Throwin’ the bull with a visiting delegation of Korean lawmakers, White House National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley reportedly assured his guests that the U.S. had no plans to seek regime change or collapse in North Korea. According to Ye Olde Chosun:
WASHINGTON — The United States aims to encourage “regime transformation” rather than see North Korea collapse, said White House National Security Advisor designate Stephen Hadley Tuesday to a delegation of Korean lawmakers in Washington, in an apparent attempt to allay fears on both sides of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).
In relaying Hadley’s comments, Grand National Party lawmaker Park Jin explained that he had meant, “not pursuing the overthrow or replacement of the current regime, but encouraging changes in the regime through economic reform and the like.” Park said “economic transformation” was one of the fundamental reforms Washington hoped to see take place in the North.
Hadley did say, however, that “managed pressure” would be necessary to get North Korea back to the talks.
The Korean delegation also spoke with Richard Armitage, who apparently told the group the U.S. would not attack North Korea, but other options — including referring the issue to the U.N. Security Council — might be considered if talks failed to yield progress:
The delegation also met with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who also confirmed the U.S. stance it would not attack North Korea.
But Armitage was quoted as saying the U.S. will seek to end the nuclear dispute with North Korea through the U.N. Security Council should diplomacy fail.
“President Bush has the most patience with North Korea. The U.S. government has no intention of attacking North Korea from the soil of South Korea or any other country. It would be a most irresponsible act,” Armitage was quoted as saying.
He underlined, however, that the U.S. would never reward North Korea’s possible bad behavior and consult allies and friends about bringing the nuclear issue to the security council unless the six-party talks make substantial progress.
Personally, I think you’d see a Hooters franchise in Mecca before seeing substantial “regime transformation” out of Kim Jong-il and crew, but I’m sure the National Assembly delegation came home to Seoul relatively happy.
11 Comments
Here are my options for “regime transformation” in North Korea:
1. Massive food/radio drop in North Korea. Mark all rice bags with U.S. and South Korean flags. Broadcast “Radio Free North Korea” from the South to the North, or from the U.S. navy. Tell the North Koreans we’re on their side, and try to get the KPA to overthrow the Kim Jong-il government. More and more North Koreans are realizing how much their situation sucks, so a military revolt may not be as difficult as one thinks.
2. Naval blockade. Tell China to stop oil shipments to North Korea or the U.S. and ROK will suspend all trade with China. I’m curious to see what happens to a country when it has no oil.
3. Invade North Korea and overthrow the government. Seoul will get bombed, but Seoul can be rebuilt.
Interestingly, at today’s Asia Society symposium on the US and Northeast Asia, Peter (?) Januzzi, an acknowledged Democratic staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Kerry supporter, opined that regime change has NEVER been the policy of the Bush administration, whose attitude he characterized as one primarily of deliberate and hostile neglect (stemming from an [understandable] unwillingness to trust the Norks to be reliable negotiating partners) that segued into all except lip service obliviousness (on account of 9/11, al Queda and Iraq
After listening to the Korean participants in the symposium, I’m starting to wonder if this “non-policy” policy might not be just about right. That is, the US should drop its “hostile” policy towards the Norks, just as they demand, and simply ignore them. Don’t recognize them diplomatically, but announce a unilateral non-aggression/non-subversion policy (with a self-defense exception) them. Maintain sanctions against US firms doing business with them, but let anybody else (including IBRD, IMF, et al) who’se stupid enough to think they’ll ever get paid knock themselves out without opposition or penalty. Since ROK wants to be independent, especially regarding peninsular affiars, let’s say yes to that too. Just two caveats: For ROK: don’t ask us to pay the piper if you want to call the tune; for the Norks, bear in mind that if you use ‘em against the US or its allies or transfer them to anybody else who is likely to, you’re toast.
“Seoul will get bombed, but Seoul can be rebuilt.”
It’s good think Jesus will be around to resurrect the dead Seoulites. I guess the Buddhist Seoulites can just be reborn. But what about the atheist Seoulites? Well, I guess they are no good commies so they can stay dead.
Why don’t we just air radio programming more suited to NK taste? Something like, “Kim Jong Il has betrayed the Revolution!”
Paul “Seoul will get bombed, but Seoul can be rebuilt.”
Safe in his US home, Paul confidently says the above. It will not be him, or his parents, or family dying….. only Zdunk and the Marmot and 10 million others.
Paul. You have to look deeper into the world chessboard and recognize the human lives and potential suffering on a mass scale of statements like that.
Being a bit distracted when I wrote, I mistakenly identified the symposium as one sponsored by the Asia Society rather than the Asia Goundation. The name fo the Senate FRC staff member also was Frank (not Peter) Jannuzi.
wonderer, “Why don?€™t we just air radio programming more suited to NK taste? Something like, ‘Kim Jong Il has betrayed the Revolution!’”
This is fine. The key is to let the weaker side know they have support from the U.S.
Zdunk, “Safe in his US home, Paul confidently says the above. It will not be him, or his parents, or family dying?€?.. only Zdunk and the Marmot and 10 million others.”
