First, it is insane that 1/3 of respondents would want to take military action to attempt to disarm North Korea of its nuclear weapons. Do these people understand that the nuclear weapons are *intended* to prevent us from attacking them? Do they realize that North Korea could *launch* those weapons at the US if the US did in fact attack? That's why they've got 'em. The regime saw what happened in Libya after Gaddafi gave up the Libyan nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. I would venture to say that the outcome was not good for Gaddafi or for Libyans writ large, since their country has been a playground for proxy wars between other countries for a decade at this point.
Second, as Daniel observes, it is absurd to make North Korean nuclear disarmament a precondition for negotiations. North Korea's nukes represent the only leverage the regime has, and it is a significant piece of leverage. Why would anyone (including North Korea) willingly give up the best piece of leverage it has prior to a negotiation? That's ass-backwards. North Korea is not an exception to the basic dynamics of bargaining. They would like to negotiate from a position of strength and aren't going to give up their key piece of leverage.
Finally, we have to appreciate that the key leverage we used to have -- sanctions relief -- isn't the kind of incentive that it used to be. China is developing an independent economic bloc that will be capable of supporting North Korea, and North Korea will seek to become part of that bloc rather than giving up its nnuclear weapons and subjecting itself to the same fate is Libya.
It seems that our best chances of a lasting peace agreement evaporated in the 90's under Clinton when Congress blocked funding for various light-reactors programs that he had agreed to with the DPRK. It's hard to hold out hope for a comprehensive peace treaty when you can't even commit that your own side will honor its terms, as we learned again later with Iran.
As it is now, I think many Americans are skeptical that North Korea is operating in good faith and is instead running some kind of extortion racket. If not pushing for denuclearization, there at least needs to be a path that would put North Korea back under the NPT framework, as a nuclear acceder state (like China), if not a non-nuclear state.
The problem with treaties is that you can never be sure that the other side will honor the terms of the document, or that they won't interpret those terms in opportunistic ways. This is especially true when it comes to a much stronger country honoring the terms of a treaty with a much weaker country.
The Blobification of the media has poisoned the minds of Americans, just as it has removed the last vestiges of government responsiveness to the public. No one cares what the American people think about foreign policy or militarism. They have no input on the subject and if they have the temerity to elect someone who opposes some portion of the Blob's agenda, the Blob will emasculate (or efeminate?) the politician instead of following his/her orders.
The stupidity of US policy toward the DPRK is only matched by the policy toward Iran, Venezuela and the other disobedient nations. No one in DC seems to realize that the Empire is dead. Everyone knows the senile Emperor is naked. They can either continue to bully everyone until someone strikes back or they can face facts and end the Empire. The Blob has already made its decision. What we think is irrelevant.
Sometimes I try to imagine how folks in Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece at their height thought about foreign policy, right before reality came crashing down on them. Like us, I imagine that they were pretty damn drunk on their own religion and their own narratives about the nefarious character of other societies. And like us, they probably didn't appreciate that the Gauls and the Persians had their own side of the story about how everything they did was defensive or a response to nasty things that the Romans or Greeks did to their societies.
On the one hand, the foreign policy establishment insists on North Korea denuclearizing because they know that the North Korean leadership would have to be insane to agree to such a thing.
The reason for such insistence is because anything short of total capitulation, Team R will scream "communist!" at any Team D president that reaches a peace deal, and Team D will scream "Putin puppet!" at any Team R president that reaches a peace deal.
For many Blobsters, I suspect that insisting on this precondition is a bad faith move. But I suspect that some of them genuinely think it's possible, because the pressure created by American sanctions (as they see it) ultimately got Gaddafi and Iran to give up their nukes and agree to the JCPOA, respectively.
Of course, they fail to appreciate a few key facts: (1) North Korea doesn't want to end up having its top officials repeatedly assassinated like Iran or worse yet getting regime-changed like Libya, and (2) the economic pressure created by sanctions will not be effective in a world where a Chinese-led economic bloc can (and will) keep the North Korean regime afloat.
What is more concerning to me about this post is the fact that most Americans seem to have adopted a stupid and unrealistic position when it comes to negotiating with North Korea. I expect stupidity from the foreign policy establishment, but it is disheartening to see it among the American public. It seems like we need to get into a war that ends up being a disaster a la Iraq or Afghanistan before we end up realizing how bad these hawkish ideas are when they're put into practice.
If North Korea might at one time have been willing to take American promises on faith, Iraq and Libya (and Iran) should have cured them of that by now.
Meanwhile, we dare not touch Pakistan, precisely because Pakistan has The Bomb.
