Designated Driver
From Saturday's New York Times:
". . . most Chinese international security experts insist that the United States holds the two most important keys to resolving the North Korean problem: ending a state of hostility that dates from the earliest days of the cold war and providing tangible assurances to North Korea that Washington does not seek the government's overthrow.
'Although many of our friends see it as a failing state, potentially one with nuclear weapons, China has a different view,' said Piao Jianyi, an expert in international relations at the Institute of Asia Pacific Studies in Beijing. 'North Korea has a reforming economy that is very weak, but every year is getting better, and the regime is taking measures to reform its economy, so perhaps the U.S. should reconsider its approach.'"
A reconsidered approach is exactly what the Bush administration has made the past four years. How carefully and consistently that approach has been made says much about the so-called neo-cons. This says it especially well, and explains both Powell's failure in the Bush administration, and the Bush administration's failure to end N. Korea's nuclear program or, in other words, Kim Jong Il's regime.
The "tangible assurances" North Korea seeks seem unlikely to come from the Bush administration any time soon, for diplomatically calibrated reasons the article makes all too clearly and amusingly, unless you're Powell (that sexy sportscar of a state department secretary who turned all the pretty little pundits' heads, but couldn't carry the load).
Nor should these assurances be offered. North Korea's not a nation in an "axis of evil"; it's a singularly imminent global ground zero, dead center of a decade-in-the-making disaster-to-be. Whether it's war precipitated by a border crisis with South Korea or nuclear brinksmanship in the Sea of Japan, it'd be hell on Earth, and we'd be in it with China. Short of a war with North Korea, there's its nuclear technology or materials being sold to Islamicists or nations like Libya.
Minus honeyed words in cuckoo Kim's ear, however, we had an obligation after Afghanistan and along with continued anti-terrorism efforts to make disarming North Korea our top international objective. Had we not reached for what's correctly been called the low-hanging fruit of Iraq, we wouldn't have spent almost two years and counting chewing that rotten apple instead of sitting at the table with the EU and China (in addition to the six-party talks), making what's in everybody's all-around interests clear: Kim's regime will struggle to survive nuke free, or not at all, and China—not the U.S.—can be the hero here.
10 comments:
This is an odd story. i can't imagine that China sees North Korea for anything other than the basket case that it is. I can imagine china not wanting to see a couple of million starving N. Koreans fooling its borders.
The Chinese are able to make such silly statements because the world is unconcerned with their treatment of North Korean refugees. The Chinese have been offering starving Korean refugees the choice of repatriation or arrest for years. The UN is, of course, unconcerned. This UN sanctioned humanitarian callousness is what allows China to realize no cost for their North Korean Failure strategy.
North Koreans have become to China what the Palestinians are to the Arabs...a pawn in a larger game. There will never be any pressure on China to "do the right thing" for Koreans just as there has never been any pressure on Saudi Arabia or Egypt to make Palastinian lives better. And somehow the responsibility will end up with America...and China knows it. Jimmy Carter my even visit Pyongyang to show us the horrible consequences of our sanctions.
A failed North Korea makes the US look bad, not China. Also, a failed and armed North Korea keeps the US busy, not China. The risk of being bit by the mangy, rabid dog in their backyard is acceptable when compared with the fun of letting it out to scare the neighbors. China knows what it's doing.
China--a country we've essentially pledged to go to war with over Taiwan, if necessary--interests me at least as much as North Korea. This will be an interesting few years in China's relationship with us, and with the world.
What I was most baffled by in the NYT excerpt was the Pollyanish "reforming economy" comment. I've added a link to the original post that puts those comments back into the context of conventional wisdom.
Are you confused that someone would consider North Korea to have a reforming economy? Or confused about what he meant when he said it? This was a disingenuous statement. He's just trying to get the media to question the instability of North Korea so as to give them grounds for calling the US unreasonable. China wants the US to look like the bully. The compliant press will take the comment at face value, no matter how incredible it is. Its PR - its not supposed to be true.
The statement was so out of sync with the state of N. Korea's economy (yes, I guess you can say it's "improving" like an air freshner would "improve" a landfill) that I initially read it as "news to me."
Speaking of Taiwan . . .
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&ncid=716&e=21&u=/usatoday/20050223/ts_usatoday/bushdontliftbanonarmssalestochina
My solution is to give Taiwan nukes. One, it eliminates the threat of Chinese invasion, which is the key trigger for a war with China. Two, we can then say we will work to disarm Taiwan, while China is working to disarm N.Korea. Plus, imagine the great press we'd get in Europe. I try to help the foreign press whenever I can. I really want a Golden Globe.
Sorry, U Blo, my money's on Chen:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=516&ncid=516&e=3&u=/ap/20050224/ap_on_re_as/taiwan_china
I wonder if he would feel the same way with a nuclear backbone?
Split a Nuclear Backbone last night with Mrs. 3000—and a Bloomin' Onion! "Just right," indeed!
Stalin, something on the barbie for you: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apeurope_story.asp?category=1103&slug=Europe%20Arms%20to%20China
Post a Comment