Alighieri Re... thought we were talking about Iraq?
We were talking about the connection between Iraq and the war on terrorism; and why Iraq, not NK . I posted this link http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/EA03Dg01.html
Korea
ANALYSIS
Why Iraq matters more than North Korea
By Marc Erikson
You are taking a chapter out of Bush's book. Iraq, OBL...all the same. OBL attacks NY and Iraq is to blame.
Obviously you didn't read or believe the article, or series of articles I have posted. Here is part of that article that connects the dots.
The Bush team - rightly as I see it - regards Kim Jong-il's regime as an ossified ideological relic with no future potential for attracting adherents to its creed, while Saddam Hussein's regime, while it lasts, in effect anchors Islamist fascism in the Middle East and the Muslim world beyond.
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his Tikriti clique are not themselves the principal exponents of the Islamist fascism invented in its current form by Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb (see the AToL series Islamism, fascism and terrorism, November-December 2002) and practiced and promoted by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda and the network's chief theoretician and strategist al-Zawahiri. But by controlling a nation state with substantial resources, they backstop and support several Islamist terrorist (mainly Palestinian) outfits and, more important, function as a reference point for other corrupt and dictatorial Arab regimes. Disarming this clique and, if need be, expelling it from Iraq would send the strongest possible signal to the rest of the Arab world as well as the mullahs in Iran that in-depth political change can no longer be postponed. It would at the same time at least begin the process of and create the circumstances for undermining the ideological hold and initiative Islamist fascism now has as an admired protagonist force among Muslim youths worldwide.
In that sense, disarming Saddam is no end in itself of US foreign policy. It is envisaged as a catalyst for comprehensive political transformation in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, with democratic Kemalist Turkey as a model. It is envisaged as well as a critical stepping stone for constructing a global security consensus and system with the support of China and Russia in which proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorist action under whatever spurious guise is anathema and dealt with promptly and comprehensively
If you read it carefully, especially that last paragraph, you would understand why Saddam has a big bullseye on his forehead. Understanding that paragraph is critical to understanding GW 9/11 speech. GW didn't just say AL Qaeda in his speech. He included all forms of terrorism, and Saddam has practiced terrorism for yrs.
Very convenient to rely on China and Russia to clean up GW's mess in NK...I hope he remembers when they refuse to also go along with him to create another in Iraq.
Why are you blaming Gw for Nk. problems. From your article.
The 1994 Agreed Framework was a process by which both sides set out slowly to build a
sense of trust. But both sides began hedging their bets early in that process. Since neither the
US nor North Korea fulfilled many of the agreed steps even during the Clinton administration, the
framework was essentially dead long before the recent nuclear revelations.
The accepted wisdom in the US is that North Korea abrogated the framework by restarting its
nuclear weapons programme. But both Clinton and Bush administrations violated the letter and
the spirit of the agreement. For example, the US promised under the framework to help North
Korea build light water reactors that could not be used to make nuclear bombs. The first of these
was due to come into operation this year but it was clear in 1998 that it would be at least three
years behind schedule because of US reservations and hesitancy.
Hmmm, 1998 is three yrs before GW took office.
Then there is this.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EA03Df01.html
In this way, the Pakistani-North Korea relationship perfectly epitomizes the phenomenon known as tertiary proliferation, whereby newly nuclear states or new aspirants to that status assist each other, and by doing so obtain technological, military, or financial, as well as political benefits from their relationship. It may also be the case that Pakistan acts as a middleman for a third party, in this case China, that does not want its shipments to North Korea to be directly traceable. If that is the case, Pakistan would then resemble Ukraine and Belarus, which assist proliferation and arms sales to "rogue states" on their own and are regularly used by Russian firms and authorities as middlemen for deals that Moscow does not want traced back to it.
But this policy of supporting North Korea in both aspects of its proliferation policies, sales and research and development, has a boomerang effect for Pakistan, not to mention a globally destabilizing quality. Israeli officials have revealed their assessment that the recent shipment of Scud missiles that Yemen supposedly bought from North Korea were going to Baghdad, not Sanaa. And North Korea has now launched a crisis that could easily inflame all of Northeast Asia. It is hard to see what gains, pecuniary or otherwise, justify Pakistan's efforts to strengthen the reckless regime in Pyongyang or to directly challenge the vital interests of the United States, its sole real protector. Yet that is what it has done.
As you can see, NK was also contributing to the India, Pakistan conflict. And this from you article.
Above all, the regime wants better ties with the US. The policy that follows from this is clear: the
US should begin negotiating a non-aggression pact with the North. It should let other countries,
such as South Korea and Japan, pursue economic diplomacy if they wish. If the North allows
back UN nuclear inspectors and dismantles its reactors, the US can move forward to
engagement. But to dismiss the country's security fears is to miss the cause of its actions.
The writer is associate professor of government at Dartmouth College and co-author, with
Victor Cha, of Nuclear North Korea (forthcoming)
Note that these authors also say the US should only engage NK after they dismantle the reactors and stop their nuclear programs. Basically the same as GW's position. |
