The Six-Party talks are set to continue today in Beijing with hopes that North Korea’s recent declaration of its nuclear activities will lead to a breakthrough that puts the country on a path towards complete and verifiable denuclearization. Some have suggested this recent “progress” made on the diplomatic front demonstrates the power of negotiation and is the template by which the U.S. should approach other rogue nuclear aspirants, such as Iran.
John Bolton described the diplomatic ruse of the Six Party Talks best in the Wall Street Journal last week…
There is no advantage to the U.S. in proceeding by phases. To the contrary, North Korea alone benefits by phasing, by stretching out a process that enables Kim Jong Il to stay in power and to maximize the political and economic benefits he can extract through each excruciatingly lengthy and painful phase.
Meeting after meeting, concession after concession, and yet the U.S. has gained nothing out of these negotiations. To the contrary, since the talks began five years ago, North Korea has successfully tested a nuclear weapon, launched multiple ballistic missile tests, and gained billions of dollars in aid. By leaving out details on its Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) program in its recent “breakthrough” declaration, Kim Jong-Il has secured a way to drag out the talks for many more years to come, ensuring his financial and political security while continuing to hold the world hostage. America’s diplomatic experience with Kim Jong-Il is no template for Iran or any other emerging nuclear threat to the United States. Kim Jong-Il will never give up details on his HEU program, so long as it is in his best interest not to do so. Though it is easy to write him off as demented, the dear leader is a self-interested, power-seeking, rational actor seeking to maximize the chances of his regimes’ survival.
With this fundamental tenet of realism in mind, it is in the best interest of the United States to return to a policy of isolation and regime change in North Korea; not empty political ploys such as the removal of North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, not ineffective international sanctions, and certainly not further dialogue with the duplicitous personality cult of Kim Jong-Il. If the status quo North Korea policy is picked up by the next administration, the world is likely to see the list of nuclear states grow in the next four years.
This looks really good, very professional. I’m always impressed by writing/publishing skills (Its the power of the internet) Is this for Republican acolytes or can anyone post? ;->
I’d have to respectfully disagree with the assessment on Korea though as well as the honorable Bolton. Bush correctly (though sadly belatedly) made the right call on this one based on what is in my opinion an incorrect assessment that phased diplomacy is not in the US interest and that nuclear proliferation from North Korea specifically is the greatest threat from that country. The greatest threat is a sudden implosion that we are not ready (or willing) to address. As for no dialogue, I’d say that is as foolish as only dialogue (or as you would likely term it appeasement). Historically, most countries we didn’t engage grew more dangerous and hostile over time while measured dialogue usually reduced tensions and brought about some change (though incrementally). Look at the Soviet Union, China, or Cuba for that matter. The Soviet Union was our enemy but in the early 20-30 failed utterly but our cold war detente in conjunction with containment (as Keenan meant it not how it got abused and screwed up over time) brought long term stability and then “regime change”. Even Reagan talked to his enemies and usually to our benefit.
NK tested its weapon for one reason, to get our attention after being shunned by us. Now I won’t claim they are going to stop their program but as Galluchi said, all negotiations with enemy countries is based on the assumption that they are going to cheat. As long as we all know this diplomacy can be done appropriately and with an understanding of goal, and intent.
On a purely US centric note (I am a citizen though a Democrat) one problem with not being part of the dialogue is that someone else will be. Do we want China dictating a long term settlement or the EU determining Iran. I don’t.
A great quote I once read, “The art of diplomacy is leaving everyone equally dissatisfied”.
Still a good read.
I’d have to respectfully disagree with the assessment on Korea though as well as the honorable Bolton. Bush correctly (though sadly belatedly) made the right call on this one based on what is in my opinion an incorrect assessment that phased diplomacy is not in the US interest and that nuclear proliferation from North Korea specifically is the greatest threat from that country. The greatest threat is a sudden implosion that we are not ready (or willing) to address. As for no dialogue, I’d say that is as foolish as only dialogue (or as you would likely term it appeasement). Historically, most countries we didn’t engage grew more dangerous and hostile over time while measured dialogue usually reduced tensions and brought about some change (though incrementally). Look at the Soviet Union, China, or Cuba for that matter. The Soviet Union was our enemy but in the early 20-30 failed utterly but our cold war detente in conjunction with containment (as Keenan meant it not how it got abused and screwed up over time) brought long term stability and then “regime change”. Even Reagan talked to his enemies and usually to our benefit.
NK tested its weapon for one reason, to get our attention after being shunned by us. Now I won’t claim they are going to stop their program but as Galluchi said, all negotiations with enemy countries is based on the assumption that they are going to cheat. As long as we all know this diplomacy can be done appropriately and with an understanding of goal, and intent.
On a purely US centric note (I am a citizen though a Democrat) one problem with not being part of the dialogue is that someone else will be. Do we want China dictating a long term settlement or the EU determining Iran. I don’t.
A great quote I once read, “The art of diplomacy is leaving everyone equally dissatisfied”.
Still a good read.
Sir, thank you for your comments and feedback. I’d like to address a few of your points:
1. A sudden implosion in North Korea is indeed a dangerous prospect, particularly for those within immediate geographic proximity. However, far more American lives are threatened by the prospect of nuclear proliferation from North Korea. After all, just like the rest of the states participating in the Six Party Talks, the U.S. is a self-interested, rational actor. While North Korea’s implosion is a real, valid concern for ROK, China and Russia, complete verifiable cessation of all nuclear activities should top the list of priorities for the U.S.
2. Dialogue becomes ineffective and illegitimate when non-compliance with agreements is encouraged and rewarded – as has been the case in the Six Party Talks process. You cite the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba as diplomatic success stories. We tried the incremental approach with North Korea, and it led to them becoming the ninth nuclear power. I would contend that the North Korea nuclear issue is a fundamentally different challenge than any of these three historical precedents.
3. Finally, I do appreciate your comment on Reagan. “Trust but verify”: a fundamental tenet of negotiating with enemies. Kim Jong-Il has proven time and again that he is not to be trusted. As you say, this should be factored into our negotiation calculus. The problem with our application of Reagan’s sage wisdom in the case of North Korea, is that we have neither trusted nor verified throughout the negotiations, and it resulted in North Korea testing a nuclear weapon.
Certainly there are no easy answers on the North Korea issue. I appreciate the opportunity to exchanges ideas.
Fair enough still there is a difference between rewarded and untrusted behavior and having a seat at the table. What did the years of isolation bring the US with regards to NK? Nothing. What did dialogue bring us? At least some symbolic slowing down of their program. No presence means no eyes on the problem.
Also to your first point, nuclear proliferation may be the most catastrophic threat to american citizens but it isn’t the most likely. If your worried about dirty bombs look no further than the US where material for it abounds. If your looking for a weapon, try our good Pakistani “allies” or for that matter “Russia”. Besides, the threat does not link to your solution of isolation. You think a country that has no other resources, no trade, no outside contact with the world isn’t going to sell its only asset? common…given your plan what does it have to lose. Its not gonna get any more isolated than it’s been over the last few years and China isn’t gonna turn the screws any more cause they can’t afford the place to implode. So its a non-enforcible policy.