Except for the Checks Being Written Out to ‘Herr A. Hitler,’ and The Dachau Industrial Park, Yes
Paying off Kim Jong Il is just like the Marshall Plan, says Roh.
“There is frequent criticism that we are pouring out aid to the North,” Mr. Roh told South Korean residents in Italy. “After the war, the United States had several plans and investments, and among those the most efficient was the Marshall Plan. He noted the great benefits Washington had reaped from its investments: “Inter-Korean relations are being worked out, and we have the Kaesong Industrial Complex, but due to the North Korean nuclear crisis this has been stopped. It’s something that we can move forward with because it’s ours. If we put life into the North’s economy, we can achieve even more than the Marshall Plan.
I realize that U.N. resolutions don’t have much of a shelf life, but 1695 and 1718 become completely meaningless in 8 and 4 months, respectively. Isn’t that some kind of record?
Two cases illustrate how we can procede with NK
Lybia, where where we bought out the evil leader, where force played a role, but we had the wisdom to know when to cut a deal, and we’ve secured an anqualified success at no cost and no loss of life. All chems, bios and nuke material are now in Oak Ridge.
Iraq, direct use of force to overthrow a regime, and it is now a greater source of terrorism than Afghanistan ever was.
With NK, there are no good military options, Kim Jong il is evil, it goes agains our fiber to negotiate with this Evil, buthowever upallatable as this may be, we’re stuck with negotiations, we’re stuck with making deals with dictators.
Do we want to leave KJI in power? If he gives up his nuclear weapons yes. Apply the Lybia model.
Regime change, forced or by economic chokehold, tells KJI and his sort that they are going down. If you know you’re going down no matter what, you are very likely to bust out you chems and bios, sell nuclear material to the highest bidder, cause, hey, you’r going down anyway. If you feel safe(r), you don’t use your weapons cause if you do, it spells the end of you and your regime. He can be controlled. Taking him out is actually far worse to US national security than leaving him in as repugnant (and it is) as that may be.
Negotiating with evil has been done before, Nixon went to China to shake hands with Mao, a man responsible for far more deaths than KJI. Reagan went to Russia to shake hands with Brezhnez, who to his dying day oversaw the gulags.
Contain, negotiate and crack them open from the inside. It has worked before. Regime change in NK would make the Iraq fiasco look like a LOVE-IN.
1. The Iraq comparison is a strawman. I’ve never suggested invading, nor has anyone else I know of. I advocate a combination of sanctions on the palace economy and political subversion. There were numerous signs that was working.
2. Comparing this deal to the Libya deal is like comparing Lexus to an AMC Gremlin.
3. By default, I suppose you’re defending the Roh view. How’s that working out? My take is that ten years and $7 billion later, North Korea has never been more dangerous, belligerent, or brutal. The alternative you defend has made the problem much worse.
Libya: Libya is not North Korea.
Some people pointed out that NK is a bigger threat to US interests than Iraq as a way (somehow) of saying we shouldn’t invade Iraq, but the obvious point was — Iraq was doable. NK was not. Why NK is doable is instructive on your Libya idea.
NK is smack dab in the middle of a very important area of the world. South Korea, Japan, and increasingly China are key economic countires the global economy needs. NK shooting off nuke missiles against Seoul, Tokyo and other cities in those two countries would be huge.
Iraq was important (and less so Iran) because of the threat to oil producing nations like Saudi Arabia, but, Iraq (and Iran) lacked the readily at hand option of striking back at a fat target.
Libya is not in a position to offer a NK threat or in a place where taking it on was worthwhile. When it did extend itself to grab world attention by threatening sea lanes, it was bombed, and it backed down.
Taking a very long time to talk Libya into seeing the light made sense given the threat to benefits ratio.
Next, Iraq being a greater source of terrorism than Afghanistan:
I think you need to reflect on that statement a good bit more then come back and explain how that is so or if you’ve changed your mind.
Afghanistan operated open training facilities for tens of thousands of Islamic radicals over a period of many years with impunity.
