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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (110703)	8/10/2003 6:55:39 AM
From: Noel de Leon	Respond to of 281500

Thought you might find this interesting. "June 22, 2003 Bill Clinton Is Right On North Korea -- With Some Revision CNN.com - Transcripts For some reason I haven't been able to get this interview that Bill Clinton did with Larry King out of my head lately. He called the non-aggression pact that the DPRK desperately wants a "no-brainer" because a violation would void it and we would be free to attack if necessary. I think he's right, with one qualification: any non-aggression pact we sign with the DPRK should be attached to a war resolution passed by Congress giving the President the authorization he needs to launch such an attack. Without that it would stay in the diplomatic arena, a political fight would ensue, the DPRK would dick us around and there would be no real consequences for a failure to comply. Keep in mind, such a resolution wouldn't obligate the President to attack, it would only empower him to do so if he chose. It would also give him the legitimacy that only the Congress can confer on such a move. It could be accurately described as "the will of the people". Congress usually doesn't get heavily involved with foreign policy but in this instance it would be necessary, even desirable. Of course, all of the things Clinton mentioned should be included, such as some aid, teaching them how to farm, an end to all DPRK nuclear programs and an end to all DPRK missile development programs. Furthermore, it should be done outside of the UN. Before the Iraq war, probably as a diversionary tactic, opponents of the war were towing the DPRK's line in saying we should have direct talks with them while the Bush Administration wanted to go through the Security Council. My guess is opponents of the Iraq war were right and the administration didn't want to be diverted by North Korea at the time and wanted to tie it up in the Security Council. Now would be an opportune time to negotiate a non-aggression pact with North Korea in exchange for lifting any sanctions, providing fuel oil, food aid and having American inspectors on the ground to verify the dismantlement of their nuclear and missile programs. Provided it's accompanied by a war resolution that's tied directly to the non-aggression pact and any breaches. I realize this is easier said than done and the DPRK would probably dismiss it instantly, but the longer they had to think about it the more they would realize it's the only way to ensure the survival of the current regime. That's what they want most of all. CLINTON: So what we should do, in my opinion, is get their neighbors, first of all, beginning with the South Koreans, and then the Japanese ,who tried to make up with them. The prime minister of Japan took a very courageous and controversial trip to North Korea. And the Chinese and the Russians and get them all together and say, Look, here's the deal. We'll make an omnibus agreement if you'll end both nuclear programs, let testing in so you can't start any thing again, end the missile program, something that they had not agreed to do. And we'll make sure you got enough food and energy. We'll teach you how to grow food and we'll give you a non-aggression pact. They want this non-aggression pact, I think that's a no-brainer. Why? Because if we ever had to attack it would be because they did some thing that violated the non-aggression pact. The war resolution is essential, again, because the State Department could be gamed too easily and has an aversion to war, even when it is the best answer to a problem. What we can't do is nothing. The DPRK has nothing to sell but missile technology and, in the future, fissile material for the manufacture of nuclear warheads. They won't hesitate to sell these things as demonstrated in the past. UPDATE: Rob Kaper doesn't appear to accept comments in his blog so I'll have to address his concerns here. Just in case I didn't make it clear enough, the entire point of us signing a nonaggression pact with the DPRK is not to get buddy, buddy with them. The reason for a nonaggression pact is to achieve two things: an end to their nuclear program -- whether through enriched uranium or plutonium -- and an end to their missile program. Complete disarmament in those two areas. So, as Jesse Jackson might put it: no fissile, no missile and no aggression. One other comment: we actually do have an armistice with the DPRK that ended the Korean War. There are conditions which could void it: the DPRK has already threatened to withdraw from it though that alone wouldn't trigger war. An overt act on their part would still be needed. Besides, he is saying we don't need to go to Congress again. I'm sure a lawyer could parse the words of the armistice and say we already have the legal authority to attack the DPRK. We could have done that with Iraq: simply use the first Gulf War resolution because Saddam had been in violation of the ceasefire that ended the first Gulf War since about 90 days after it was signed. The proper thing to do -- forgetting legalisms -- is to return to Congress and ask them to authorize war. It will show Kim Jong Il that we are united and will put the fear of God in him. Posted by Robert at 08:08 AM \| 900 Words \| permalink \| TrackBack (1) You can find this entry in: Foreign Policy , National Security " robertprather.us