February 25, 2005
Tick, Tick, Tick
I always thought the six party talks with North Korea were a wacky idea. A nuclear-free Korean peninsula may be the stated goal of each party, but their priorities are wildly different. Japan is more interested in its kidnapped citizens, China doesn’t believe North Korea even has a uranium program, South Korea would rather pursue its “sunshine policy”, and I still have no clue why Russia is involved.
I’ve come to doubt direct bilateral talks would produce results, but I don’t think the six party format will either. Is there another alternative?
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently remarked that North Korea is "only deepening its international isolation by developing nuclear arms." HELLO! McFLY! That's exactly what Kim Jong-Il wants.
If North Koreans, millions of whom starved to death over the last few years, knew what the rest of the world was really like, they'd string Kim up from a lamp post. Unfortunately, that's the very reason no coherent attempt has been made to bring it about.
Both China and South Korea fear the result of North Korea's demise. There's a lot of trepidation over the inevitable flood of refugees, the massive humanitarian crisis, chaos on the borders, the cost of reconstruction, and of course the power vacuum. No one wants Kim Jong-Il in power, but no one wants to deal with the consequences of a collapsed North Korea, either.
And this is where the Bush administration's approach is totally wrong. Rather than confront Kim over uranium enrichment programs that may or may not exist, they ought to just build a consensus for the inevitable regime change in North Korea.
Forget about negotiating with Kim Jong-Il. He's irrelevant. The Bush administration should address our allies' concerns about the aftermath of a North Korean collapse. Let's help China and North Korea figure out how to deal with the refugees and the inevitable humanitarian crisis. Let's get Japan's pledge for help with reconstruction. Let's get everyone talking about the government that will replace Kim's regime.
Let's engage directly with the North Korean people through various media (we already have a foot in the door with black market Chinese cell phones). Let's enlist their support along with their neighbors and other players in the region, and really hammer out a consensus and a plan for toppling Kim Jong-Il and dealing with the aftermath.
If we get everything right, Kim's regime just disappears and we all swoop in with humanitarian aid and an army of civil affairs officers. Even if things don't go as planned, we still have the enthusiastic support of major players in the region to get things sorted out. But if we let Kim Jong-Il set the pace of events - if we don't lay the groundwork and finesse the details for something we know is inevitable - we get another Iraq.
Kim's next step is to publicly test an atomic bomb. How will we respond? The clock is ticking...
Posted by American Pundit at February 25, 2005 07:49 AMThe North Koreans just prove that Nuclear Weapons make you SAFE. A 20 million dollar ABomb is far more effective than a 500 million dollar conventional weapons system. Iran is right to keep developing. Its the only thing that can keep them from being “Liberated”.
Posted by: Aldous at February 25, 2005 08:30 AMAP -
You make some good points, especially regarding engaging the North Koreans directly. How cool would it be to parachute in thousands of mini-TVs and radios that can pick up South Korean broadcasts?
However, I am still convinced that the only reason lefties are opposed to multilateralism in the Korean peninsula is that Bush is for it. You guys are the #1 champions of multilateralism, right? Why, in the one case where Bush has got it right, do Kerry et al insist on unilateral engagement? I’ll give you credit for doubting the unilateral (aka bilateral) option; but anyone with an understanding of North Korean history understands the elemental importance of China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia to the North’s existence and future.
Of all the partners, the U.S. is the only one who can say “screw it” and walk away from the table. Until North Korea has ICBM’s (God forbid), they’re frankly not our problem. The Asians are rightly staying involved and interested: after all, it’s their cities that could be nuked or flooded with starving refugees; or, alternatively, their businessmen who could make huge money by opening factories once the North opens up.
Posted by: Chops at February 25, 2005 09:48 AMWhat’s wrong with everyone? Is it now the American way to work for the change of every government in the world that we don’t approve of?
“Rather than confront Kim over uranium enrichment programs that may or may not exist, they ought to just build a consensus for the inevitable regime change in North Korea.”
