OPINION & EDITORIAL
Ignoring a larger threat: North Korea
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Josh Moskowitz:
- Taser experiments will help save lives (April 7, 2005)
- Planted articles hurt Iraqi democracy (December 14, 2005)
- DeLay's tactics catch up with him, finally (April 15, 2005)
- Iran key concern for Israel (January 26, 2006)
- Journalism out in jeopardy (April 25, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Bush overlooks nuclear weapon threat (October 5, 2006)
- Justification for Iraq in North Korea (April 28, 2003)
- U.S. has no right to regulate nukes (February 7, 2007)
- America, treat Russia with some respect (December 5, 2007)
- Russia revisits Cold War policy (February 20, 2007)
by Josh Moskowitz
Friday, February 18, 2005
For foreign policy buffs and connoisseurs, the Bush administration has done an uncanny job of satiating your interests. Whether uprooting countries in the Middle East to mold them haphazardly into democracies, destroying decades-old relationships with foreign allies or threatening Iran to comply with nuclear arms agreements, America has extended its policy tentacles far and beyond its borders. Yet, the Bush administration continues to negligently ignore our gravest foreign security threat: North Korea.
Late last week, North Korea announced that it had produced a number of nuclear weapons. This brazen declaration was a clear and stunning violation of North Korea’s promises to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the global community that it would refrain from creating a nuclear arsenal. However, the Bush administration was nowhere near incredulous. Quietly, it acknowledged that North Korea had extracted enough plutonium in the last two years for about a half a dozen nuclear weapons while the United States sat apathetically on its haunches.
President Bush has made it clear that he has no intentions of conducting bilateral negotiations with North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong Il. Instead, Bush prefers to conduct multilateral talks involving Russia, Japan, South Korea, China and the U.S. His reasoning? Direct negotiations between the U.S. and North Korea have led to innumerable failures and missteps.
While Bush has repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance of history in deciding foreign policy forays (see the comparison between Vietnam and Iraq), bilateral discussions have actually worked to deter North Korea from processing nuclear weapons.
In 1994, President Bill Clinton, working with North Korea and its representatives, created the Agreed Framework. This understanding demanded that North Korea comply with all international nuclear non-proliferation agreements and eventually dispose of all spent nuclear fuel already produced. In exchange, North Korea would receive two light-water nuclear reactors, which create electricity, economic aid and 500,000 tons of heavy oil fuel in order to offset the loss of its nuclear power. Both would be paid for in full by other parties.
While Clinton was the recipient of multiple political attacks for his supposed naivety in negotiating with a maniacal dictator, during his administration not one single atomic weapon was created by North Korea. Yet, Bush repeatedly calls bilateral talks infeasible and problematic.
An economically isolated and impoverished country, North Korea makes a large amount of its money in arms and narcotics trafficking. According to Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, many of these arms have ended up in the hands of Pakistanis who, in return, have advised the North Korean government in creating nuclear armaments. Moreover, portions of Pakistan’s security apparatus, that have access to these weapons, have strong ties to Islamic fundamentalist organizations such as al Qaeda.
So what does this all mean? Though North Korea may not directly attack the United States in the near future, its sale of arms to members of terrorist organizations bent on the destruction of America is disturbing and troubling. Certainly North Korea would like nothing more than having a group like Al Qaeda destroy more American lives. But is there a solution?
Neighboring two Asian democracies in Japan and South Korea, some North Koreans have experienced the fruits of democracy by covertly traveling to these countries. Technological products created by China, including cell phones and radios, have made their way across the border, providing North Koreans a glimpse of the benefits of innovation and creativity. Perhaps by emphasizing capitalism and free trade, rather than brute military force, North Koreans will begin to waver in their hallucinogenic support for Mr. Il. Working to open the country’s borders, along with our Asian allies, will certainly take time and effort but will be a far more intelligent position than engaging in cat and mouse games with a totalitarian dictator with nothing to lose.
After hearing last week that North Korea possessed nuclear arms, a few of my friends joked about when they would receive their draft cards and where they would end up being deployed. While I laughed initially, the Bush administration’s take on foreign diplomacy is no laughing matter. As the administration continues to sidestep and forsake diplomatic relations with countries like North Korea, draft cards and deployments may not just be a thing of the past.
Josh Moskowitz (jmoskowitz@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in political science and journalism.