I’m also thinking of the 400,000 in Tele Viv, the 8,000,000 in New York, and the 2,000,000 in Toronto. Iran already has a missile capable of hitting Israel thanks to the Norks. Nukes are coming up next. Anyway, we go with option 3 if the first two don’t work.
I understand that Seoul is in a precarious position. I also realize that the U.S. should have told Stalin not to cross the Yalu back in 1945, but you can’t go back in time and change that. The U.S. was also unprepared to fight the Soviets after a long and difficult fight against the Germans and Japanese.
Zdunk, “You have to look deeper into the world chessboard and recognize the human lives and potential suffering on a mass scale of statements like that.”
This is what I’m doing. If you have input to end the North Korea nuke/missile export business, I’m happy to hear your suggestions. closing your eyes and hoping for the best isn’t a good option, and the “magic wand” solution is not available.
I’m not closing my eyes. P. It’s me and my loved ones that will be dying, not you and yours.
Mr. Webb, please admit “Seoul will be rebuilt” is an offhand callous statement. Those of us who will live here and will be reduced to trace calcium can hardly share your flippant comments on our lives.
You and I are in agreement on most things, actually. I just have to disagree with bloodthirsty (yes, that is the word I choose) flippant statements consigning me and 10 million others to death.
Funny about that.
Zdunk, I’m not bloodthirsty, actually I’m bloodless. I live in Seoul and understand the implications of this proposal, but this is the best way if the first two options don’t work out. But I think the first two options will work.
Paul
Mr. Webb,
You wrote, ?€œThis is fine. The key is to let the weaker side know they have support from the U.S.?€?
I don?€™t mean to slam you down. I?€™m sorry if I have been too harsh. But that statement you made, is a very very very bad idea. You mean we should let the NK rebels know that we will stand by them just like we stood next to the Hungarians? The Poles? The Kurds? The Shiite Iraqis? Back in 1950 we stood by the South Koreans honarably. Then in vietnam we stood by the South Vietnamese?€“a war we could have avoided if we were smart enough to have realized that Ho Chi Min was no Soviet/PRC stooge. But I digress. My point is that there are tons of anti-americans in the world, and whereas some of that is due to their own blind stupidity, a lot has to do with our very own american stupidity. We cannot say anythings and not back them up. At least without consequences.
And frankly, I doubt American people are willing to ?€œback-up?€? NK people when they start to rebel and KJI decides to use chemical weapons on his own people. If Saddam got away with it, what makes you think KJI won?€™t?
Look, if a regime change in NK costed the same number of lives as Iraq is currently suffering, I would eagerly support war. I would be the biggest war hawk on the comment section. But, unfortunately, there is no Holy Spirit whispering in my ear telling me that that would be the case.
You say you are worried about millions of lives in Tel Aviv or New York. What I?€™m about to say might disturb you greatly.
For the past 50 years South Korean people have been living under the thought of chemical and biological armageddon from North Korea. In fact, they had a first hand knowledge about destructive effects of war. Americans had lived for almost same duration of time worried about a nuclear holocaust with the Russians.
But life goes on. We were lucky in that the ?€œRuskies?€? didn?€™t nuke us to the stone age, and the South Koreans are lucky in that KJI didn?€™t fire any anthrax artillery.
Tel Aviv? I?€™m sorry to say this to the Israelis, but there is zero we can do for them. In fact, we have become terrorist targets by being their ally. Now we have been more than honorable with the Israelis, but we cannot change the fact that two group of people want to live on the SAME EXACT plot of land WITHOUT the presence of the other group. It’s completely true that the Palestinians want every Israelis to simply “disappear”, but that fact doesn’t change the fact that Israel is not a democracy when it comes to Palestinians. We invaded Iraq to the utter delight of Likud, but I highly doubt Israel is any safer as a result. In fact, I would venture that Israel is a LOT worse off. Besides, Pakistan already has the ?€œIslamic?€? bomb. Nuclear technology is over 50 years old. It?€™s simply a matter of time before even the Syrians get it. The key is the between now till then, can we make the world more safer, stable, and happy-go-lucky place.
With this in mind, Bill Clinton made that deal with NK back in 1994 to SLOW down, NK nuke research. Today, I don?€™t doubt that Bush/Wolfowitz invaded Iraq with the same goal?€“to make Iraq a democratic, rich, stable country. (Hard to believe, but I actually believe that was his original intention, despite lack of success)
My point is that a REAL regime change will definitely cost millions of lives. But a scary NK bomb may or may not kill hundreds of millions.
Back in the Cold War, US military planners could have done the same math and launched nukes thinking, ?€œGee, if they fire first, only American cockroches live, but the Ruskies will still have some semblance of primitive civilization. If we attack first, the reverse is true. Therefore, we should launch.?€?
We can knock out North Korea at great cost. But then, should we knock out Iran? And if Musharaf loses control, should we knock out Pakistan too? And also the Syrians? Where does this stop? Pretty soon some “bright” and “noble” spirit will realize that just simply nuking the crap out of them will also get the job done much better. I hope on that day, we can all feel that nuclear winter was a small price to pay to ensure our security.
Oh besides, who would nuke Toronto out of all places? They are CANADIANS for ‘christ sake.