The Bush Administration today rejected a request from North Korea for one-on-one bilateral negotiations.
"There's plenty of opportunities for North Korea to speak directly with us in the context of the six-party talks," said White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.
No, we won't talk to you one-on-one, but we will talk to you in a group? What sense does that make? North Korea doesn't want to have group talks, at least for now, but they are interested in sitting down with U.S. officials. Bush says no. One can assume from his comments during the Kerry debates that he would consider this giving in to Kim Jong Il.
"Giving in" would be allowing North Korea to continue with its nuclear weapons program: exactly what Bush is doing.
Agreeing to the talks North Korea wants is what we in the reality-based environment like to call "compromise."
"It's not an issue between North Korea and the United States," McClellan explained. "It's a regional issue. And it's an issue that impacts all of its neighbors."
I suppose that's why we went to war against Iraq over the objection of every government in the middle east, Kuwait and Israel excepted.
"The U.S. disclosed its attempt to topple the political system in the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] at any cost, threatening it with a nuclear stick. This compels us to take a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by the people in the DPRK," said a North Korean official.
Hmm. It sounds to me like the North Koreans think it's an issue with the U.S. Bush doesn't seem to understand that. Maybe if he'd sit down and listen to what people are saying for once his policies wouldn't be so misguided.
UPDATE: Fred Kaplan of Slate agrees.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Let me guess: you are all outraged that Reagan had diplomatic ties with Saddam in the 80's, but now you think we should hop in bed with N. Korea? Tell me you see the hypocrisy. What's the difference?
I see a difference. We propped up Saddam Hussein and plied him with cash, weapons and chemical weapons precursors -- while looking the other way when he actively used WMD's on Kurds and Iran -- because we didn't like Iran and we thought he'd be a friendly despot and would give us primary access to Iraq's oil reserves. We knew he was a brigand, and hoped to use that to our advantage. It was only when Saddam demonstrated that he could not be bought that we decided he was a threat. Well, that and he invaded Kuwait.
So, as I see it, not only were we in bed with Saddam, we paid for his mattress. We have no such relationship with Kim Jong Il. He's always been crazy, and we've always known it.
Really what I'm proposing is more of an Operation Liaisons Dangereuses: we'd get into bed with Kim, but only to betray him, and I think the world would recognize that. The Slate piece I linked to makes a good case for why there is no viable military option for North Korea. I really only see two options: the Bush plan, which is to wait for Kim to come to his senses and surrender (not bloodly likely!), or to try to gain his confidence, through bribes if necessary, and from there do what we can to encourage reforms.
Post a Comment