor and SKor hate Kim and his father with a passion. He felt that reunification was bad, that the NKoreans were "unworthy" of being free. He hated the north more than he hated the Japanese, who had killed his father for some trivial reason. I don't think the south is all that enamoured with the north, or what's going on up there. I also believe they'll stand and fight to the last person if the north invades. An invasion would set both countries back 50 years. The south could survive that, but the regression to the north would result in stone-age living conditions. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-10-10 19:30 |
| #5 Move all US troops down to and no further north than Juksansong, and I might agree with US troops remaining in South Korea. Otherwise, pull all US troops out of South Korea unless and until the SKors start showing a backbone about Kimmie and his bloody regime. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-10-10 16:02 |
| #4 The LAT is correct. We should speak directly to the Norks. But we don't have to go to the espense of sending an envoy to Pyongyang. Ideally we should have John Bolton or Rummy or Condi send out a press release on PR Newswire with the target sheet for Nork in the event there is detonation of a nuclear weapon in malice anywhere in the world from any origin. The press release should make clear that we would not launch until we were confident that fallout would not be carried over SoKor. It should also make clear that there would be no living mammal remaining in North Korean territory and that we do not know when North Korean territory would again be habitable. We should leave troops in SoKor to show our intention to honor our fallout pledge. But those troops should only have enough transit capacity to boggy back to Japan in the event the Norks come south. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-10 09:43 |
| #3 Ban all Hennessy exports now to North Korea. Nuke France if they ship kimmy any. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-10-10 09:36 |
| #2 Very well reasoned IMO. We simply have to tell Kimmie something along the lines of, "Kimmie, here's the facts, straight up and with no bluster - grow up and act responsibly or we will erase your country and there's nothing you, the Chinese, or the Russkies can do about it. If we catch you exporting this stuff, we'll nuke you into the next millenia. If you launch a missile without letting us know that it's a test well beforehand, we'll nuke you till the glow won't die down until the year ten thousand. If you even look sideways at any of your neighbors or our allies we'll nuke you till there's nothing left of your country except ten thousand feet of ocean above it. You've chosen to become a nuclear power. Now you have to act responsibly like a nuclear power. Grow up and deal with that fact or face the inevitable consequences. Thanks. Have a nice day. Buh-bye." |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-10-10 09:34 |
| #1 We need to accelerate our withdrawal of ground forces from SK. Ideally, we can get Japan on board for whatever we need to do after that. The election of Abe as new PM is a good sign. If the regime does not fall due to sanctions and whatever else we are doing to them behind the scenes (interdiction of exports, blocking of financial transactions, etc.)we need to start bombing regime and WMD targets in NK. It is critical to demonstrate that we are not deterred by Kimmies nukes. SK is now essentially allied with NK and we need to start viewing them as an adversary. The biggest flaw in much of the post-test analysis is the idea that they are our allies. SK become spoiled under the US security umbrella. If not for the US military, those ingrates would be eating grass soup right now with their Northern brethren. However, nationalism and the leftward policy drift that comes with outsourcing security to the US military (see western Europe) plus a uniquely Korean level of selfishness (unlike the Germans, they have no interest in funding reunification) and corruption (they bought a Nobel peace prize for the Sunshine policy) have made SK de facto allies of Kim. I do not want to hear the excuse about how NK can take out Seoul with its artillery. SK chose where to build and, in doing so, made a conscious decision to give Kim undue influence over their policy. I understand the evacuation routes and procedures for the capital are well designed. If SK had cooperated with the US in undermining Kimmies regime they may never have had to use them. Unfortunately they are now at the poing where civil defense drills would be a good idea. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-10-10 09:29 |