mood: comfortably and happily relaxed.
state i'm in: excited about starting elective tomorrow.
tune: kinny & horne "sacred life".
what to do with mr kim jong il and his rogue state.
i believe that the time is nigh for suggestions of a military campaign on the korean peninsula. north korea needs to be deterred from its present course, or ought to be punished with invasion, a massive political dilemna no doubt, and subsequent reunification with the south, a massive logistical dilemna no doubt.
as currently stands, the state has weapons of mass destruction. mr kim first announced his intentions to the world, then followed through with an explosion. the man detonated a nuclear bomb, a weapon of mass destruction, suspicion of possessing the likes of which other nations have been invaded for (or so the story goes). mr kim has made the threat to lash out with a "merciless strike" against american allies japan and south korea, and speaks of new sanctions against his state as a "declaration of war". rhetoric no doubt, but when the man is nearing possession of the means, one has to wonder what course of action ought be taken next.
china has always appeared to be an obstacle to resolution on the peninsula, but i don't think they will stand forever in defence of north korea. it looks as if wounds between japan and china might just be beginning to mend, under the stewardship of newly party-elected japanese prime minister shinzo abe. it is of immense value economically to china that these wounds do continue to heal.
sanctions are unlikely to do anything to resolve the issue. the morality of punishing poor people who live in a boycotted autocracy is dubious to say the least. it will do nothing to help the people, and is only likely to strengthen the popularity and power of the regime.
so where does the international community go? do we continue to impose sanctions? the ones imposed thus far are feeble, and the suggestions of condoleeza rice to russia, china, japan, and south korea on recent visits, even if acted upon, aren't a great deal stronger. or should we just wait until seoul or sapporro goes up in radioactive smoke before acting? probably not awfully likely in the near future, but it is a scenario that might be somewhat more likely in coming years, and needs to be averted with action now.
if this is not a suitable course of action to take, i would appreciate hearing suggestions otherwise. i am not a warmonger, in fact i am almost a pacifist, but options for the people of north korea, and potentially their international neighbours, are getting thin on the ground.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
There is unwritten action movie law which states that if you are any of the following:
Cop, security guard, member of the armed forces or hired thug and you don't have a name, then chances are then you are fair game for either the 'goodies' or the 'baddies' to blow up.
I wonder sometimes if that law is formalised in international politics....
Sending in nameless faces to war is an easy decision to make when other forms of diplomatic problem solving get put in the too hard basket. However, as one of those in the above categories who certainly does have a name and a face, I really do hope that the big decision makers don't watch that many movies....
China is the safety switch.
me and peter agree that china has too much riding on any north korean melee. if china continues siding with north korea and feeding them weapons etc and north korea starts something, then i believe china will smack them down hard because>
1) chinas biggest trading partners are the US and Japan.
2) china is in love with money and won't jeopardise any recession or blow to their wealth generators.
3) china won't allow a little rogue state to jeopardise their long term plans of war and empire building.
5) Mercedes Benz won't allow their #1 customer to be cut off by any military move. Nor would Daimler Chrysler, their parent company.
uhm, like hello? has anybody tried talking to ol kimmy to find out what he wants and what he's after? or are we all sitting stern lipped and cross handed still insisting that we do not negotiate with terrorists and waiting to be nuked?
like u J, i'm a borderline pacifist and think war & bullets & nuclear weapons a sad reflection on our society but call into question the self-appointed power of world mediator western countries insist they have. almost like a "do as i say and not as i do" type thing.
also, what sent iran's nuclear energy program into over-drive?
"well since we're going to be accused and invaded for having WMD, might as well actually have them", thought pres mahmoud.
every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Post a Comment