Earlier this morning South Korea performed live-fire military exercises near the international boundary waters partitioning South and North Korea. Although South Korean officials said they did not fire in the direction of North Korea, North Korea retaliated by bombarding the small and always-contentious island of Yeonpyeong killing two South Korean marines and injuring uncounted others including civilians, reported The Guardian. According to Fox News’ Today’s Power Play North Korea is “like a misbehaving child on an airplane†whose “tantrums begat denunciations, which begat new talks, which begat free stuff†and has been “pretty lucrativeâ€. Aside from the fact that callous and severe embargos and sanctions do not work to change behavior (cf. a 50+ year embargo on Cuba, a 10-year embargo killing nearly a million civilians in Iraq which only ended in the U.S. attacking them for the second time in just over a decade) the tone of calling other sovereign nations “toddler[s]†is incendiary and irresponsible.
During Obama’s Veterans’ Day speech he spoke harshly towards N. Korea vowing continued isolation unless “they choose to fulfill their international obligations and commitments to the international community†which includes giving up nuclear weapons. It may seem a reasonable proposition to Americans that keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of N. Koreans makes the world safer, but from the perspective of North Koreans and people around the world who do not swoon to America’s power, nuclear weapons may signify protection against a military super power that has never been afraid to declare war, drop bombs, subvert sovereign governments, and be the only country in the world ever to use the atom bomb on another nation—in other words, nuclear weapons may be the only guarantee of a “preemptive strike†and thus the only method given them to ensure the safety of their nation and home.
Is the U.S. playing a zero-sum game? Has foreign policy and keeping fronts dictated the obsolescence of diplomacy? Diplomacy by definition is the skillful handling of affairs without arousing hostility. This is diametrically opposed to gunboat diplomacy, which is the method of choice of the U.S. Consider that along the demilitarized zone of 160 miles that the U.S. has stationed over 28,000 troops in a deadly show of force, and consider the severe sanctions constricting this country and punishing its poorest and weakest foremost, that is, older people and young children, and perhaps it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the U.S. is disingenuous at best to talk about diplomacy by restoring the six-nations round table talks? As White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs perfectly illustrates this double-talk by calling on North Korea to “halt its belligerent actionâ€! Apparently, a sovereign nation only has the right to defend itself or take precautionary measures when it’s given permission by its “grown-up nation†neighbors.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 8
In the 1990s, one tenth of the population of North Korea starved to death. Kim Jong Il did not give a damn who died, and in fact never even admitted that it happened. For me it is quite a stretch trying to blame the Obama administration for today's artillery shelling of the South Korean island. It is yet another attention-getting ploy on the part of the North Korean regime. Obama has done nothing to alienate or antagonize them. What is he is supposed to do, respond to their nuclear weapon building efforts with free uranium shipments? You have to realize that most Republicans in the USA have the mistaken understanding of Obama that he has never criticized any country other than the USA. In fact he has been wiling to criticize North Korea and other nations based on their total lack of interest in human rights. What's wrong with him doing that?
As to the sanctions against North Korea, well, China shares a long border with North Korea and sends back all the people that they can catch who try to escape. I think that deserves a bit of criticism. China could easily apply some pressure against Kim Jong Il to coax him into taking better care of the North Korean citizens, but China apparently only cares about keeping starving refugees OUT.
The reaity is that the USA does not have the ability to fix the problems of North Korea. China does have the ability, but declines to do anything about it because they are only interested in their own problems.
You have issued a nicely written restricted response, using in a diplomatic tone in making your case that Kim Jong Il is a lunatic. I would assume that you did so in order to not escalate this debate into a more confrontational debate with the articles misguided poster, who appears to somehow want to blame the United States for the present situation.
I would have used a more direct approach to the anti-American attitude which was so evident within the posters attached writings to the article. Which, more than likely, would have drawn a stern arguementative response from the poster. Thereby, I would have countered with a more direct approach and so on and so on. All of which would have only served to overshadow and obscure the explosively present dangerous situation which has now arisen on the Korean peninsular.
Thank you for starting the debate with civil and more to the point comments concerning the continued maniacal actions of a dynasty of madmen led by the very mentally ill, Kim Jong Il and his offspring of inherited mentally ill, il's "
I guess I tried to keep my response "restricted"as you put it, because I also think that the international community needs to keep their response to North Korea "restricted." I am not sure that I would describe the hereditary dynasty running North Korea as mentally ill, but i would definitely agree with anyone who notes their basic incompetence, their extreme self worship, and their total lack of caring for the nation that they supposedly "lead."
