"The nuclear programme now under way in North Korea poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities,"
How is that different than what we faced for the past 50 years?
Only if Kim Il Song gives a nuke to a terrorist regime will we likely face an actual nuclear attack from N. Korean uranium.
And should he do so, it will be evident that N. Korean Uranium was what fueled any such explosion as a post-event analysis is conducted.
And then Pyongyang will glow in the dark..
Nuclear weapons are for the purpose of preserving a regime. This is what Saddam sought to achieve.. It is what Iran seeks to achieve. Saddam, in order to intimidate neighboring Arab regimes, and unite the Arab "nation" behind him as a new "Saladin".. The Iranians, in order to preserve their regime from outside interference.
But those two countries are located in a region that is of economic significance to the entire world, while N. Korea is not.
And N. Korea borders China, which seemingly would have little desire to see Kim possess nukes and stir up more turmoil on the peninsula. China knows that Japan and S. Korea feel extremely threatened by Kim's nuclear program.
They also know that these nations will increase their defense spending and potentially "go nuke" themselves in order to possess their own national deterrence. This threatens China's stability, as well as their desire to control and influence the region.
So I say Mr. Perry is wrong. Kim Il Sung is bottled up on a peninsula, with no where to go, no where to expand. His nuclear program will only place an excessive economic burden on his already devastated economy.
Kim Il Sung is a savvy "poker player", willing to push confrontation to the brink until he gets the other side to cave in and appease his demands. This includes paying "attention" to him in the media, the White House, and the UN. He believes even bad publicity is good since he is able to focus the world's attention upon himself.
Mr Perry said with uncharacteristic bluntness: "The reason we don't have a policy on this and aren't negotiating is the President himself. I think he has come to the conclusion that Kim Jong Il is evil and loathsome and that it is immoral to negotiate with him."
Again.. Mr. Perry is wrong. Our policy is that any talks about N. Korea's nuclear programme MUST BE multi-national, including China, Japan, and S. Korea. Kim Il Sung wishes to force a "one on one" negotiation with the US, who's only presence on the peninsula consists of 37,000 troops (against Kim's 1 million man army)
And Mr. Perry, it would seem to me, is more than willing to play right into the hands of Kim Il Sung by supporting direct negotiations between Bush and Kim.
And that's just plain stupid.. Which thus causes me to question Mr. Perry's claim of being an "expert" on Korea affairs.
He certainly doen't understand the use of power and strategic gamesmanship, or even high stakes poker.
Hawk
Apparently he's never read Sun Tzu.
Hawk |
