Welcome to the new Young Americans for Liberty! Learn about the new features or give us your feedback!

Mixed Signals to North Korea

Bonnie Kristian
Jun 11, 2009 at 2:41 PM
By Bonnie Kristian
As the small and poor communist nation continues to make its way toward developing a nuclear arsenal, State Department nominees and officials have clearly stated their absolute intolerance of such a situation:
Speaking at his Senate confirmation hearing Kurt Campbell, the administration’s nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian affairs, declared that if confirmed he would “make clear that neither the United States nor its allies will accept a nuclear North Korea.” “And there should be no mistake: the United States is firm in its resolve to uphold its treaty commitments regarding the defense of its allies,” Campbell declared. Campbell’s comments were not entirely unique, but rather echoed similar statements made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates near the end of May.
What this will mean in practice is less certain. Having appropriately withdrawn from the Nonproliferation Treaty and to all appearances successfully tested a nuclear weapon, North Korea is kind of already nuclear. Yet in spite of its firm or even belligerent rhetoric, the federal government has also stated its intention of avoiding an invasion or other use of force to change regimes or eliminate nuclear capabilities in North Korea. U.S. Special Envoy Stephen Bosworth explained that our government is looking into other options for dealing with these developments, and “We have no intention to invade North Korea or change its regime through force, and this has been made clear to the DPRK repeatedly." Whether this statement can be trusted at all is difficult to say...after all, North Korea is a member of the Axis of Evil, which also comprises Iran and Iraq. One down, two to go, right? Let's hope and pray (and petition? or something?) not.
Posted in:
  • Blog Policy
  • Login or register to post comments
This all looks like a macrocosmic version of the right to bear arms--Saddam Hussein was routed, ousted, and hanged by a foreign military power, not because he had WMDs, but because he DIDN'T. If Saddam had a nuclear weapon already in his possession in 2002, he would still be in power and his country would still be his (it's debatable whether that would be preferable to the situation now in Iraq). It's a horrible thing to say, but nuclear weapons give a small country respect on the international stage. Huge countries with vast militaries like ours don't even need them--if we dismantled every nuclear weapon we have, we could still rain death and destruction down on any foreign power we choose. But for the small countries, especially those run by insane dictator-tyrants like Kim-Jong Il and Saddam, a nuclear weapon can mean the difference between being flattened by foreign powers and being left alone. Is it even logical, let alone ethical, to think of nuclear weapons as a guarantor of national sovereignty? Please discuss.
's picture
Submitted by M.D. O'Donnell (not verified) on June 11, 2009.