In Iraq, it is difficult to tell when a strike is part of factual strife you would expect as part of the power vaccum caused by taking out the regime and what is a strike by outside terrorist groups (or those inside) whose objective is terrorism against the US.
But, it is clear most of the strikes target Iraqis. And as yet, the invasion has not led to a strike in the United States – though we were struck every few years before 9/11.
Next, you are basically saying that it is better to accept the death of millions of North Koreans under the regime than risk the tens of thousands to perhaps millions (if NK can detonate a real nuke on Seoul or Toyko or both) non-North Koreans should the regime begin to implode.
Fair enough.
I don’t agree, but fair enough.
But, as Joshua points out, without a pretty much complete change in North Korea’s systems – whether under this regime or another – NK will remain a pathetically weak nation not far from collapse, but with the aid we give it, it will be assured of maintaining not just its stranglehold on the North Korean people – it will also be able to maintain that huge threat that has you saying we should cut deals.
You could push your position further, fully to the Roh side, and say that we should pump in massive amounts of aid (a Marshal Plan) without any consideration of reciprocity (changes in the system that are basically the same as change in the regime)….
….but has China and the former Soviet Union not given us a clue about how that might turn out?
They had a blank check system with North Korea for decades, but as soon as they scaled that back, it collapsed to the tune of millions dead from starvation.
But, I guess I am wrong here.
Because, you could counter that actually China and the Soviet Union proved the value of pumping massive amounts of aid into NK:
as long as they were doing so, NK did not collapse, and thus was not a threat??? Well, no, that doesn’t work.
Because when Korea was pumped with massive aid, it did things like blow up airliners, send commando squads to storm the Blue House and kill South Korea’s president, blow up SK’s government in a third country —- and all these things supposedly were done under the direction of the man who now sits on the throne in Pyongyang….
So, it would seem to me even paying off NK with a little or a lot is not going to remove the threat – though it would try to prevent a collapse.
Maybe if we were to keep pumping materials into NK over the period of 3 or 4 decades, eventually it would change – or maybe it wouldn’t – but it would at least avoid the chance that NK would strike out if we allowed it to implode – maybe.
The UN is a charity, nothing more.
I think the results of the Marshall Plan after WWII speak for themselves. Economic prosperity and regional stability for the participants.
Let’s assess the results of the Korean Marshall Plan (Sunshine Policy)… After a little less than a decade, we have:
-a North Korea with nuclear weapons
-aid without accountability (hey, I guess the fat got fatter…)
-a South Korean labor camp in North Korea
-regional instability
-North Korean human rights atrocities being ignored in the South
-North Korea selling drugs and counterfeiting dollars
-North Korea selling weapons technology
The list could go on much further. Hmm, did he even know what the Marshall Plan was before making his little speech?
I don’t see how he could think they “could achieve even more than the Marshall Plan.” The Marshall Plan stabilized and brought prosperity to half a continent. The Sunshine Policy recklessly funneled money to support a regime developing nuclear weapons, and propped up a brutal dictator, allowing him to continue his illegal exploits…. but I guess if the Koreans can just pretend all the bad is not happening, the plan looks like it’s going great.
Our former enemies that benefited from the Marshall Plan differ in one very important way; they first surrendered unconditionally.
And though Richardson would disagree…
…I am for pulling all our resources out of South Korea and going for a full Marshal Plan in Iraq.
We have a lot better chance of achieving a lasting sucess there that would benefit us greatly, like the Marshall Plan did post-WWII, than we do of seeing sucess with North Korea in our East Asian committment.
For the record, I don’t write Korea off. I just think that its dependency on the United States is not conducive to responsible statecraft.
I’m willing to consider keeping air cover there, just to see if cooler head will prevail. If they don’t, then I say get them out before we end up sucked into the middle of a war over Tokdo … or Manchuria.
I agree. There are around 25K troops, as well as the budgetary costs of staying in Korea, that could be put against stabilizing Iraq. On that note, I really wish the media would cover some of the good we are doing over there instead of focusing on the body count and the perception of hopelessness they have created…rant complete.