Sounds like old American Imperialism has finally found its way into the Democratic Party. We have enough of our own problems to remedy in our own country instead of trying to mold the rest of the world into our own image. Kim Jong is just a lunatic that figures he rattles enough cages; it will result in a big payday. Ignore the fool; take care of our own business first.
However, I am still convinced that the only reason lefties are opposed to multilateralism in the Korean peninsula is that Bush is for it.
We’re against the six party talks because they’re not working. It has nothing to do with partisan politics. On the other hand, if we were to change the focus of five of those parties to actually solving the problem, we’d be all for it. Just as Democrats favored regime change in Iraq as part of a UN mandate, we’d support regime change in North Korea as part of a regional framework.
But that regional alliance would have to include South Korea, Japan, and China - the major players who would provide substantial support and give the operation legitimacy. We wouldn’t go for it if Bush could only get Mongolia and Micronesia to sign up.
As an aside, many Democrats would like to see China, South Korea, and Japan as the nucleus of a permanent NATO-like Asian security alliance. So there’s your multilateralism and I raise you one. :P
The Asians are rightly staying involved and interested
But not as involved or interested as they should be. In fact, China is sitting on its hands right now waiting for Bush to make the next move.
In any case, I think negotiation is useless at this point. Like Saddam, Kim Jong-Il will continue to be a destabilizing force no matter what - AND Kim says he has nukes, which eliminates the need for pesky verification inspections. The focus of the six party talks should shift from disarming Kim, to removing Kim.
Is it now the American way to work for the change of every government in the world that we don’t approve of?
Only the governments run by crazy Elvis impersonators with nukes. :)
AP:
Let me get this straight. President Bush went into Iraq unilaterally and that was wrong? Now, President Bush should move on North Korea unilaterally and that is ok?
President Bush took out the rogue government of Saddam, which was a destablizing force to the Middle East, and that was wrong? Now, we should take out the rogue government of Kim Jong-Il, because it is a destabilizing force, & that will be right?
I don’t think I will ever be able to be a liberal, it requires chaotic thiking!
Posted by: Blaine at February 25, 2005 01:01 PMAP,
Good post!
Blaine,
Read the arguments above carefully and you will see phrases like “regime change in Iraq as part of a UN mandate, we’d support regime change in North Korea as part of a regional framework..
If that’s unilateral, you have some strange definitions. Or are you just selectively editing what is said to try to make the left look bad? I guess that’s what you’d call “chaotic editing.”
In fact, read the whole original post. It doesn’t even call for military involvement. It calls for multilateral planning to deal with the consequences of regime change, whether that be due to military action in the case the nuclear situation gets too out of hand to deal with, or when Kim dies of whatever cause, or when the North Korean people watch enough TV to realize that everyone else in the world isn’t starving to death and endlessly repeating slogans about the greatness of an incompetent leader.
Posted by: brian at February 25, 2005 01:24 PMBlaine,
As for the comparison between Iraq and N Korea—
Iraq had no demonstrable WMDs despite the presence of investigators. North Korea has declared openly that it has them, we know that they have a nuclear program, and we know that they have enough material to make several weapons, all of which is now unaccounted for. That’s not the same quality of evidence as seeing some trucks in sattelite imagery and assuming they are portable bioweapons labs.
The stated purpose for going after Saddam was not to stabilize the region or bring democracy, it was to protect the American people from the threat of WMD. Given that most Republicans have forgotten this, however, how about if I turn your question around:
President Bush unilaterally, over the protests of the entire world, expended thousands of American soldier’s lives, and billion upon billions of American dollars to take out a non-WMD possessing dictator to spread democracy, and that was all right? Now, AP suggests a multilateral policy of regime change to take out an equally if not more repressive dictator, which would also spread democracy, not go against the opinion of the world, and protect us from the use of known nuclear material, and that’s bad?
brian:
What does no “demonstrable WMD’s” mean? Does that mean the non-existent WMD’s that were used against the Kurds? For all the hype about the absence of WMD’s, I still am not convinced they didn’t end up in Syria. Do you have any proof they are not in Syria?
