The Bush administration may have ditched the ideo of toppling KJI, says Robert Einhorn of the Center for Strategic International Studies:
The reason for no longer seeking regime change in
North Korea is that the U.S. does not see Kim Jong-il and his
government as very dangerous, and that Pyongyang is doomed to collapse
anyway, according to Einhorn."Kim is seen as leading an inward-looking, dead-end regime preoccupied with its own survival," he said.
"The downside risk of lending some legitimacy to
Kim’s doomed regime is manageable… (The Bush administration) does not
worry about giving more staying power to a doomed regime."
Sounds reasonable to me.
10 Comments
Very reasonable if you ask me.
While I’m not sure that recognising the regime as a legitimate government is the way to go I am of the opinion that concerted effort on behalf of anyone trying to ‘topple’ it will probably be counter-productive.
Nothing better to feed the paranoia than to find out they are actually out to get you eh ?.
It seemed equally reasonable in 1993. In fact, that assumption was a key to why we took the Agreed Framework approach. Look where that got us.
Governments aren’t overthrown because people starve by the millions (put aside the moral question of standing passively aside while that happens). Governments are overthrown because people see and demand better alternatives, politically or economically. That’s why historically, states in abject poverty tend to be more stable than those in the process of industrializing, a process that’s initially marked by a dramatic wealth gap.
One other point–the article doesn’t mention that Einhorn is a hard-core member of the engagement camp, a Clinton Admin veteran, and probably not in the best position to speak as an authority on what the Bush Admin will do.
Overall, however, there’s no strong outward sign of a regime change policy.
I know Bush. He’s from Texas, Giddi’up cowboy with a big pistol.
He ain’t no wimp.
He has been and WILL BE threatening KJI, the fat ass who leaches off his starved people, for total annihilation. He was told to do this from the Higher authority.
Since Pres. Rho loves to **** KJI’s ****, Bush has to keep his pressure on the fat ass. If a Korean president be tough on this worthless piece of garbage, Bush can be the mediator someday.
But not now. Not with this cosmetic surgery queen.
LIKE HELLO?
What the heck is wrong with doing something even if it might collapse on its own?
Can anyone name a member of the collapsist school who doesn’t spend half his time explaining himself?
Joshua said it right above:
“…that assumption was a key to why we took the Agreed Framework approach. Look where that got us.”
I’m for engaging the hell out of ‘em. The US should build an embassy in P’yang next week, then fill most of it with eavesdropping devices. Or have the British and Aussies got that covered?
Define “something.” Your something, I suppose, means actually preventing said collapse with gargantuan payoffs that will have us back at these same talks two decades from now, talking about the same bombs, and their progeny. And speaking of explaining, explain where “something” got us in 1994. Maybe Einhorn can help you.
Or perhaps we should engage in the sort of Levantine betrayal of what our values should have been during, say, Kwangju. Those who say that our values have no place in our diplomacy seldom say so in that context, I note. I suppose realism isn’t as dry and ideologically neutral as it purports to be.
I’m all for engaging the hell out of ‘em, too. But my idea of engagement is engaging the people, not the little grey men on the reviewing stand who will use all of the power of the state to prevent engagement with the people. In the unlikely event collapse happens on its own, you may not like the form it takes. It will take true engagement to bring North Korea into the civilized world.
“Define “something.” Your something, I suppose, means actually preventing said collapse with gargantuan payoffs that will have us back at these same talks two decades from now,”
Hm. That was uncalled for.
I was hoping for something like this, as mentioned here.
OK, you have a retraction with my apologies. We’re not as far apart as I had unfairly assumed.
Recall that the straw man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
Einhorn’s uses straw man rhetoric here to frame the debate within the context of a NK propaganda charge that has never been true. Even during the Korean War, the objective was to contain - not overthrow - the regime.
One notes that such unprincipled rhetoric is clearly opportunistic and propagandistic in straddling both sides of the fence to adopt whichever premises suit one’s purposes merely for the purposes of winning an argument.
To wit: the US is at once reviled for dividing Korea by stopping short of regime change, and then again reviled for not respecting the division by adopting a policy of regime change.
So which is it? Is the US guilty of attempting to divide Korea or unify it? Either way, you will find insufficient grounds to support a valid argument. The US was merely attempting to establish a practical and pragmatic policy in the interests of the greater good. But that doesn’t sell newspapers, does it?
Since the norks continue to stay afloat by trafficking drugs and counterfeiting U.S. dollars, their collapse doesn’t look imminent, and they are doing the world a great deal of damage on the way out–I’m no fan of Pres Bush, but if he wanted to snuff the midget I’d be behind him on that one.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32167.pdf
One Trackback
Regime change no longer North Korea policy?
From the Marmot, the U.S. may have abandoned its goal of regime change in North Korea.
According to a report in The Korea Times quoting former-Assistant Secretary of State Robert Einhorn, the administration does not view the Kim regime …