“Incredible,” I thought. “I’ve never agreed with a New York Times leader before!” I was reading a terrific article on the threat from North Korea titled ’Mutually Assured Disruption’ giving four detailed ‘swift policy responses’ to the reclusive regime’s announced nuclear test at the weekend.
You see, normally, publications like the New York Times don’t give solutions or imaginative, fresh proposals; they merely whine about Bush or the damned neocons or the blasted Republicans or the damned ‘Administration’. So it was quite a pleasant surprise to see an article that made sense and, moreover, that I happily endorsed. What I didn’t notice at first was that it wasn’t a Times editorial at all - it was in fact a guest op-ed by David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, speechwriter for President Bush from 2001 to 2002 and co-author of ‘An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror.’ I should have known better than to think that left-liberals had suddenly decided to offer some of their own answers.
But the article was better than good. It was brilliant. Frum offers a non-interventionist, non-military approach to the problem that certainly should make madman Kim Jong Il even madder, but possibly rethinking his plan to become the Big Nuclear Asshole that he wanted to be.
First, Frum says we should “Step up the development and deployment of existing missile defense systems.” YES! On a previous post a discussion has been brewing on the issue of aggression and self-defence. The United States of America is a nation that has a strong non-aggression ethic and yet also a strong self-defence ethic. It is also a nation of innovators with pride in technological achievement. America is the nation best-equipped morally and practically to demonstrate what could be the future of peaceful co-existence: Defence with a Capital ‘D’. Good missile defence systems are a key part of any good non-interventionist foreign policy.
Then, he says we should “End humanitarian aid to North Korea and pressure South Korea to do the same.” AGREED! Sending aid to North Korea is based on a two-pronged theory: first, if we don’t, the poor bastards will starve; second, if we don’t, Kim Jong Il will go crazy and start nuking us all. Memo: Kim Jong Il is already crazy and developing nukes. And the poor bastards are already starving. This makes humanitarian aid the payload to Kim Jong Il’s ransom, and Frum is entirely correct when he says that “An end to humanitarian aid would … exact a considerable direct price from North Korea.”
Frum continues by saying we should invite friendly neighbours of North Korea to join NATO, a fantastic suggestion that would ally them even closer with the United States and polarise North Korea even further, and concludes his solution by saying that we should “Encourage Japan to renounce the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and create its own nuclear deterrent”, a suggestion which I’m sure would cause an explosive reaction on the Left were it part of a Bush speech. But he’s entirely right to say that “…a nuclear Japan is the thing China and North Korea dread most,” and maybe it’s time to throw the cat among the pigeons, so to speak. I’ve heard Kim Jong Il eats pigeons and cats, so he may enjoy it.
Frum’s article was a breath of fresh air. We need more thinking like this in Washington. After all, the war in Iraq has proven that sending American and British forces out into the world to kick ass isn’t always such a great idea and the people of those countries don’t particularly seem to appreciate our efforts. A full-out war with North Korea is unimaginable, and, just between us, there appear to be many ways to make them feel the cost of their course of action without resorting to such. Perhaps bunking-busting is the most interventionist activity Americans have the stomach for right now.
And that may not be a bad thing.
John Wright
9 responses so far ↓
1 Rosalita Paglia // Oct 10, 2006 at 10:14 pm
I agree, this is by far the best solution I have seen since I don’t think we have the will for a fight right now.
2 Alan Brock // Oct 11, 2006 at 7:59 am
I think I can agree with all of Frum’s points except for giving Japan a nuclear weapon, that seems a little sudden and possibly could send the wrong message making North Korea even angrier and more determined to carry out what evil it has in mind. Also they might remember WWII…
3 John Wright // Oct 11, 2006 at 10:33 am
Alan- It’s a good point, though it’s likely to make the American and British Left even angrier than the North Koreans. Nevertheless I think Frum’s argument is strong; they fear having another nuclear neighbour who is opposed to them, since with the backing of China they feel empowered and free to do as they please.
4 Anonymous // Oct 11, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Kim Jong il has only one motive in becoming a nuclear personality on the world stage and that is to draw the U.S. to the negotiating table, the nuclear test was a expression of North Korean intentions to face the U.S. at the negotiating table. This information was quoted to the South Korean news agency Yonhap by an unnamed North Korean official.
I believe the danger not to be of a direct threat, I doubt North Korea will be hostile to neighbouring counties who they rely on for aid, the problem is that they may sell their nuclear knowledge to the highest bid through their criminal network were they have many contacts throughout the criminal and terrorist underworld.
Kim Jong il is nothing more than a criminal gangster on the world stage who is into drugs, fake brand cigarettes, (I am certain that these cigarettes are being sold on the streets of Belfast and other cities in the U.K.), weapons being sold to Iran, and lots more but what has been most significant to the U.S. has been the North Korean attempt to undermine the U.S. economy with the counterfeit supper Dollar this trail led to Belfast through a notorious Irish Republican Sean Garland who had been tracked from North Korea via Russia to the U.K., he escaped from British jurisdiction while on bail and is now a fugitive in the Republic of Ireland who don’t have extradition treaty with the U.S.
The U.S. and Japan need to congregate together all the diplomatic assistance they can, they need to get Russia, South Korea, and China behind them to support an ousting of Kim Jong il but I doubt this idea will get their full support because these countries support a continuance of the Kim Jong il regime because they fear a exodus on mass to their borders which would cause chaos in their eyes if he was overthrown. I believe this to be the only option to bring a lasting solution to this dilemma of a nuclear threat from North Korea. I doubt that sanctions will affect Kim Jong il, it will be the suffering people of North Korea that would suffer under any sanctions.
5 Frank // Oct 12, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Interesting how the conversation has gone from pacifism in the last post to a nonviolent approach to dealing with N.Korea in this post! Ultimately we are talking in both the case of private citizens with firearms and in the case of nations with nuclear weapons, what do we do in response to violent people in the world who pose a threat to us? How to respond to evil? I think we all basically agree that nonviolent approaches are preferred, but what separates us is whether we believe ‘military’ solutions should be used if the former fail to solve the problem. Guns and nukes are a last resort, but I believe they are important for self-defense.
6 WTK55 // Oct 12, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Fantastic!
7 Derek, Kalamazoo // Oct 14, 2006 at 1:49 pm
I’m not sure that you get people on your side by taking away their food and generally disrespecting them, that’s what’s wrong with western foreign policy.
8 John Wright // Oct 15, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Derek- It’s gone way beyond disrespect. And your argument doesn’t work: it assumes that our humanitarian efforts in North Korea are and have been already producing good results in the situation. Unfortunately that hasn’t been the case, thus the current drama.
PS All- I’ve fixed the links in this post. Apologies for the 404.
9 jonny // Oct 24, 2006 at 1:32 am
“The United States of America is a nation that has a strong non-aggression ethic”
Wow. Apply your superlative of choice to use with ‘ironic’, now!
Leave a Comment