First, it is insane that 1/3 of respondents would want to take military action to attempt to disarm North Korea of its nuclear weapons. Do these people understand that the nuclear weapons are *intended* to prevent us from attacking them? Do they realize that North Korea could *launch* those weapons at the US if the US did in fact attack? That's why they've got 'em. The regime saw what happened in Libya after Gaddafi gave up the Libyan nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. I would venture to say that the outcome was not good for Gaddafi or for Libyans writ large, since their country has been a playground for proxy wars between other countries for a decade at this point.
Second, as Daniel observes, it is absurd to make North Korean nuclear disarmament a precondition for negotiations. North Korea's nukes represent the only leverage the regime has, and it is a significant piece of leverage. Why would anyone (including North Korea) willingly give up the best piece of leverage it has prior to a negotiation? That's ass-backwards. North Korea is not an exception to the basic dynamics of bargaining. They would like to negotiate from a position of strength and aren't going to give up their key piece of leverage.
Finally, we have to appreciate that the key leverage we used to have -- sanctions relief -- isn't the kind of incentive that it used to be. China is developing an independent economic bloc that will be capable of supporting North Korea, and North Korea will seek to become part of that bloc rather than giving up its nnuclear weapons and subjecting itself to the same fate is Libya.
It seems that our best chances of a lasting peace agreement evaporated in the 90's under Clinton when Congress blocked funding for various light-reactors programs that he had agreed to with the DPRK. It's hard to hold out hope for a comprehensive peace treaty when you can't even commit that your own side will honor its terms, as we learned again later with Iran.
As it is now, I think many Americans are skeptical that North Korea is operating in good faith and is instead running some kind of extortion racket. If not pushing for denuclearization, there at least needs to be a path that would put North Korea back under the NPT framework, as a nuclear acceder state (like China), if not a non-nuclear state.
The problem with treaties is that you can never be sure that the other side will honor the terms of the document, or that they won't interpret those terms in opportunistic ways. This is especially true when it comes to a much stronger country honoring the terms of a treaty with a much weaker country.
The Blobification of the media has poisoned the minds of Americans, just as it has removed the last vestiges of government responsiveness to the public. No one cares what the American people think about foreign policy or militarism. They have no input on the subject and if they have the temerity to elect someone who opposes some portion of the Blob's agenda, the Blob will emasculate (or efeminate?) the politician instead of following his/her orders.
The stupidity of US policy toward the DPRK is only matched by the policy toward Iran, Venezuela and the other disobedient nations. No one in DC seems to realize that the Empire is dead. Everyone knows the senile Emperor is naked. They can either continue to bully everyone until someone strikes back or they can face facts and end the Empire. The Blob has already made its decision. What we think is irrelevant.
Sometimes I try to imagine how folks in Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece at their height thought about foreign policy, right before reality came crashing down on them. Like us, I imagine that they were pretty damn drunk on their own religion and their own narratives about the nefarious character of other societies. And like us, they probably didn't appreciate that the Gauls and the Persians had their own side of the story about how everything they did was defensive or a response to nasty things that the Romans or Greeks did to their societies.
On the one hand, the foreign policy establishment insists on North Korea denuclearizing because they know that the North Korean leadership would have to be insane to agree to such a thing.
The reason for such insistence is because anything short of total capitulation, Team R will scream "communist!" at any Team D president that reaches a peace deal, and Team D will scream "Putin puppet!" at any Team R president that reaches a peace deal.
Therefore, nothing can be done.
For many Blobsters, I suspect that insisting on this precondition is a bad faith move. But I suspect that some of them genuinely think it's possible, because the pressure created by American sanctions (as they see it) ultimately got Gaddafi and Iran to give up their nukes and agree to the JCPOA, respectively.
Of course, they fail to appreciate a few key facts: (1) North Korea doesn't want to end up having its top officials repeatedly assassinated like Iran or worse yet getting regime-changed like Libya, and (2) the economic pressure created by sanctions will not be effective in a world where a Chinese-led economic bloc can (and will) keep the North Korean regime afloat.
What is more concerning to me about this post is the fact that most Americans seem to have adopted a stupid and unrealistic position when it comes to negotiating with North Korea. I expect stupidity from the foreign policy establishment, but it is disheartening to see it among the American public. It seems like we need to get into a war that ends up being a disaster a la Iraq or Afghanistan before we end up realizing how bad these hawkish ideas are when they're put into practice.
If North Korea might at one time have been willing to take American promises on faith, Iraq and Libya (and Iran) should have cured them of that by now.
Meanwhile, we dare not touch Pakistan, precisely because Pakistan has The Bomb.