North Korean ships are carrying missiles and materials from which chemical and nuclear weapons can be made -- to other tyrannies, such as the oppressive regimes in Myanmar and in Yemen. The United States leads a group of more than ninety nations that are committed to stopping such traffic, but North Korea has stated that such interventions would lead to war. One hears extremely little from progressives about what the United States should do next.
North Korea poses a special test for progressives because unlike the invasion of Iraq -- and before that, the armed interventions in several other nations including Panama, Grenada, and Haiti -- this time the United State is meeting the criteria previously posed by progressives.
The action is undertaken with the full blessing of the United Nations, which on June 12 passed a Security Council resolution that calls for U.N. member states to inspect all ships entering or leaving North Korea if there is a reasonable suspicion that the cargo contains banned nuclear materials or missile technology.
The action is multilateral rather than unilateral, in the sense that far from acting on its own, the U.S. has consulted many other nations, and is working together with them to try to stop North Korean dissemination of WMD.
Finally, at least so far, the use of force is excluded. There will be no forceful inspection of North Korean ships. First, the United States and other nations merely are asking North Korea to give permission to have its ships inspected while on the high seas. If North Korea refuses, the nation in which the ship docks to refuel will be asked to inspect the cargo. This is very much in line with international law and it does not involve use of force.
Yet, we hear next to no sounds of approval from the progressive camp; one is hard put to find editorials from the left stating that this time we've got it right. Are progressives holding that all problems can be treated with merely goodwill, foreign aid, and talk? Or are they willing to fess up and acknowledge that when all other means have been exhausted, and there is clear and present danger--the time to act is now, and to act may entail putting at least one foot down?
**I will respond to the comments of those persons who are willing to identify themselves, because I hold this essential for a civilized dialogue.
For more discussion see Amitai Etzioni's article "Tomorrow's Institution Today: The Promise of the Proliferation Security Initiative" in the May/June 2009 Foreign Affairs, here. Etzioni is a professor of international affairs at The George Washington University and the author of Security First (Yale, 2007). He can be contacted at icps@gwu.edu. www.gwu.edu/~ccps/securityfirst.html
Who supplied chemical weapons to a tyranny? Oh, it was the USA, Germany, etc. selling chemical weapon pre-cursors to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Who has ignored the most UNSC resolutions? I'l give you one clue, it is not North Korea.
Let's face it, what upsets Mr Etzioni most is not that WMDs are being proliferated or UNSC resolutions are being ignored, it is that WMDs are being proliferated and UNSC resolutions being ignored by a country that is not prepared to kiss the whiteman's (or honourary whiteman's) arse!
The U.S. is the largest weapons of mass destruction distributor to the world and you have the nerve to point at tiny North Korea?
Simple fact we have neither the financial or manpower resources to start a conflict over there today. It's time we all sucked it up and accepted the fact North Korea like India, Pakistan, and Israel is now a nuclear arms power, soon with our help so will Saudi Arabia. And I have no doubt China already is. It's time we stopped the false gaming of pretending to tryi and stop the proliferation while actually allowing our military industrial complex to continue to profit from it.
R.R. Richmond
Melbourne, Florida
You presented three criteria that supposedly we progressives asked for previously:
1) U.N. approval
2) not unilateral but multilateral
3) force as a last resort.
Hey, that doesn't sound like a traditional Progressive criteria, but a traditional mainstream, Wilsonian criteria. Yes, some people pointed out that the Bush era jettisoned those mainstream, Wilson criteria, but that doesn't mean Progressives ever promised if there were met we'd suddenly become supportive of mainstream international policies.
What we Progressives have been demanding for decades is the end to the idea of American empire, of America being the policeman of the world, not a return to the mainstream, Wilsonina idea of an American Empire that is multilateral, diplomatic and U.N. (originally League of Nations) oriented.
Then there are the disasters, Vietnam and Iraq. The U.S. is not always consistent in its application of force and is also given to bellicosity as a result of the right wing xenophobes and ultra nationalists. Nevertheless, no other state can fulfill the functions performed by its hegemonic role and Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan and other countries recognize this role.
no documentation is given to validate the above assertion, it is simply stated. and everything else follows based on the logical implications of that bald assertion. i've never heard an unproven assertion stated with such unshakable certainty since saddam hussein's "weapons of mass destruction".
Semper fi
If there is nothing to hide what is the harm in looking into a few ships holds and upholding the sactions set down by the UN.
When a man threatens to nuke you or any one else off the planet I think you should sit up and take notice.
Lewis
I cannot support such a regime. While the South has its flaws, life for the people in North Korea is horrendous. It may well be the worst regime in the world, along with countries like Burma, Iran and Zimbabwe.
If the North attacks the South, we should honor our agreements an and defend that country--because it is also worth defending. We would certainly contribute naval and air power, which would help ensure a rapid defeat of the North.
It is time to consider ways of reunifying Korea, withing a regional politicaland economic framework, like OSCE. This division has gone on too long and should be ended, one way or the other.
Yes, all agree that it would be terribly hard on the economy of the South! But, if there were no crippling Socialist regime in place, the people would be free to revert to the growing economy they once had.
Semper fi
NK has a formidable standing army and I believe that KJI would try to us goad into invading. That would be his only chance to put up a worthy fight. I'm sure he feels the American army can be beaten in a ground game based on the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a game plan we must avoid because our military is stretched to the limit and our soldiers, although battle tested, are weary and anxious to get home and return to their families.
If KJI knows he cannot provoke an invasion, he will be left with nothing more than empty threats and further isolation from China and Russia who are their closest allies.