What to do about North Korea

David Frum write in the New York Times and suggests four steps that need to be taken to address the North Korean problem. He notes that the usual suspects are calling for the usual response: more negotiations. He rightly points out that this is the exact opposite of what we want to do right now. Opening negotiations will simply reward Kim Jong Il's derangement and bring even greater aggression later. It is also necessary to show Iran that there are distinct consequences, not rewards, for nuclear aggressiveness.

It is, alas, an iron law of modern diplomacy that the failure of any diplomatic process only proves the need for more of the process that has just failed. Thus those who have long supported negotiating with North Korea are now calling for the Bush administration to begin direct talks with the Kim Jong-il regime. Sorry, but all this would accomplish would be to reward an actual proliferator in order to preserve the illusion that the world still has a meaningful nonproliferation regime.

Some even suggest, in worried tones, that the North Korean test might provoke Japan to go nuclear, as if the worst possible consequence of nuclear weapons in the hands of one of America’s direst enemies would be the acquisition of nuclear weapons by one of America’s best friends.

A new approach is needed. America has three key strategic goals in the wake of the North Korean nuclear test. The first is to enhance the security of those American allies most directly threatened by North Korean nuclear weapons: Japan and South Korea.

The second is to exact a price from North Korea for its nuclear program severe enough to frighten Iran and any other rogue regimes considering following the North Korean path.

The last is to punish China. North Korea could not have completed its bomb if China, which provides the country an immense amount of food and energy aid, had strongly opposed it. Apparently, Beijing sees some potential gain in the uncertainty that North Korea’s status brings. If China can engage in such conduct cost-free, what will deter Russia from aiding the Iranian nuclear program, or Pakistan someday aiding a Saudi or Egyptian one?

To meet these three goals, the United States should adopt four swift policy responses:

• Step up the development and deployment of existing missile defense systems.

Go over and rest the rest of the four steps. I don't necessarily think they are all perfect, but they are at least a starting point for taking a completely different tack with the North Koreans. And with China as well. China has been enabling North Korea, they should pay a price for that behavior.

• 

  By doug keachie, Tuesday, 10 October , 2006 @ 11:16 am

  If N. Korea has just tested a tiny (fits on top of Taepo Dong missle), they can basically blackmail everybody. It expands their potential weapons stockpile form 6, 15,000,000 bombs (Hiroshima sized bombs) to 180 bombs. If they’ve already spirited several outside the country in cargo containers to say Venezuela, we’ve got a huge problem.

  What if he says, “USA out of the far east, NOW ! or we take out Tokyo and Shanghai. China, get your troops off our border. California, send us fresh food, no E Coli, etc ” We saw the 2 seconds madman in Amish country. This guy’s no different.

  BTW a “tiny” 500,000 lbs nuke and the fallout is way, way, way WORSE than 9/11.

  Aerisol tons of LSD, invade now, while we still can.

• 

  By Gaius, Tuesday, 10 October , 2006 @ 11:22 am

  You’re kind of forgetting something. Who exactly came across the border to ensure North Korea did not fall when it looked like they would?

  I rather doubt the Chinese will think it’s amusing for us to land there again.

Other Links to this Post

1. bRight & Early » First Cup 10.10.06 — Tuesday, 10 October , 2006 @ 8:31 am

2. A Blog For All — Tuesday, 10 October , 2006 @ 4:47 pm