Poilitcal Babysitting
As North Korea snorts and paws at the ground by parading their "achievement" of nuclear weapons, as North Korea stamps away from the six-party talks, as China tries to persuade North Korea to end their tantrum and return to the bargaining table, the US is urged to adopt a "more concilliatory approach" and to "be more flexible."
This form of pathetic hand holding diplomacy likens to asking a three year old to sit down and talk about the loaded gun that he's holding. The responsible move is to step in and take the gun before the child shoots someone, or more likely himself.
The UN needs to step up and take charge. This is no longer the academic question, "what if." A communist country has declared that they have weapons capable of wiping out millions, while simulatenously walking away from peace talks. Can anyone else see a temper tantrum ending with much bloodshed?
It's time for someone to step up and say, enough is enough!
My source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/14/nkorea.talks/index.html
6 Comments:
The UN? Let's be honest about the UN. If they were at all an effective international body, we wouldn't be where we are today with N. Korea, Iran, and recently Syria. I do not think many of the Security Council member states have the guts to take the lead and deal with international problems. It's all lip-service, lip-service, lip-service. What I hope for is effective leadership and diplomacy on the part of the US to get the UN, or at least our allies around the world to put the pressure on these states. The UN won't do it on their own. Perhaps they won't do anything no matter what. It may be up to US and our allies separate from the UN once again. I sure hope not, though.
I don't believe that either of you two know much about Nuclear Warfare.
The UN is a good idea, but in some instances doesn't use force. Let's not forget that a use of force against North Korea could trigger them to use Nuclear weapons and would create a catastrophic death toll. We in turn would likely use nuclear weapons or an equally devastating retaliatory force, and the aftermath would likely be disastrous.
Because of the consequences that could arise with such a war, this "lip service" and "diplomacy" might not be a bad idea.
Granted force in cetain instances is necessary and just. North Korea does pose a threat in world peace and stability. However, these macho tactics aren't going to get you far if you end up dying from nuclear radiation.
Your assumptions about my knowledge of nuclear warfare aside, I was not, by any means, suggesting that the use of force against North Korea is the most appealing option we have. I was simply taking notice of the failure of the UN to deal with North Korea on its own. It is going to take the diplomatic strength, not appeasement, of the US to get the job done.
I do think that we should play "diplomatic hardball" against North Korea. It probably is the best way to approach the situation. I just needed some more clarification on your statement.
There are at least two possible ways to analyze this situation:
1) on the basis of abstract principles (deduction)
or
2) on the basis of comparison to other similar examples (induction)
if we choose the first, we must establish an argument along ethical/practical principles for political action in these situations.
if we choose the second, we must build careful analogies to similar other cases
Anyonw want to take a stab at either option?
Well, why to go to the UN? This country had cared less to what the UN or others had to say about the war in Iraque? Keeping in mind that the inspectors failed to locate any nuclear weapons as of yet in Iraque.So why not declare war and go after North Korea? We might get lucky this time...or who cares if we didn't?!
Post a Comment
<< Home