Anonymous (February 18, 2005 @ 6:03am):
The one thing you neglected to mention, nuclear weapons are not developed over night. They were developed while on Clinton's watch AFTER the agreement was in place. So much for for bilateral talks, eh.
Anonymous (February 18, 2005 @ 8:09am):
Send in Mr. Peanut - maybe he can get Kim to lie some more.
Anonymous (February 18, 2005 @ 8:27am):
So what if North Korea has nukes! Hey, we've got Rambo and Terminator. Those two dudes can kick some serious ass. Am I worried? Not a chance!
Anonymous (February 18, 2005 @ 10:26am):
So it is wrong for the United States to operate "unilaterally" with Iraq but right for us to operate unilaterally with North Korea? Don't Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea also have an interest in North Korea being nuclear-free? But we should cut them out of negotiations. That makes a lot of sense to me.
By the way, North Korea developed its first nukes under Clinton's watch. That's how good bilateral talks have been.
And the only thing parallel about Iraq and Vietnam is that Iraq is the first dominoe. The way SE Asia succumbed to communism, the Middle East will become free. I am not saying that the United States will invade other countries because freedom is a contagion that tyranny cannot suppress for long.
Anonymous (February 18, 2005 @ 10:28am):
"In 1994, President Bill Clinton, working with North Korea and its representatives, created the Agreed Framework. This understanding demanded that North Korea comply with all international nuclear non-proliferation agreements and eventually dispose of all spent nuclear fuel already produced."
Uhmm, apparently not. Did you even read this before you submitted it?
Your grasp of foreign policy is lacking. The US will not engage in bilateral negotiations with North Korea because it does not want to increase the standing of North Korea in the view of the world (particularaly in the part of the world hostile to US interests). Our policy is to treat them like the third world country that they are.
Moreover, the administration has hardly "ignored" the problem, as you say. Since shortly after September 11th we've been engaging NK in negotiations (through the UN) and sanctions (As always). Would you have preferred an attack?
North Korea is not the same as Iraq. It is very likely that they have been nuclear for some time now, and an attack likely would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths in South Korea. Due to their nuclear capabilities, diplomacy was the only option.
Anonymous (February 18, 2005 @ 10:31am):
And how many times does Bush and his administration have to say that there will not be a draft. Liberals have tried to make that charge stick in the election and failed. Bush said repeatedly that there will not be a draft. There will not be a draft. There will not be a draft. This is the tactic of liberals, scare young people and old people, women and minorities. Scare them with fairy tales. Keep them believing lies about conservatives because if they have to tell them what liberals really believe (i.e. high taxes, socialism-light, the elimination of religious expression from the public square, etc.), they will never win another national election.
Anonymous (February 18, 2005 @ 10:45am):
"Neighboring two Asian democracies in Japan and South Korea, some North Koreans have experienced the fruits of democracy by covertly traveling to these countries."
Hmmmmm, wasn't democracy in Japan and Korea a "lost cause" according to the "experts" sixty years ago? After all, they'd been ruled by emperors, war-lords and shoguns for thousands of years.
Anonymous (February 18, 2005 @ 10:50am):
China wants to be a player, let them handle this problem that's very much in their own back yard.
Everybody bags on the USA for "unilateral" action, until nobody else steps up to deal with a problem and then the USA is "selfish" because they haven't put up enough bribe money.
Anonymous (February 18, 2005 @ 11:33am):
For all the whining on the left about North Korea, I still don't understand what they would have us do.
Bilateral talks have been proven to be nothing more than an attempt at blackmail of the United States. Besides - I thought the left loved Kerry's version of getting global allies involved in things like this.
As for military action, what exactly are we supposed to do? They've got a standing army of over a million folks, plus nuclear capability.
This is not an easy situation.
We could arrange for the assassination of Kim Jong Il, but that would throw the entire region into chaos.
Perhaps the best course of action is to continue to put pressure on North Korea. The people there are extremely oppressed. I think the hope is that the people there will see how everyone else in the region lives, and that they won't tolerate ridiculous dictators ruling over them forever.
Anonymous (February 18, 2005 @ 12:18pm):
Josh, you're ignoring the REAL larger threat - China.
Anonymous (February 18, 2005 @ 1:20pm):
China may end up owning the USA but then I'm sure they wouldn't want to see it damaged.
