Calling a Bluff
By streiff Posted in Breaking News — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
By abandoning a policy that was absolutely Kerryesque in its nuance and declaring it possessed “nukes,” North Korea as succeeded in accomplishing a rather difficult diplomatic hat trick of turning three nations eager to allow them to finesse their way out of their political and economic dilemma into humiliated adversaries.
An apparent ploy to derail the six party talks and have China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia push the US into bilateral talks has failed and the North Korean regime seems set on a slow march to self-immolation. This will eventually rate with Mussolini’s declaration of war on the US in the history of boneheaded diplomatic stunts.
Much of the reporting on North Korea’s announcement centered around the impact this announcement would have on Bush’s North Korea policy -- a grave challenge to President Bush-- or the policy itself -- a litany of diplomatic errors.
In fact, the intransigent stance of the Administration in dealing with North Korea rather than engaging in a so-called grand bargain may actually hasten the end of the North Korean nuclear program and its concomitant threat to non-proliferation regimes.
Update [2005-2-11 16:3:46 by streiff]:DPRK says 6-party talks are over. At least today that's what they're saying today
Read on.
The issue has never been http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/9566.pdf >nuclear weapons or a nuclear program but the existence of the North Korean regime. Only two players in the six party talks really had a full grasp of the stakes: the US and North Korea. Those two parties knew from the beginning that the real stake is the existence of North Korea and that food, electricity, and nuclear programs were all tertiary items.
North Korea’s goal was to survive by bootstrapping a plea for humanitarian, economic assistance, and diplomatic legitimacy into a negotiation over nuclear weapons. South Korea, China and Japan were happy to acquiesce in this for different reasons.
The Administration’s goal was to drive North Korea into the ground in much the same way that Reagan drove the Soviet Union into the ground. Foreshadowed by the 2002 State of the Union Address and reiterated in Condoleezza Rice’s confirmation hearing the Administration has carried out a diplomatic rope-a-dope while quietly increasing pressure on North Korea.
The other players in the six-party talks were aware of this tension but had a vested interest in propping up North Korea.
South Korea was horrified by the amount of money West Germany has had to pour into East Germany. It drove home the reality that there was no financial way they could afford to reconstruct the North, especially after their banking crisis, and there is no political way they could avoid reconstructing it.
China already has a refugee crisis with an estimated 300,000 North Korean refugees being illegally sheltered in the PRC. This is with the status quo. The collapse of North Korea could be expected to produce millions of refugees.
Japan is in the throes of wrestling with its own pacifist constitution, the imbalance between its financial power and military power, and the legacy of its sordid colonial history. A non-nuclear North Korea enabled the Japanese government to continue to kick the can of rearmament down the road.
All three have issued statements in which they say that a nuclear North Korea is unacceptable. ROK President Roh Moo-hyun has said he ”will not tolerate” nuclear weapons in North Korea.
Whether of not North Korea actually has nuclear weapons is open to conjecture. They haven’t tested a nuclear weapon, unless China tested a North Korean design before their self-imposed moratorium. Farfetched? Probably. But who knows? The fact they haven’t tested a weapon mitigates towards this being merely the latest bizarre claim emanating from North Korea. But their statement that they have nuclear weapons is having the same effect. All parties now have to assume that North Korea has nuclear weapons.
South Korea’s Roh has an approval rating of 39.2% up from 27.6% in November. He has only a small legislative plurality. It is doubtful that he can just ignore this announcement. China has suffered quite a blow to its prestige and probably will take some action though beneath the public radar.
Japan’s reaction will probably prove to be the most interesting. Prime Minister Koizumi has been under increasing pressure by his own party to impose sanctions on North Korea because of the ongoing debacle over kidnapped Japanese citizens. In fact, North Korea has warned Japan that sanctions would be a declaration of war.
In one fell swoop Pyongyang has taken economic assistance off the table and nearly guaranteed an enhanced sanctions regime. This picture only has one ending: a total political collapse of North Korea. The idea of a “soft landing” is pretty much out the window with the only remaining question being whether Kim Jong Il get the chance to launch a war, nuclear or not, on his way out.
« Toward an Understanding of the Obamian Language — Comments (4) | Cooper Speaks — Comments (4) »
Calling a Bluff 13 Comments (0 topical, 13 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
where anyone said Kerry was anything.
look for the work "Kerry" in your post (hint it's used a root term in another word, ending in "esque").
no fear... I know such simile's between respected Americans that happen to be domestic political oppoents and vile despotic dictators are just good clean fun.
Or treated that way.
even here at redstate.
Seems to me you guys were so happy with Kerry's use of "nuance" and you convinced me that you were right. I was just giving the man his props in recognizing his mastery of "nuance" and by using his name in this was slammed the North Koreans for being only an pale imitation of the master of "nuance."
