Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (12273)	2/24/2003 1:33:33 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Israel has been in violation of UN resolutions--we didn't go to war there, did we? Other nations have violated similarly--we didn't got to war there either? What I want is what constitute a reasonable judgment as to what a real threat is. With the nuclear issue put to bed, I think the US and the UN should now concentrate on North Korea. If Bush wishes to build a coalition of the willing, tell him to get in the right region. If he's going to tackle the problems of the Middle East, he needs to begin in Israel, not Iraq. In short, Bush is barking up the wrong tree and losing friends as he yelps.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (12273)	2/24/2003 1:34:20 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Bigger menace: North Korea or Iraq? By Ralph A Cossa The big debate raging in Washington these days is over which country poses the greatest threat: North Korea or Iraq? The answer is simple: North Korea. North Korea poses the greatest potential and actual threat today. It possesses chemical and biological weapons and worst-case analysis credits Pyongyang with up to two nuclear devices as well. Even without these weapons of mass destruction (WMD), North Korea still poses the greatest threat, given its ability to inflict great damage on Seoul - the South Korean capital is within range of thousands of North Korean conventional missiles, rockets, and long-range artillery pieces. But this does not mean Washington should stop putting pressure on Iraq and start waving a reinforced big stick in North Korea's direction. Nor should the lack of saber-rattling by Washington lead one to the conclusion that the North Korean "crisis" is being ignored. Constant accusations to the contrary, Washington appears to be actively pursuing a diplomatic approach toward both Iraq and North Korea. President George (Mr Unilateralism) W Bush is looking for the United Nations Security Council to take an active role in both instances, while many of its members seem to be hoping that Washington will revert to form and do things unilaterally so they won't have to make politically uncomfortable decisions. Few would argue with Bush's assertion that the use of force in Iraq is the last and least desirable option. But it is hard to imagine that, absent the threat of US force, there would be intrusive inspections going on in Iraq today. What the French (among others) can't seem to understand is that the best way to avoid the use of force is to demonstrate a willingness to use it. Saddam specializes in brinkmanship. Until he believes he is at the brink, he is unlikely to cooperate fully. The more he withholds full cooperation, the more likely war becomes. Unless you believe that the use of force is a far greater evil than allowing Saddam to develop WMD (not to mention flouting numerous UN resolutions), the time has come to announce, convincingly, that the brink has been reached. If the United States (and its "coalition of the willing") go to war without the UN, the first sure casualty will be the multilateral process that many UN Security Council members profess to endorse ... except, of course, when they are called upon actually to do something. While Bush's watch may be running a bit faster than many of us are comfortable with, it is clear that "time is running out". Waiting until Iraq can pose as great a threat to its neighbors as North Korea already does only makes matters worse. Meanwhile, not to be ignored, North Korea has also thrown down a gauntlet toward the Security Council. After being branded in material breach of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safeguards, it is now threatening to withdraw from the 1953 Armistice that ended the Korean War - a conflict that pitted North Korea and Chinese "volunteers" against the United Nations, under whose flag the war was fought and in whose name the armistice is currently being maintained. Threatening the use of force against North Korea does not yet seem appropriate, although Washington is wise to keep all options on the table. But if shouting back at North Korea achieves little, neither does sitting quietly by as Pyongyang threatens "World War III". One reason North Korean rhetoric keeps escalating is because the international community has failed to take Pyongyang to task for the completely irresponsible, inflammatory remarks it has made thus far. Instead of ignoring its threats (which makes Pyongyang feel compelled to act even more outrageously), it's time to say "enough is enough!" What's needed is a statement from the UN Security Council explaining that a withdrawal from the 1953 Armistice will mean that a state of war once again exists between North Korea and the United Nations, not because of any action or desire on the UN's (or Washington's) part, but because of North Korea's deliberate action. Should this occur, all UN member states will be instructed to stop providing aid and assistance to North Korea. This includes South Korea, which continues (with China) to keep Pyongyang on life support. As one of his final acts before turning the leadership reins over to Roh Moo-hyun next Tuesday, outgoing South Korean President Kim Dae-jung should announce that a North Korean withdrawal from the armistice will leave Seoul with no option other than temporarily to suspend its Sunshine Policy of engagement and to halt all North-South contacts and commerce. I agree with Kim when he says war on the peninsula is unlikely, even if Pyongyang walks away from the armistice. But that does not mean we should sit idly by as Pyongyang continues deliberately to ratchet up the crisis. Pyongyang must understand that it can't be business as usual if it walks away from the armistice. It's also time for China to stop acting like an uninvolved spectator. Instead of merely echoing its mantra about the need for dialogue, Beijing should openly praise Washington's willingness, at long last, to enter into negotiations (albeit with a multilateral fig leaf attached) while reminding Pyongyang that if it walks away from the armistice, this time it will have to go it alone. And, if its support for multilateralism in general and the UN Security Council in particular is real rather than rhetorical, Beijing should also speak up about the need for both Baghdad and Pyongyang to abandon their WMD programs verifiably. Ralph A Cossa is president of the Pacific Forum CSIS (e-mail pacforum@hawaii.rr.com), a Honolulu-based non-profit research institute affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, and senior editor of Comparative Connections, a quarterly electronic journal (http://www.csis.org/pacfor/). atimes.com