The need for a realistic North Korea policy. by Jamie Fly, Carolyn Leddy, & Christian Whiton
North Korea's actions over the past month, including its restarting of its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon and its threats this week to conduct nuclear and ballistic missile tests, serve as the latest reminder that American policy toward Pyongyang has failed. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is likely to continue an approach to Pyongyang utilized by the Clinton and Bush administrations that has not prevented North Korea from obtaining a nuclear capability, developing the means to deliver it over great distances, and proliferating related technology.
The administration should consider alternatives. A successful North Korea policy needs to discard a key faulty assumption: that the regime will give up its sole lifeline for an ample amount of inducements. It is now clear that the Kim Jong Il regime has no intention of trading away its nuclear or missile programs. Those programs enable the regime to generate resources through proliferation proceeds and to extort foreign assistance. This sustenance allows Kim to sustain his brutal regime, which holds some 200,000 political prisoners.
U.S. North Korea policy should also be based on realistic assumptions, including the limitations of the parties involved. The Six-Party Talks were predicated on the premise that Beijing would use its influence over Pyongyang to curb its nuclear activities. This did not happen. China never cut aid to North Korea for a sustained period, and UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1718, passed after North Korea's October 2006 nuclear test, was never seriously enforced by any country, including the United States.
Today is F.A. Hayek's 110th birthday. Hayek was perhaps the most influential libertarian thinker of the 20th century. Books such as The Road to Serfdom, The Constitution of Liberty, and Law, Legislation, and Liberty had a major impact on economics, political theory, and legal thought. Hayek also won a Nobel Prize in Economics for his technical work on monetary policy and business cycles. My personal favorite among Hayek's works is his famous 1945 article, "The Use of Knowledge in Society," which explains why private sector institutions generally do a better job of gathering and using information than government....
Posted by: Mike ||
05/05/2009 08:55 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Same day as Karl Marx? The Yin and Yang of economic theorists?
#3
F.A. hayek could (and did) kick Karl Marx' butt.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/05/2009 14:29 Comments ||
Top||
#4
100 Million people would not been murdered by their own countries and the world would be astonishingly richer if more people had heard of Hayek than Marx.
#5
F.A. hayek could (and did) kick Karl Marx' butt.
I think Karl deserves some sort of recognition for writing what may well be the most boring and obtuse prose ever. That and being pretty much wrong about everything.
Filling the shoes of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who announced his retirement Friday, will not be easy. I clerked for Justice Souter in the 1999-2000 term and left that job with a respect for the judge matched only by my affection for the man.
It's been said that President Obama's appointment won't be a transformative one. That's true in one sense. Justice Souter generally voted with the moderate to liberal justices, and his replacement will almost surely do so also. In terms of net votes, the liberal/conservative balance will not change. But the vacancy offers Mr. Obama an early opportunity to make a lasting mark on the country. Like a cattle brand, or a tramp stamp tattoo.
That's because he can do more than appoint a reliably liberal jurist -- which wouldn't greatly affect the court's rulings. He can appoint a jurist with that rare ability to persuade her conservative colleagues -- which emphatically would affect the court's rulings.
Such a quality will be vital in the years ahead. Think how many crucial issues -- from the 2000 election to gun control to eminent domain -- have been decided by 5-to-4 rulings in recent years. Obama's nominee may well serve on the bench for the next 30 years. Gives me nightmares just thinking about it.
In just the next few years, her ability to build a coalition, or lack thereof, could decide the answers to such high-stakes questions as abortion, same-sex marriage, race-based affirmative action, and privacy.
As my pronoun choice suggests, I think Obama should pick a woman. The sexes plainly have different experiences, and a woman will bring to the Supreme Court a life history and set of understandings a man would not. That the current court consists of nine former federal court of appeals judges has been thought problematic. It is surely as important to have women on the court as it is to have people with experience in legislatures or executive office, especially when well-qualified female candidates abound. But as he says next, qualifications (other than sex) don't matter.
...it will matter very little whether Obama's nominee is brilliant, or whether her opinions draw chuckles in law school faculty lounges. Souter's opinions SHOULD have drawn chuckles, but the law schools have failed as badly as the rest of education.
Her influence will lie not in the voice that speaks to the public but rather in the lower tones that carry no farther than the marble halls of One First Street. more babble in the original
Maybe Zero should appoint Bill Clinton. IIRC he can't argue before the SC, but that wouldn't stop him from hearing arguments. And he may not be a woman, but it seems like Hillary's castrated him, so he would still represent an underserved sexual demographic. And his 'legal' statements already draw chuckles (depending on the meaning of the word 'is'.)
#2
Careful, Bambi might consider that a challenge ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/05/2009 15:43 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Former President Clinton is by all accounts quite a brilliant mind, despite his moral issues. He might end up surprising all, including himself, if he were required to rigourously defend his arguments against the challenges from others as brilliant as himself. Also, he would bring a practical politician's view to the proceedings. While he certainly wouldn't be my first choice, I have no idea what the other options are.
WHAT Washington calls "strategy" is usually just inertia: We can't imagine not supporting Pakistan because we've "always" supported Pakistan.
No matter how shamelessly Pakistan's leaders looted their own country, protected the Taliban, sponsored terror attacks on India, demanded aid and told us to kiss off when we asked for help, we had to back the Paks.
