“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
WHILE YOU'RE HERE...