Thanks for setting this blog up Paul! Hopefully we can share some ideas of how Global Politics is functioning at present and have some lively discussions as to what is going right/wrong.
So I suppose with the days that are in it I'll post a few words on North Korea. It was only a matter of time before the regime of Kim Jong-Il went for the jugular and tested a nuclear weapon. With international focus on the Iranian nuclear issue over the past year or so, the continued utterances of the DPRK in relation to how advanced they were on acquiring nuclear capability was understandable - the "don't forget about me/I'm over here!" scenario. Although many were not expecting this to happen coming so soon after the Sino-Japanese summit yesterday - to say that China is annoyed is a real understatement - it was a crisis waiting to happen. Of course these nuclear war games hide the real issue - that North Korean civilians are on the brink of starvation. It would seem that China would prefer to prop up the current regime rather than deal with millions of refugees flooding over its borders.
So the next few days will bring the Security Council together with further sanctions on the DPRK regime seeming inevitable. The most depressing thing is that the country is apparently in such a desperate situation that further sanctions will have little effect of influencing Kim Jong-Il, but will punish an already anguished population. Will the unfolding events represent another example of the ineffectiveness of the UNSC in dealing with International crises?
So I suppose with the days that are in it I'll post a few words on North Korea. It was only a matter of time before the regime of Kim Jong-Il went for the jugular and tested a nuclear weapon. With international focus on the Iranian nuclear issue over the past year or so, the continued utterances of the DPRK in relation to how advanced they were on acquiring nuclear capability was understandable - the "don't forget about me/I'm over here!" scenario. Although many were not expecting this to happen coming so soon after the Sino-Japanese summit yesterday - to say that China is annoyed is a real understatement - it was a crisis waiting to happen. Of course these nuclear war games hide the real issue - that North Korean civilians are on the brink of starvation. It would seem that China would prefer to prop up the current regime rather than deal with millions of refugees flooding over its borders.
So the next few days will bring the Security Council together with further sanctions on the DPRK regime seeming inevitable. The most depressing thing is that the country is apparently in such a desperate situation that further sanctions will have little effect of influencing Kim Jong-Il, but will punish an already anguished population. Will the unfolding events represent another example of the ineffectiveness of the UNSC in dealing with International crises?
Labels: Asia, North Korea, Sanctions
posted by Seamus at 12:58 PM
7 Comments:
I agree with you really Seamus. The Iraq experience showed that sanctions will not topple an authoritarian regime, but will instead wreak havoc on the civilian population.
For me, for Iran and North Korea to want nuclear weapons is entirely rational (I know Iran hasn't admitted it). Don't get me wrong, I want to get rid of all nuclear weapons, so I don't think N Korea are justified. But while the US has the nukes, it's hard to see the argument for N Korea being a good little country and restraining themselves from developing their own nuclear capability, as the US has done.
I can't listen/read/watch the media discourse on this without thinking that there is an elephant in the room that is being entirely ignored: the double standard of the US, a nuclear power, preaching about the dangers of nuclear proliferation.
A friend of mine was saying the other day that there are now 9 nuclear powers. We tried to name them, and came up with:
the US, the UK, France, Russia, China (the 5 UNSC permanent members, funnily enough), India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. Is this right?
Have you turned into a Realist, Paul? You seem to be saying that it is inevitable that countries like North Korea will look for nuclear weapons to counteract US power.
I think only one of the Security Council's permanent members was a nuclear power when they were given their permanent membership.
Obviously no one should have nuclear weapons. However, the thought of an unpredictable North Korea and a theocracy having them is frightening.
Nope Ian, I'm no Realist. My point is really about the double standard of the US.
I agree with Seamus' identification of "the real issue - that North Korean civilians are on the brink of starvation". This would not be the focus of a Realist analysis.
But at the moment, the way the world is set up, I do agree that many states tend to act according to a Realist logic. This does not mean that this situation is inevitable. I do believe in the potential of a different mode of interaction between states. But presently, the actions of powerful states tend not to support a more cooperative framework.
(For the first time ever) I was watching Question Time on BBC during the week. They were discussing the North Korean issue. The Scottish socialist Tommy Sheridan had a good insight into the crisis. According to him, under Clinton, there was dialogue between North Korea and the US, and North Korea had agreed to halt their weapons programme. However, the Bush regime rejected this path, and Sheridan says that Bush's 'axis of evil' speech, and his refusal to engage with North Korea, led to North Korea's escalation of its arsenal.
I see no reason why it is inevitable for states to act in this manner. It is the result of conscious action by governments rather than any inevitable mode of interaction between states.
In any case, my own real interest is the processes which produce the kind of poverty at the bottom of the social food chain in both North Korea and the US, and how these processes are replicated.
Yeah, Bush blocked a Korean peace process that was developing between the two states. Well done. It's hard to see what the point of that was, and in retrospect it has achieved nothing but to push the DPRK further down the road of developing nuclear weapon, something distinctly contrary to perceived US interests. Maybe Bush is pursuing a surrealist foreign policy.
Sometimes I wonder if the Bush administration is being provocative on purpose as a tactic to create future opportunities for tinkering with regimes.
After all the hoo-ha about WMD in Iraq, after the invasion the US left multiple stockpiles of arms unguarded (most famously at al-Qaqaa). These were subsequently looted, and are now presumably being used against US soldiers.
Some links about this, in case anyone thinks I'm making it up:
link the first
link the second
Wikipedia link on al-Qaqaa
They really seem to be totally unconcerned about making the world safe, despite the rhetoric. I swing like a pendulum between thinking they're entirely imcompetent and without foresight, and that it's all part of their masterplan.
I think they are just morons.
There is some interesting writing in the latest Economist about North Korea. They are fairly softcore about it, advocating not really doing very much about it, in contrast to their earlier cheerleading for the Iraq War.
Post a Comment
<< Home