And who is the "respected American" you're talking about?
your respect is important, but is just an individual instance... the respect of America is represented by Americans, plural.
If you would like to say that being a US Senator means nothing, and does not includes being respected, then you are, I think, blind to reality. It is fine to prefer your perceptions over those of others, I share that tendency, but in attributing characteristics to distinguished Americans you should apply a more objective measure.
I am not happy with Pres. Bush, but I would say he is a respected American. Anything less is petty.
Similarly I hold that people cannot "love America" and HATE 50% of Americans... that fraction is not possible to interpret as a seditious insurgency... hating America is unamerican. Hating Americans because you disagree with them... very unamerican, imo, if one cannot celebrate the diversity from the city folk out to the countryside, from fisherman to sandwich maker, then one is unable to love America in the Great American Tradition of e pluribus unum.
and that is a sad thing indeed
The prior comment? It looks like you meant to hit "Preview" there instead.
thought in here but I am just not able to find it.
Personally, I reserve my respect for those who have never given aid and comfort to our enemies. So it is obvious that we do not respect the same class of people and I imagine we will continue to disagree on that.
I'd appreciate it... not that I'm unfamiliar with posting a badly proofed text to the internet mind you... :)
both not getting my point and/or not accepting or adopting it for yourself.
the simplest point of it all... you cannot "love America" and hate half of it at the same time.
I can understand if you do not find any given individual respectable... but then, that does not mean the person, Kerry, Bush, or otherwise is not respected. Respect is not about adoration, it's not about saying "I agree with everything about you!!!" It specifically comes into play for adversaries that are also allies, like you and I. We both care deeply about our country, and we both feel strongly about it's history, the meaning and purpose of it's role on Earth, and the validity of it's tradition of democracy and freedom... if we disagree strongly on some policy... respect is the tool we use to remember we are still allies in a broader context, in spite of our important diffences.
It's a shame when citizens are unable to offer such respect to their fellow citizens. It is a shame when you use the language of treason (aiding and comforting the enemey...) to paint your political opponents and indeed, half the nation. I'm sure you understand the point when the shoe is on the other foot and you are watching some leftist making exteme comments about your beliefs.
There is a big distinction to be made between material aid given to enemies... like hiding their agents, supplying them arms, and doing things with strike one's political opponents as "much the same thing".
I wonder, though, if you want to apply absolute standards in which, for example, peace activists are the same as seditious enemies of the state, do you feel the same way about Oliver North, now a wealthy "journalist" who actually supplied armarments to our enemies... a fact not in dispute, and materially aided them? I'll have to admit he is one where I'd adopt your view that no matter what number of Americans respect North, I would balk at him being called a "respected American".
Adolf Hitler was respected by a lot of people that doesn't make him respectable. So I'm pretty sure that you an I are never going to agree on what constitutes a respectable person.
Your inability to frame an argument and your general obtuseness convinces me that you are either unable or unwilling to understand much beyond what someone else on dKos has said.
well... as a matter of fact there is a huge distinction between respected and respectable, and that Hitler was a Respected German is an unfortunate fact of German History, and that you have to go to Hitler to make your point about US Senator Kerry, is also telling.
The idea that you didn't understand my argument on this is, well, laughable, isn't it? You knew my point from the first, I'd wager.
In making a valid point on NK and Crazy Jong-Il, you thought you could spread some of the bad light Democrat-ward and mention Kerry humorously by saying Jong-Il's previous position was Kerryesque.
All in fun. Well, I felt I should contribute to that fun as I think that practice is bad for the nation... in either direction, from any ideology, for any Respected American until such a day that ther eis a Respected American as bad as a NAZI. Do you know of any?
that is, I accept your distinction between respected and respectable because generally, respectable is based on a personal decision to respect, and respected generally means a great number of people have found the person respectable.
and none of that is cover for the practice of throwing a little Kim Jong-Il on your fellow distinguished Americans.
let's avoid the subthread on what "who is the distinquished American" I think my objection was obvious from the very terse and slightly sarcastic first post... the rest is your defense on being caught in what was only a undistinguish "joke".
besides, you have the right to make the joke... I thought a counter joke was more respectful to you and more fitting than a thread on what "respected" means.
in either case, thank you for your time, streiff.
Maybe we should just get back to something we agree on... NK... a tricky and problematic nation.
where have you ever heard these points on dkos? I have the same point for them... you cannot LOVE America and HATE 50% of her.
ut doesn't make sense however often it's done.
if people want to love diversity, as they must to love America, then they must find the way to do that or change what they claim.
I'd think the point was clear enough.
... as bad as Kerry? Isn't that a little harsh.
hmm.