Having the Air Force maintain a commitment to defend Korea for the near term would be prudent, but since it is the Air Force, it doesn’t have to be in Korea to provide that coverage…
thanks for the responses,
the main thesis remains, if you are a dictator in posession of nukes, chems and bios, and you are going down for the count, and you know you are going down, through subversion or any other method…
well guess what, you are gonna sell those weapons to the highest bidder (Al Qaida), if only to f*ck up your enemies (the US and maybe Japan) and to solidify your swiss bank account before exiling your ass to Somalia.
How in the name of Sam Hill does forcing him out ameliorate US national interests??????
When a nuke goes off in DC, y’all might wanna say, gee, we mighta been wrong…….maybe Krauthammer and Kristol are idiots after all
Afghanistan operated open training facilities for tens of thousands of Islamic radicals over a period of many years with impunity.
well, no sh*t.
And who built those and financed those………….oh yeah, we did. And please no rhetoric here, no matter how you wanna slice it, we did.
Iraq was not a source of terrorism, at least not the kind that threatened US interests before we went against all logic ( we usually just bought out bad guys) and f*cked up a country beyond recognition and gave the militant sunni islamists exactly what they were looking for, (they were teetering before that) a chance to revive, recruit and get back in the game. Who gave them that chance, as they were on the brink of defeat, as we pulled troops out of Afghanistan to fight in the folly of Iraq?????? Who forgot to block off Torah Bora????
Iraq, the best gift we could ever give the radicals, a reason to hate us, train against us and rally around the Islamic flag. It has done nothing but embolden them and, wait for it, create more terrorism there that Afghanistan ever did, no question, no debate.
If you’re going to make this about the allocation of partisan blame, why not blame the administration that let those terrorists train for impunity for years? Clinton had this advantage — the media would not have spent the entire war accusing him of “lying” to get us into a war.
And gee, as for emboldening terrorists, letting them shelter with impunity is pretty high on the list. The only better way is to go to war against them, and then bend over like a Thai ladyboy and scurry off when they shoot back. If I were a terrorist, I’d feel pretty emboldened right now reading about John Murtha’s slow bleed strategy. It frankly sounds like he shares their goal, enemy, and tactics … just on another front.
People do shoot back in wars, you know. Or was that unexpected for you?
I’m staggered that there are still people who think the iraq invasion was good idea re the war on terror. How many reports have been put out saying the exact opposite? Even the CIA came out and said it – their report qualified by 1000 US and foreign experts. And that was back in 2005. British intelligence found the same thing. It has become immeasurable worse since then.
But then again, perhaps the author knows better…?
Then again, perhaps not. C’mon admit it Joshua – the cons fucked up, big time. Nobody ever choked to death swallowing their pride.
Saddam oversaw a secular government and rejected radical islamic ideals. Realpolitik dictated that he be left alone. The chickenhawks took their eye off the ball – Afganistan.
I can assure you that I’m more staggered at the idea that people think that withdrawing for Iraq will bring peace, or that it will be anything other than a terrorist victory of earth-shaking significance. If you compare Iraq to other counterinsurgencies in recent history, sorry, this is not less awful than those, nor worse than anyone could have expected. Managing expectation control and communicating its message were the most grievous errors of this administration.
I think we frankly overestimated the patriotism of some elements of the media and opposition. I certainly did not imagine the degree to which so many in the west would contrast George Bush with Osama Bin Laden, heartily join in a fevered and conspiratorial demonization of the former, and find the latter to be the lesser of two evils. You have to really hate the world and your life to reach that point.
By the way, I spent 7 1/2 years on active duty. I’m not a chickenhawk. And since you insist on raising an argument that idiotic, what unit did you serve in?
Really — I would just love to hear your prediction for what will happen if you just withdraw from Iraq. Floor’s yours.
