Post by smartarse on Jan 6, 2006 10:46:38 GMT 10
OK, i give in, a fairly ridiculous article i just read in the IHT has prompted me to do something i shouldn't - start a thread on North Korea... i apologise but this is gonna be loooooong.... *sigh*
here's the article, and i swear i didn't know it was written by a former Bush staffer until after i finished reading it - my criticism isn't partisan, its simply that he's an idiot.
www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/05/opinion/edramberg.php#
one paragraph particularly irritates - because it shows that unique brand of American ignorance:
Kim has a cult of personality and a repressive internal security system (like Cuba for example) that doesn't require the aqcuisition of nukes to sustain his regime. In fact since NK's nuke program is meant to deter a US nuclear attack, getting nukes would weaken the argument (not that there is any policy discussion in NK) for a 'garrison state' because it would make intervention by foreign powers all the more unlikely.
Secondly, the 'compensate for conventional weakness' line is way too simplistic. Read the second book i mentioned in my last book review Crisis on the Korean Peninsula - its written by the Brookings Institute - which is not a Left-wing think tank by any stretch of the imagination, and in it you'll find the conventional military balance described in great detail. Using a formula based on the war-gaming techniques of the Pentagon, the 'balance' between the two sides is found to be much closer than you might think. In essence neither side can defeat the other in Korea (in terms of invasion)- both are so dug in that while any attack would be devestating, it would ultimately fail.
The North might not have stealth bombers, but they don't need them. Unless the US can take out 1000's of artilery pieces, and No-Dong and Taepo-Dong missiles in a 'first strike', NK can blitz Seoul and/or Tokyo in response to any attack - which is obviously something that the US would struggle to justify.
Plus i love this subtle idea that the North's fear of the US is irrational ("a hedge against perceived U.S. military designs"). Perceived? The US/SK and NK are still officially at war!. Bush himself called NK part of the Axis of Evil (and recently Condi Rice named it as one of the 6 "Outposts of Tyranny" in the world) and has said he wants to topple the regime. Bush follows up the 'evil' rhethoric with a policy of pre-emptive strikes against hostile states - and demonstrates it against the first part of the 'Axis', Iraq.
Plus there are 40,000 US troops in Japan, several thousand more in SK and the Pacific Fleet all within 'first strike' distance of NK. And yet the North is aparantly irrational to think that the US has hostile "designs" on it!
Lets be clear, i'm not defending North Korea - its not a nice place - but i hate bad analysis, especially arrogant Right-wing American bad analysis.
The final idiotic comment is that the North is pursing nukes because it wants to make the South "nervous" so that it will provide aid.
Hello? Ever heard of the Sunshine Policy? Former SK President Kim Dae Jung won the friggin Nobel Peace Prize for his policy of engagement - and it started during a time when the North had agreed to abandon its nukes under the 1994 agreement with the US. Japan gives aid as part of reparations for WWII, and because it doesn't really want NK to collapse - neither does the South - because they'd both be flooded with refugees, and nasty military technology like missiles would be in the hands of whichever general could command the loyalty of a specific section of the military - all bad news. Plus most South Koreans actually want to reunite the country some day - a la Germany - and allowing their relatives to starve to death isn't a great way to achieve that end... thats why the issue of 'familiy reunions' is so important, but NK isn't seen as foreign in SK, they literally are counsins.
In the last part of the article it says the North isn't ready to end its "self impossed isolation" and theres just enough truth in that to be dangerously flawed analysis. Yes the North isn't all that interested in being part of the whole globalised capitalist economy (neither is half of Latin America - eg. Boliva!). But it has made efforts to engage - special trade zones in the north of the country with China and in the south with South Korea (Hyundai has a huge industrial park in North Korea). Lets not forget that a big part of the North's isolation is US-led trade sanctions (the 'Trading With The Enemy Act' amongst others, which bars investment by US firms in NK - because the US and NK are still at waaaaaaaar!!!).
Again, i'm not necessarily saying there shouldn't be sanctions against NK, but its stupid to pretend that NK is isolated solely out of choice - its just factually wrong and i hate that.
North Korea also voluntarily choose to enter the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and left it legally (just as the US exercised its legal right to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia) and the North has expressed an interest in joining ASEAN (after all, Burma has... its not a fussy club).
The debate over North Korea is really complicated and i don't personally have a locked-in view as to which of the options is the 'right' one. But i do know that blatently misrepresenting the situation doesn't help people make informed decisions.
Why can't the US just admit that North Korea's nuclear program is about security from the US - because it has 1000's of nukes pointed at the North, it refuses to declare a 'no first use' policy and leaked Defence Department plans from the 70's and 80's show that US plans to use nuclear weapons against the North at a very early stage in the conflict if a conflict ever arose.
and yes the North probably want nukes so they can sell the technology (and maybe weapons), just as they have done with missiles. But since every permanent member of the UN Security Council is a major arms dealer, thats not so surprising.