I think that the Korea situation is potentially explosive, but I have hopes that the explosion will not happen. I do not wish to see a wave of starving refugees coming to China or to South Korea, or a massive artillery barrage targeting Seoul with a massive counterattack from South Korea and the USA. these things would be unwelcome distractions from the central issue- that the people of North Korea need a government that cares if they live or die.
To start, I agree with both of you about the despicableness of North Korea's reigning family and the heinous megomaniacal leader Il(l).
"Stretch to blame"—Obama is certainly not to blame for this—I didn't think I even insinuated that!—but our stance towards NK hasn't changed for decades and Obama continues the same belligerent rhetoric couched in "international commitments" wording that previous and failed attempts at understanding NK used. As if NK or Iran do not have the sovereign right to create a nuclear weapon. (Would that possibly be dangerous? Sure. Is it dangerous to those nations right now that they don't have them? Absolutely, and they know that.) Many people around the world find it strangely disingenuous that Americans think the world would be safer of nuclear threat or threats of war if we had all the nukes! How do we explain our past use of atom bombs and continued and uninterrupted warfare for nearly a century (with bombs far more destructive than those original A-bombs? How do the people that see and experience "collateral damage" and witness the death and destruction America has brought first hand explain the actions of America?
“Criticize…human rights”—Agreed. But, we must consider that if we truly believe in dialogue, then we must have diplomacy, not gunboat diplomacy. We also must truly listen to other’s needs and perspectives. (For example, instead of having an honest discussion about reasons for 9/11 we quickly resorted to clichés of “they hate America,” “they hate our way of life,” “they hate freedom.” Is it needless to say how erroneous these clichés are? I’m simply trying to point out that we have a role in these issues, and more often than not we have a detrimental influence on these issues caused by our bellicosity and our avaricious, insatiable, and incessant pursuit of economic hegemony.
"Ability to fix"—yes, I agree with you. Concomitantly, though, America IS doing everything in the playbook to undermine stability in NK. Remember, sanctions like we put on Iraq, Cuba, and NK are so severe with the intention of making living situations so awful, unsanitary, and dangerous so as to incite a rebellion from within; to "show" the people under these regimes how bad their rulers are first hand. How can we come to the table to create "diplomatic talks" when we aren't being diplomatic? I do not believe the ends justify the means.
"Misguided"—thanks for the ad hominem! What about the substance of my argument? I agree with most everything you say. I wish other people to see another perspective that isn't shared in America—a perspective that is just as real and just as forcefully informs other actors in the world. And YES, "somewhat blame", I do think we have a role in what is going on—we created the DMZ, we have 28K troops stationed there, we have implemented sanctions, we have stated they are part of the "axis of evil"! Wouldn't you say we've had at least "somewhat" of a role in this?!
"Anti-American"—I love this one; and the second ad hominem! I see injustice in parts of our foreign policy. I see injustice in parts of our domestic policy. I am American (and not anti-American) and am thankful for my rights, such as protected under the 1st to allow me to dissent and articulate my perspective about these injustices. I wish the substance of my argument was addressed—that instead of sitting around calling them toddlers and threatening war (euphemistically called “regime change” in Fox’s Power Play; instead of waging non-military war, i.e., sanctions with the primary intent of defeating them through attrition, that we find more efficient, more effective, more humane, and more ethical means. Many of your points about NK are accepted and believed by me. What about my points?
"we created the DMZ, we have 28K troops stationed there, we have implemented sanctions, we have stated they are part of the "axis of evil"! Wouldn't you say we've had at least "somewhat" of a role in this?!"
I was never a fan of GW Bush's Axis of Evil speech. He overthrew Iraq's Saddaam Hussein through an invasion, eventually negotiated without any real success with North Korea under the handicap of that Regime's deep suspicion due to the Axis of Evil line, and never got anywhere with Ahmedinejad. Dumb speech if you ask me, counterproductive.
However- on the topic of our 28K soldiers watching over the DMZ- if the North Korean regime would like us to re-deploy those troops, shelling South Korea and killing a few military and civilian persons is a funny way to go about that. Torpedoing a South Korean navy ship is also a funny way to ask South Korea to demilitarize.
If sanctions are unacceptable because they starve NK civilians, and invading NK is unacceptable because China will not permit it, what does that leave?