I beg to differ, but the attack was not unilateral. There were many other countries that worked with us. Russia, France, & Germany do not make up the rest of the world. As time goes on we will see the complete picture of why these 3 countries did not get involved. Perhaps it was for financial reasons. The reason the UN would not get involved, even after 17 sanctions, is now seen by the corrupt leadership that was skimming billions in the oil for food scheme.
ap said, “I always thought the six party talks with North Korea were a wacky idea….I’ve come to doubt direct bilateral talks would produce results, but I don’t think the six party format will either. Is there another alternative?”
What is the alternative? I assumed the only thing left is unilateral. President Bush has said on several occasions, he would not deal with North Korea one on one. It doesn’t matter how President Bush planned to deal with the situation, you would be against it. Since he will not deal one on one, then it just so happens taht is what the left thinks should be done.
Tell me how we would remove Kim without the use of military? Would we go to him & say, “Kim, you little pervert, we want you to leave”?
As I said, “chaotic”
AP said:
As an aside, many Democrats would like to see China, South Korea, and Japan as the nucleus of a permanent NATO-like Asian security alliance. So there’s your multilateralism and I raise you one. :P
It’s called ASEAN. Only difference is that the Chinese aren’t members and a lot of other people are. Remember, from South Korea, Japan, et al’s perspective, China is the problem, not the protector.
As far as the six-party talks not working, that’s not really true. They’ve effectively cut of Kim Jung Il from the rest of the world in a way he was not cut off prior to the Bush administration. Not a 100% victory, but better than things were in the 1990’s when North Korea traded nuclear materials with Pakistan.
Kim is a lunatic and will most likely never be talked down by diplomacy. However, diplomacy can and is mitigating the effects of his lunacy on his own people and his neighbors.
Posted by: Chops at February 25, 2005 07:06 PMAmerican Pundit,
If democrats think that you can form even any kind of alliance between China and Japan, then they have no concept of Asian history nor of foreign affairs.
China’s growth is slowly encouraging some saber rattling, something that worries the Japanese. Furthermore, China has no desire to seek any kind of formal alliance with Japan, since many Chinese remember the brutality of the Japanese during the 20th century. Relations between the two countries are very strained to say the least.
As for the six-country talks, I agree that it is best to have low expectations. China fears a collaspe of North Korea more than the fear a nuclear North Korea. South Korea is beginning to adapt a similar view, especially with younger generation coming more into power. Russia has some fear of a nuclear North Korea, since North Korea will sell nuclear weapons and material to anyone with cash. (If you doubt this, then consider this scary fact..it appears that Libya recieved nuclear weapons grade material from North Korea.)
Given those views, I don’t see a diplomatic way of prevent North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. From their view point, nuclear weapons provide a iron clad security and potential wealth either through blackmailing neighbors and/or selling them.
To make the situation even bleaker, I doubt there is an attractive military solution to stop this. North Korea probably has dispersed any existing weapons and has probably hardened potential sites to the extent that covential weapons may not destroy them. It would probably take a first strike with nuclear weapons to ensure success, something that is not an option at present.
So, what should the US do? I see no viable option other than preparing for futher isolation of North Korea and development of a blockade against North Korean weapon sales. The US, Austriala, France (yep even the French), and Japan have held exercises in the Coral Sea last year training for such a possibility.
Despite this, I expect a very real possibility that Japan will develop nuclear weapons in the very near future. Once North Korea proves that they have nuclear weapons, Japan will have no choice. Since China will go ape if that happens, it would be wise for the Japan and the US to point out that China can prevent this, if they act now..
It’s called ASEAN.
Chops, ASEAN is totally different, focusing as it does on South East Asian Nations - in addition to Japan, China, and South Korea, it also doesn’t include the US, and it’s more of a trade organization than a NATO-like security alliance since the nations aren’t bound by any military treaties.