You might argue that the US is right to do/say all those things, and thats certainly an argument that can be made well and reasonably - its even one i occassionaly believe. But to pretend that NK's nuclear program just makes no sense at all and Kim Jong Il is a total lunatic for pursing them is just silly.
here's the article, and i swear i didn't know it was written by a former Bush staffer until after i finished reading it - my criticism isn't partisan, its simply that he's an idiot.
www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/05/opinion/edramberg.php#
one paragraph particularly irritates - because it shows that unique brand of American ignorance:
For Kim Jong Il, nuclear weapons provide a way to preserve his fiefdom. They generate international tension that justifies the garrison state. They compensate for conventional military weaknesses, providing a hedge against perceived U.S. military designs. They furnish leverage to extract international humanitarian assistance and economic investment from a nervous Seoul
Kim has a cult of personality and a repressive internal security system (like Cuba for example) that doesn't require the aqcuisition of nukes to sustain his regime. In fact since NK's nuke program is meant to deter a US nuclear attack, getting nukes would weaken the argument (not that there is any policy discussion in NK) for a 'garrison state' because it would make intervention by foreign powers all the more unlikely.
Secondly, the 'compensate for conventional weakness' line is way too simplistic. Read the second book i mentioned in my last book review Crisis on the Korean Peninsula - its written by the Brookings Institute - which is not a Left-wing think tank by any stretch of the imagination, and in it you'll find the conventional military balance described in great detail. Using a formula based on the war-gaming techniques of the Pentagon, the 'balance' between the two sides is found to be much closer than you might think. In essence neither side can defeat the other in Korea (in terms of invasion)- both are so dug in that while any attack would be devestating, it would ultimately fail.
The North might not have stealth bombers, but they don't need them. Unless the US can take out 1000's of artilery pieces, and No-Dong and Taepo-Dong missiles in a 'first strike', NK can blitz Seoul and/or Tokyo in response to any attack - which is obviously something that the US would struggle to justify.
Plus i love this subtle idea that the North's fear of the US is irrational ("a hedge against perceived U.S. military designs"). Perceived? The US/SK and NK are still officially at war!. Bush himself called NK part of the Axis of Evil (and recently Condi Rice named it as one of the 6 "Outposts of Tyranny" in the world) and has said he wants to topple the regime. Bush follows up the 'evil' rhethoric with a policy of pre-emptive strikes against hostile states - and demonstrates it against the first part of the 'Axis', Iraq.
Plus there are 40,000 US troops in Japan, several thousand more in SK and the Pacific Fleet all within 'first strike' distance of NK. And yet the North is aparantly irrational to think that the US has hostile "designs" on it!
Lets be clear, i'm not defending North Korea - its not a nice place - but i hate bad analysis, especially arrogant Right-wing American bad analysis.
The final idiotic comment is that the North is pursing nukes because it wants to make the South "nervous" so that it will provide aid.
Hello? Ever heard of the Sunshine Policy? Former SK President Kim Dae Jung won the friggin Nobel Peace Prize for his policy of engagement - and it started during a time when the North had agreed to abandon its nukes under the 1994 agreement with the US. Japan gives aid as part of reparations for WWII, and because it doesn't really want NK to collapse - neither does the South - because they'd both be flooded with refugees, and nasty military technology like missiles would be in the hands of whichever general could command the loyalty of a specific section of the military - all bad news. Plus most South Koreans actually want to reunite the country some day - a la Germany - and allowing their relatives to starve to death isn't a great way to achieve that end... thats why the issue of 'familiy reunions' is so important, but NK isn't seen as foreign in SK, they literally are counsins.
In the last part of the article it says the North isn't ready to end its "self impossed isolation" and theres just enough truth in that to be dangerously flawed analysis. Yes the North isn't all that interested in being part of the whole globalised capitalist economy (neither is half of Latin America - eg. Boliva!). But it has made efforts to engage - special trade zones in the north of the country with China and in the south with South Korea (Hyundai has a huge industrial park in North Korea). Lets not forget that a big part of the North's isolation is US-led trade sanctions (the 'Trading With The Enemy Act' amongst others, which bars investment by US firms in NK - because the US and NK are still at waaaaaaaar!!!).
Again, i'm not necessarily saying there shouldn't be sanctions against NK, but its stupid to pretend that NK is isolated solely out of choice - its just factually wrong and i hate that.
North Korea also voluntarily choose to enter the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and left it legally (just as the US exercised its legal right to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia) and the North has expressed an interest in joining ASEAN (after all, Burma has... its not a fussy club).
The debate over North Korea is really complicated and i don't personally have a locked-in view as to which of the options is the 'right' one. But i do know that blatently misrepresenting the situation doesn't help people make informed decisions.
Why can't the US just admit that North Korea's nuclear program is about security from the US - because it has 1000's of nukes pointed at the North, it refuses to declare a 'no first use' policy and leaked Defence Department plans from the 70's and 80's show that US plans to use nuclear weapons against the North at a very early stage in the conflict if a conflict ever arose.
and yes the North probably want nukes so they can sell the technology (and maybe weapons), just as they have done with missiles. But since every permanent member of the UN Security Council is a major arms dealer, thats not so surprising.
You might argue that the US is right to do/say all those things, and thats certainly an argument that can be made well and reasonably - its even one i occassionaly believe. But to pretend that NK's nuclear program just makes no sense at all and Kim Jong Il is a total lunatic for pursing them is just silly.
