A Small Chance is Better Than No Chance
Anyone ever notice that it is the small countries that cause the most problems in the world today.
and the countries of the middle east are not significant in terms of world population, but their continuing conflicts are significant in terms of geopolitical problems. Israel Greece is one of Europe’s smallest countries, and yet its problems have nearly destroyed the Euro and the European union. Taiwan threatens to disrupt peace in Asia, and possibly lead to a war between the U. S. and . China
|No We Don't Know How North Koreans Let|
Him Have Power Either
NOT quite three years ago Robert Gates, then
America’s defence secretary, warned that he “was tired of buying the same horse twice”. Like some seedy racketeer, the delinquents in North Korea had extorted a generous payment in exchange for talks about giving up their pursuit of nuclear weapons. But they had reneged on their promise, procured a bomb and were now expecting yet more rewards for returning to the table. Over the years an exasperated world has tried inducements, threats and, latterly, “strategic patience”—a form of isolation. All the while the hermit kingdom has stumbled on, stockpiling uranium, and occasionally testing bombs and lobbing missiles into the Pyongyang Pacific Ocean.
Now a new agreement between
North Korea and the has been reached, one that might, gasp, actually make progress towards defusing the situation. United States
On February 29th
North Korea and announced that the North would suspend its enrichment of uranium at its plant in Yongbyon and impose a moratorium on tests of weapons and long-range missiles. Crucially, the North has agreed that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency will check that enrichment really has stopped. In return America will ship at least 240,000 tonnes of food aid to feed North Korea’s starving people, organise a few cultural exchanges, and work towards six-nation talks about a comprehensive settlement. America
The most objective analysis of world politics and economics can usually be found in The Economist magazine. This is partly a result of the excellence of their reporting, their common sense approach in a center-right sense and the fact that they are sufficiently removed from the
United States so as to be objective, and not caught up in the hysteria of politics. The Economist thinks there might be an opportunity here. U. S.
America would probably be giving food to North Korea without this deal, as humanitarian relief. And even if the North eventually throws out the inspectors, they will still get their first glimpse of the North Korean programme since 2009. The fact is that
already has a fistful of bombs. It has been pretty much unconstrained since it walked out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003. If this deal slows the rate at which the North accumulates a nuclear arsenal, then it will have been worth something. North Korea
And there is a faint possibility that it will lead to much more than that. Kim Jong Un appears to want stable foreign relations as he consolidates power. But if he really does end up taking a different path from his father, then he will need vast amounts of foreign support.
is right to give him the chance. The six-party talks on the nuclear programme could yet be the forum in which the outside world invests in North Korean power stations and infrastructure even as the North freezes its weapons programme—or even surrenders it. America
Yes realism requires recognition that like deals before it, this one may end up with nothing accomplished.
This week’s deal has risks for
. It might yet fall apart, even at this early stage. The North probably has other enrichment plants apart from Yongbyon. It might string the world along, extort as much food and diplomatic capital as it can only to throw out the inspectors and test a bomb America
But compare the commentary in The Economist to the commentary in the Wall Street Journal, an editorial staff almost pathologically incapable of an intelligent thought.
But the problem is that throwing another lifeline to another Kim works at cross-purposes with what ought to be the basic
goal of regime change. U.S.
Regime Change? Really, what people outside of the delusional staff of the Editorial section of the Wall Street Journal believe that the
United States, or any outside country can effect regime change in ? Oh, and the last time the North Korea U. S. did “regime change” was in . How did that turn out? Iraq