Because that's just the way things are.
Well, now that Islamist marauders are sweeping the country with violence as the generals in Rawalpindi mull "To be or not to be" and President Ali Asif Zardari knocks back another scotch behind closed doors, perhaps we should consider an alternative approach to this splintering, renegade state.
A better strategy's obvious. But Washington has trouble with the obvious. At our pathetic State Department, habit trumps innovation every time. And the Pentagon can't seem to see beyond the immediate battlefield.
What should we do? Dump Pakistan. Back India.
Washington's deep thinkers will cry, "But China might move in!"
If China wants Pakistan, let Beijing have it. That would be fun to watch. Take on the Taliban? Given China's ghastly ineptitude in dealing with its Uighur Muslims, more power to 'em.
Anyway, China knows that India's the prize. Indian neutrality is essential to any future conflict with the United States. Beijing isn't going to do anything to drive New Delhi into a closer relationship with Washington (and the US Navy).
So set the "China syndrome" fears aside. Move on to the integrity issue: We claim -- or used to claim -- that we're serious about combating terrorists and punishing their backers.
Yet, we've been abetting the forces of terror by supporting Pakistan unreservedly. Islamabad merrily sponsors terror attacks on India, knowing that America will step in and convince New Delhi not to retaliate.
Apart from the myriad Pak-backed terror strikes in Kashmir, we've seen gruesome attacks in New Delhi and, most recently, in Mumbai. Pakistan's intelligence services did everything but put up billboards announcing that they were behind the terrorists.
India prepared to strike back. But we stepped in every time.
As long as Pakistan's obsessed India-haters know there won't be any penalties for terrorism, they'll keep at it. The formula isn't hard to figure out.
Suppose we just left Pakistan, even withdrawing our embassy personnel? Without us to protect them when they go rogue, would Pakistan's murky intel thugs still launch terror strikes on India?
Pakistan would have to behave responsibly at last. Or face nuclear-armed India. And Pakistan's leaders know full well that a nuclear exchange would leave their country a wasteland. India would dust itself off and move on.
Of course, there's also the issue of the Pentagon's bewildering incompetence in placing 50,000 of our troops at the end of a 1,500-mile supply line through Pakistan, rendering our forces virtual hostages of Islamabad.
The answer's another dose of common sense: Instead of increasing our troop numbers in Afghanistan, cut them. Instead of embracing the hopeless task of building a modern nation where no nation of any kind has ever existed, concentrate exclusively on killing al Qaeda terrorists and the hard-line Taliban elements who help them.
Instead of pretending the Kabul government has any validity, arm the factions with which we share common interests. We're really not obliged to cut massive welfare checks for our enemies.
Our sole mission in Afghanistan should be killing terrorists. To that end, we need a smaller, lethal, unfettered force, not more agricultural experts and con-game contractors.
Bottom line: Let India deal with Pakistan. If the Chinese want to engage, just smile. Focus on killing our enemies, not buying them ice cream. And get serious about strategy. How is it that the leaders of the most powerful state in history think like small-time operators?
Briefing Washington audiences, I warn them that, when the boss tells them to think outside the box, he really means, "Come back with new reasons why I was right all along."
It's time for some genuine outside-the-box thinking. Because the Pakistani box looks increasingly like a coffin.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
I like this thinking. But, we do need lines of communication into Afghanistan for the time being.
Obama's strategy of ramping up there while simultaneously challenging the Paks seems potentially contradictory. Regardless, we do need to make it clear that India is a real ally while whatever we do with Pakland is transactional.
#2
As long as Pakistan's obsessed India-haters know there won't be any penalties for terrorism, they'll keep at it. The formula isn't hard to figure out.
Now that Obama is in power, I wonder how long that dynamic will remain. Just as Israel has quickly grown up and realized they need to quit looking to the USA for approval and protection and take responsibility for their own safety, India may quickly come to the same conclusion.
There is no longer any reason for these countries to fear a reaction from the Obama administration, as it would probably be little more than a sternly worded letter written by UN bureaucrats or at worst sanctions. I would not be surprised if we see many of the European nations quickly grow up as well.
America has become a corrupt banana republic. I'm not sure exactly on what day we woke up and realized that our government is little different than that of Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe, but woke up we did. And I suspect that other countries are beginning to also process this reality.
Obama has printed so much money in the last 100 days, that what will it matter if he offers them trillions of US dollars? If American citizens continue to be helpless to stop the out right theft of the wealth of those who produce goods and services the promises of aid from the US will be about as meaningful as promises from Zimbabwe.
#5
In agreement with ALL of the above. Adding to Barry's problems is the recently released news that (as predicted here) the train has finally reached the station and China no longer desires to buy additional US debt.
#7
Long-term we absolutely DO need to build strong ties with India. It's certainly more important than Pakistan. Bigger, more civilized, more educated, English is generally spoken. And the Chinese already have them in their cross-hairs (see Nepal actions.)
Short term, we cannot abandon Pakistan. Not while we have to supply a major Afghanistan operation (unless we REALLY support India and open a new INDIAN supply route through Islamabad.)
Hillary (and Zero) need to walk gently right now.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