As far as the six-party talks not working, that’s not really true. They’ve effectively cut of Kim Jung Il from the rest of the world
To quote myself: “HELLO! McFLY! That’s exactly what Kim Jong-Il wants.”
Besides, if that’s really not true, explain how the six party talks have served to dismantle Kim’s nuke programs? The goal of the talks isn’t to isolate Kim, it’s to disarm him. The talks aren’t working. Isolation is not working. Kim’s next step is to test a bomb. Tick. Tick. Tick.
brian, you get it completely. Blaine needs to go back and re-read everything without the partisan blinders so he can catch up and make a meaningful contribution.
Pete, I concur with your premise, but I’m offering a different solution - or maybe a concurrent solution, or just a shift of focus.
In the case of North Korea, the Chinese and Japanese don’t need to form any more of an alliance than is necessary to keep North Korea’s collapse from destabilizing the region - something they both want - so your trepidation over whether they’ll play well together isn’t a showstopper. [That said, I think it’s inevitable that there will eventually be some type of alliance structure that encompases the major players in the region, including China and Japan - but that’s a different topic]
…it would be wise for the Japan and the US to point out that China can prevent this, if they act now..
Act now to do what? Prepare “for futher isolation of North Korea and development of a blockade against North Korean weapon sales”? That’s what we’re doing now, and it’s not solving the problem.
You acknowlege that “China fears a collapse of North Korea more than the fear a nuclear North Korea,” so how does a blockade of North Korea stop either of those outcomes? Kim has shown total willingness to allow millions of North Koreans to starve, rather than give up military expenditures.
Pete, I think you’re right on the cusp of coming round to the point of view expressed in my original article. We may differ on some minor details, just like China, Japan, the US, and South Korea would, but I think we agree that a collapse of Kim’s regime is inevitable one way or another, and it could be hastened, and the resulting destabilization mitigated, by preparing for it rather than wasting time trading recriminations over whether they have a uranium enrichment program or not.
American Pundit,
Of all the countries involved in the six country talks, China has the most leverage by far. North Korea gets almost all of its oil through China’s graces. If China stated to North Korea, that development of nuclear weapons is a clear danger to China, we would not have this debate at the moment. China used this before by getting North Korea to agree to the six country talks.
As for blockade, we have not implemented it. We have tracked ships leaving North Korea (for example, before the Iraq war, we intercepted a ship contain SCUDS destinted for Yemen). However, that is the next step. I don’t know how effective it will be, unless China and Russia tacitly approve given North Korea does export goods through China. However, would China allow North Korea to export nuclear material/weapons through China? I would be shocked if they did, since the repercussions for China would be catastrophic. (How would the US react if we found out China facilitated the export of a nuclear weapon that was used against us or our allies?)
However, I don’t see North Korea collapsing soon. While I would love to see North Korea collapse and see a huge international intervention, that is not going to happen as long as China and South Korea hold their current views. Both countries will rather prop up the current goverment, as evil as it may be, then deal with the chaos and cost of the end of North Korea.
So, how do you arrange for talks with the our six countries about preparing for the collaspe of North Korea, when a) unless someone in the army replaces Kim the tyrant, Kim will live to a long age, and b) the two major countries, China and South Korea, are actively preventing such a collapse?
Pete, I’m not sure why you’re arguing. I agree that North Korea probably won’t collapse on its own. We’re in total agreement about why China and S. Korea will work to prevent a collapse. And you rightly point out that a blockade not backed by those two players won’t work.
I’m saying the solution is to work on China, S. Korea, and Japan to build a consensus on taking Kim down by some means, and overcome their trepidation of a N. Korean collapse by planning for it in advance.
Right now, the focus is on negotiating away Kim’s alleged uranium enrichment program. I’m saying that’s a pointless exercise. The administration should instead be pursuing regime change through a regional framework that includes China, S. Korea, and Japan.
