I can't think of anyone who has seriously advocated we give the North Koreans a non-aggression pact in exchange for a pledge to abandon their nuclear ambitions but anyone who suggests this is living in a fantasy land.
The list of agreements that the DPRK has violated is very long and would take up most of the archive space in my blog. A non-aggression treaty is not the answer as the United States has acknowledged.
Can anyone think of a non-aggression pact that has ever worked? Nazi-Soviet Pact ring a bell?
By signing a non-aggression pact with the North the United States would do two things:
a.) Hand the DPRK a huge PR cudgel to beat us over the head with in subsequent crises (and there would be more),
b.) Seriously curtail our freedom of action and damage our credibility in the region.
So what is the answer?
The first step should be some kind of a meeting between China, South Korea, Japan and the United States and possibly Russia. The five powers should declare, via consensus, what the North must do to start negotiations.
My preference would be a requirement that they renounce, in principle, their illegal weapons program. However, all five must offer the North something in return. Something that allows the North save face, but not something terribly concrete. After all, we shouldn't reward the North for their actions, at all.
Posted by Sean-Paul @ 01/05/2003 01:44 PM
| TrackBack
Comments:
Can anyone think of a non-aggression pact that has ever worked? Nazi-Soviet Pact ring a bell?
No I can't. Nor can I think of marriage contracts that have worked everytime. But it is nice to have a document that says "non-agression" or "we are married". So why not give them one. Hell, the USA will not honor it anyway. So throw them a bone. We don't honor Vienna, Weapons Programs, Kyoto, War Crimes Trials, etc. We just tell the rest of the world this doesn't apply to us, just you.
