Gordon G. Chang has a fun read in the Wall Street Journal. Here is the conclusion:
Yet, as much as the international community would like to avoid a confrontation, the world cannot let Kim Jong Il continue to proliferate weapons. Moreover, it is unlikely that he will carry through on his blustery threats. The North Koreans did not in fact start a war when, at America’s request, Spain’s special forces intercepted an unflagged North Korean freighter carrying Scud missiles bound for Yemen in December 2002. Even though the Spanish risked their lives to board the vessel, Washington soon asked Madrid to release it. At the time, the Bush administration explained there was no legal justification to seize the missiles.
Now, the Obama administration has no such excuse. There is definitely a legal justification to seize the Kang Nam. North Korea, after all, has resumed the Korean War.
That bit at the end is Chang’s central point, which I think is too cute to apply if for no other reason than you would have to believe that the word of North Koreans has any value. After going through the agreed framework and agreed framework 2.0, it should be pretty clear that it does not and I do not see much point in pretending otherwise.
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
Wouldn’t it be nice if the UN Secretary General would engage in diplomacy with the nations of the region to ensure that the resolution would be fairly enforced? The current Sec Gen, being from the region and a proclaimed behind-the-scenes diplomat would seem to be in an ideal position to do so. For many, this will prove the ultimate test of his true mettle as a Sec Gen. and let’s see if he can rise to the occassion and get the job done, or at least make an attempt to do his job. The question is: is he a do-nothing political apointee, or a genuine international diplomat?
Alas, the US was played for a sucker in the UNSC. With Myanmar being well placed as a fuel stop on the way to the middle east, there is little that can be done under that resolution. Unless China is willing to give the sanctions real bite (anyone want to bet on that?) the resolution is more about what can not be done to stop suspected ships.
What is the “international community”?
What is “the world”?
What the hell does that wad of gibberish even mean?
PS – you do realize that you posted a partisan editorial and not a news item, don’t you? The legal issue is insignificant, and the attempt to make the insignificant legal issue into a basis for a major military confrontation with North Korea is about as idiotic as the WMD argument for invading Iraq. You do see that, don’t you? Because if you don’t, I seriously think that you should recuse yourself from exercising your right to vote in US elections on the grounds of incompetence.
Such a cynic, Linkd…don’t you remember:
“We are the world!”
Though I may be viewed as a bit of a hard liner on North Korea, I have serious problems with this essay. This piece seems to cherry pick among legal precedents and agreements, it only to get a piece published in the Wall St. Journal.
First, North Korea has repeatedly announced the end of the Armistice in the past to dramatize its current states unhappiness. For that reason, the US and others have not taken the latest announcement of the same seriously.
Second, even if North Korea and China routinely formally agree to one thing and then do another, that does not make for good foreign policy for the US and others who need to keep the majority of the nations on track in observing consummated agreements and conventions.
And third, should the US be so foolish to follow Mr Chang’s highly questionable advice, what are we likely to discover at what price? I doubt there are nukes going to Myanmar – more likely machine guns and possibly short-range missiles. And then, what? Retaliation on the two American and one S Korean
hostagesprisoners? A retaliatory West Sea naval engagement that is almost certain to be futile and deadly?Chang is well known for this hawkish positions that often seem to be principled. but more often than not, to be poorly thought out. In this piece, he remains consistent.
Gordon Chang like his fellow apparatchiks at Commentary really have one track minds. Threaten military action against North Korea and Iran. Call Russian and China names. Oh and Go Israel! No matter how well thought out or specious the rationalizations, all thoughts will conform to the aforementioned party line.
#3
Tom Coyner gets it. Why can’t you?
Never mind. I am going to assume that you were just pretending to be ignorant out of some sort of Socratic trickery.
While North Korea has on several occasions stated the Armistice is “useless” or “over,” it has never officially abrogated that agreement. As such, the Armistice is very much still in place.
Who knows what is on the Kang Nam, except the North Koreans and the intended recipients? It could, after all, simply be bait, to give them the (admittedly ridiculous) excuse to do whatever they has up their sleeve. Could be a shipment of stuffed animals and diapers for all we know. While it’s probably some sort of prohibited item – and conventional arms are now on that list, per UNSCR 1874 – it seems we really don’t know.
Linkd’s point, as I understand it, is that it’s presumptuous to refer to the will of “the international community” when in fact many key members of said community may disagree with the US. For more information, see the start of W. Bush’s Iraq War.
That said, I think we’re seeing more consensus on North Korean issues than we ever have before. I was highly dismissive of recent events, until China gave some indications that they may actually back sanctions with teeth. We’ll see if they follow through.
On a somewhat related note, my buddy in Osaka tells me that US naval vessels have been docking in the harbor at a rate of several a week, for several weeks. Fun times.
Afghanistan
Albania
Indeed. Below I present a list of countries that either don’t care whether North Korea is dealing in weapons, or which are actually sympathetic to this trade.
And here is a list of countries opposed:
Sing along: “We are the world…..”UN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
While I am pleased to see Tibet listed as a separate country, that hardly accords with reality.
@11
The Picairn Islands (UK) and Peuerto Rico (US) are not countries, but territories, Niue though more independent than either allows New Zealand to conduct most diplomatic relations. And I’m not even sure if Western Sahara is really a country, its just an empty spot on the map that our monkey brains and affinity for border tend to want to oblige with a name. Surely it is not recognized by too many nations. That being said, I do consider your point valid.
(@ the blog post)
See folks? This is what happens when you let Rupert Murdoch aquire the Wall Street Journal. Next thing you know, it will be full of more skantily clad chicks than Sports Chosun.
My editing was indeed atrocious.
Interdicting ships looks to be a risky prospect with unpredictable results. And if, according to Linkd, nobody cares about Nork efforts at proliferation, then maybe it’s pointless to try. Instead, that neo-con Obama is looking to try the only thing that has had any impact on KJI in the last ten years. I’m talking about those dreaded (to KJI) financial restrictions that Bush toyed with and which were actually starting to bite before he caved in and pulled out the kneepads. Obama is looking to ramp up those financial restrictions to be much more wide ranging than Bush’s were, and which could very well have a serious impact (check out Joshua’s writings at onefreekorea for more info on this). To be fair, Bush likely was acting ‘pragmatic’ in that he didn’t have the support of Roh’s government to do anything that could actually cause regime collapse. I’m also guessing that everyone else (except maybe for the Japanese) were really only interested in the status quo, so Bush dropped the restrictions out of lack of support internationally and at home for having to do anything other than maintain the status quo. He probably realized the resistance was too strong and the risks too great (hmm, yes, Bush-that dreaded and evil neo-con may have actually listened to others. Does this mean that maybe he wasn’t so much of one after all? Well, I guess Obama did say he was the change candidate-does that include regime change? Just don’t call him a neo-con).
“And then, what? Retaliation on the two American and one S Korean hostages prisoners?”
OMG the horror! The two Americans put themselves in harms way, would you be talking about me if I “accidently” crossed into N. Korea? I’m an American male BTW.
Linkd;
Latest UNSCR was 15-0, not in favor of NK.
Oh yeah, Richardson?!!?!! You wanna take me on, huh?!! You think you’re up to it??!
[pause]
OK, I got nothin’.
You must log in to post a comment.