Drinking from a firehose.
There is so much unbelievable crap out there I hardly know where to begin, but I'll start here. I don't pretend to be a foreign policy expert, but does this whole North Korea thing sound completely bass ackwards to anyone else? Can someone explain to me the nuance here? I realize the analogy is imperfect, but parenting is the only frame of reference I have so bear with me.
Let's say there is a rule in the house: There shall be no drawing upon the walls in permanent black ink. If you discover your 9 year old child drawing on the wall in permanent black ink, it is likely you will tell that child to desist immediately. If your child counters your demands by saying s/he will desist if certain concessions concerning allowance and bed time are made, would you feel inclined to bargain?
Never mind feeling inclined. What kind of parenting is that? This isn't even a case of the child exploiting a loop hole in the rules and drawing on the wall in permanent red ink. What exactly are you teaching this child? That it's okay to break the rules so you can gain leverage in policy discussions? And if you actually bargain with the child, what are you teaching the child's siblings? The seven year old watches this whole exchange and immediately embarks on a quest to find a black marker, assuming the step has been taken to secure all black markers in the house.
It's not like North Korea abstained from signing the treaty like Israel, India and Pakistan. I'm sorry, but what is the point of a treaty if a signatory can decide later they don't want to play anymore? Why doesn't anyone have the gonads to say, "The rule is: No weapons grade radioactive materials. Either you allow us to confirm to our satisfaction that you are not producing any proscribed materials or we will bomb your reactors into oblivion to make sure you are in compliance." I suppose the fact that U.N. treaties are more like marketing bulletins should give me some clue.
September 21st, 2005 - 09:31
A few problems with your analogy:
1. NK is a soverign nation, not some kind of dependent of the US (or UN, etc). Rather than compare NK to a child, a more accurate analogy would be to compare it to a crazy neighbor.
2. In your analogy, the worst NK can do is stomp it’s feet and pout. That ignores the significant artillery capability NK has zeroed in on Seoul. It’s MAD on a small scale.
So it’s not a matter of someone lacking the balls to say no to NK, it’s a matter of people not really knowing what NK would/could do if we do go and bomb them. If Canada bombed the US’s nuclear facilities to rubble, what response would you suggest?
To cut the strawman off at the pass, I don’t like the NK government, nor the fact that they (apparently) have nuclear weapons and are building more. It’s just that I think this situation is not something where the US can simply dictate terms. We may be the last superpower, but that doesn’t mean we are all-powerful.
September 22nd, 2005 - 08:27
Well, I did say I understood the analogy was imperfect, but thanks for giving me some concrete examples of why. Nevertheless, Iran, who also signed the original treaty, is now playing the same game.
Nowhere in my post did I suggest the U.S. should be playing the heavy here.
We and our, in the context of my post, is a much bigger circle. This was a U.N. treaty was it not? In fact, I don’t think the U.S. should be in that role at all and refusing to talk personally to Kim Jong Il is one thing on a very short list I think Bush has done right.
The point wasn’t that the U.N. or one of its members should bomb North Korea. The point is a U.N. Treaty is worthless if any nation can abdicate at will and there are no repercussions for doing so. Iran and North Korea (fine, allegedly) have broken the treaty, and they are being rewarded for this? U.N. treaties are simply a statement of good faith, a marketing bulletin, and as such is only worth the paper it’s written on. Let’s hope it’s printed on quality parchment.