Joshua wrote:
“If you’re going to make this about the allocation of partisan blame, why not blame the administration that let those terrorists train for impunity for years? Clinton had this advantage — the media would not have spent the entire war accusing him of “lying†to get us into a war.”
Wasn’t it during the Reagan years that the US was secretly supporting insurgent groups in Afghanistan who would later form anti-US terrorist groups? Then there’s those famous photo ops with Rumsfeld and Saddam. Blaming only one party or one president is being selective.
“I can assure you that I’m more staggered at the idea that people think that withdrawing for Iraq will bring peace, or that it will be anything other than a terrorist victory of earth-shaking significance.”
That’s the trump card, isn’t it? Well, liberal kiddies, even if you opposed the war, we can’t pull out now or there’ll be a power vaccuum which will quickly be filled by Islamic fundamentalists. In other words, we are STUCK whether we like it or not. The Bush administration couldn’t have gone to war without significant support from Democrats and widespread support from the American people. Blaming one party or the other or even blaming politicians only is not being honest. It takes a nation, not just one political party, to go to war.
The media’s role is not to be patriotic, it’s to present objective news. Don’t blame the media for telling the tuth, however inconvenient it might be. I’ve read your outrage about the BBC, CNN etc, but they’re hardly more tilted than Fox or the Washington Post. Iraq is a disaster. Telling it how it is doesn’t mean that your not “patriotic”. “Patriotic” media can be found in countries like North Korea.
Surpisingly, I agree with you re managing “expectation control”. Flying in onto a carrier and announcing victory just after the conflict started wasn’t particularly auspicious. But I think the bigger problem of the administration was managing “bullshit”. Linking 9/11 to Iraq and the whole WMD thing was bollocks – particularly in light of what the admin has done with hard evidence of WMDs in North Korea – pay them in oil for them to – sort of, maybe – think about scrapping them. Nice one.
Of course some people find Osama the lesser of the two evils, but you get nutjobs on both ends of the political spectrum. Nobody of importance takes too much notice. Of course, its actually not that conspiratorial to point out that Bush’ Iraq policy has probably resulted in far more innocent deaths than Osama ever managed. But thats another story…
And no I haven’t served in any unit. Kind of like Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld – come to think of it, most prominent republicans. (http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html)
Does that render my arguments invalid?
And by the way, I haven’t advocated withdrawal. So what was the point in your last question again?
Well, since we all agree that blame is pointless and irrelevant, we can bring this thread back on topic.
Joshua,
I’ve just read the NYT op-ed piece on bring North Korean refugees to the US. Have you blogged about this topic in the past? I’m wondering why the US has been reluctant to take the refugees.
Sonagi, I went off to read the piece before responding. You refer to the one by Nick Eberstadt, I believe. I have several ideas of why, but it really comes down to our government defying the law.
Maybe I’ll put up a post on it. Thanks for pointing it out.
Yes, it is the piece by Eberstadt. With your background in law and Northeast Asian politics, you are the right person to blog a post that would get Digged to a wider audience. I’m keen to read your views on this issue.
All this stuff about how Bush lied or the reasons for going into Iraq are pointless. From day one, I believed that the reason for going in was so that the US could gain a real foothold in the region rather than remain a player on the outside looking in. This was the fundamental reason for going on, I believe.
Have they succeeded in doing this? No, and why not? If the goal was to get a strategic position in the region, then they should have done all possible to achieve this goal. Play to win and nothing less than winning is acceptable (whatever the definition of winning in this case). Trying to achieve such goals with a limited war is bound to fail. The goal should have been to do what it took to win or not go in at all.
As far as Lybia is concerned, perhaps the main or an important reason that Quaddafi decided to give it all up was because he could see the dollar signs flashing in front of his face from the country’s oil properties. He realized that if he made nice with the West, gave up the nukes, which weren’t really doing him much good, he could then make extremely lucrative deals for the oil. And good and cheap some of it is-some is of the highest quality sweet crude requiring a mere $1 to extract from some of the fields. North Korea has little in the way of natural resources that the US or others would want or risk to get(despite what some Koreans claim).