My big fear is that they may stop sending us manufactured goods in trade for (worthless?) pieces of paper before I check out.
Anonymous (February 18, 2005 @ 3:52pm):
Though I appreciate Mr. Moskowitz's concern, history clearly demonstrates that appeasement, which is what legitimacy conferring and tyranny subsidizing bilateral talks would be tantamount to, never works. One cannot have it both ways. This liberal city cannot take Bush to task for failing to gain international multilateralism on the one hand, and then lambaste him for not going head to head with one of the most odious dictators of history on the other. No, it is better to engage the region, especially China who has the only real clout with the dictator. Moreover, six party talks will leave a lasting legacy of multilateral diplomacy in the region, groundwork for which our grandchildren, faced with confronting mighty China, will thank us. In the meantime, the US doing anything that legitimizes, empowers, and perpetuates a "one man, one vote, one time" regime, and in the process sidesteps the regional players, is ill-advised. In fact, bilateral talks ironically only invites criticism from the same people who believe that multilateralism is of paramount importance. As Natan Sharansky eloquently argues in his book, "The Case for Democracy: the Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror," the only universal logic to defeat tyranny and ensure real stability is to make incentives by the international community (which we can lead) contingent on a dictator's willingness to recognize the human rights of his subjects (his subjects, not his people- the distinction is important). Only then will the damn break, the regime collapse, the generals defect, and the people of North Korea live in freedom, security, and dignity. That that goal is in line with our own interests is fundamentally irrelevant. I suggest that Mr. Moskowitz re-read his own editorial on Arafat's removal being a "boon for peace."
Anonymous (February 18, 2005 @ 4:17pm):
the above piece wasn't intended to be anonymous, the site just wouldn't let me sign in for some reason. it was by Stephen Rosenberg
Anonymous (February 18, 2005 @ 11:38pm):
"This is the tactic of liberals, scare young people and old people, women and minorities. Scare them with fairy tales."
Of course leading on the American people with false accusations about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction wasn't at all playing on the fears of the nation, nor was promotion of a Gay Marriage Amendment a tactic to scare religious conservatives into voting. Face it, both parties are hypocritical in this respect.
Anonymous (February 19, 2005 @ 1:17pm):
I'm pretty sure that it was the Greens Party that started blaming the depletion of the ozone on belching cows.
Anonymous (February 19, 2005 @ 1:40pm):
A working definition of a "liberal" is a "person who presses for motorcycle helmet laws, and then bemoans the shortage of donor organs."
Anonymous (February 20, 2005 @ 11:06am):
Hi. I'm a conservative! I have no understanding of how different political situations merit different tactics! How is it possible that Dems want to use two different strategies in different parts of the world? Our foreign policy should be a one-size fits all.
I'm a conservative and if anything goes wrong in the world I blame Bill CLinton. Then I rant about persoanl responsibility while shifting the blame to everyone else.
Hey! I'm a conservative and am really just a greedy selfish ignorant little dunce who think that If I get a tax break I'll be able to afford a mansion and a BMW some day. Oh and a trophy wife...who will be getting plugged by a liberal who isn't working 60 hours a week for a bigscreen TV.
Yep, I'm a conservative who wants to go to war but refuses to enlist myself. If anyone tells me anything that I don't already agree with I siply refuse to admit it is true. Its the liberal medias' fault, or the liberal academics or or or....it must e Bill Clinton or maybe Hillary yeah that it! Personal responsibility personal responsibility !
Anonymous (February 20, 2005 @ 3:47pm):
"Hi. I'm a conservative! I have no understanding of how different political situations merit different tactics! How is it possible that Dems want to use two different strategies in different parts of the world? Our foreign policy should be a one-size fits all."
Just like W playing it the same in NK as Iraq? He's not so he must not be a conservative!
Yer not doin much to displell the "liberals are morons" meme.
Anonymous (February 20, 2005 @ 11:02pm):
The only reason Bush hasn't dealt with NK the same way that he has dealt with Iraq is because they have nukes.
So let's see...If I am on the US's enemies list, what would my number one priority be? Since negotitating didn't work for Saddam, I'd go with getting nukes.
Hey! It seems to be working for NK.
You neo-con fellaters are a bunch of dopes. Its not about libs and conservatives its about lying.
