North Korea: A Test for Progressives

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 [e-mail]. www.gwu.edu/~ccps/securityfirst.html

Comments

[blowback]

Who else is proliferating nuclear technology to a tyranny? Oh, it's the French selling nuclear powerplants to the UAE*** and never forget that it was us Brits who placed the designs for a Magnox reactor in the public domain so that North Korea could use them to build its reactors.
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!

[minjung]

what to mr. etzioni's mind is truly a "progressive" policy position on north korea? is it simply whatever democrats give voice to, regardless of the fact that it (1) has deleterious humanitarian consequences on the north korean people (e.g., sanctions and diminished aid), (2) fails to acknowledge that the division and ensuing militarization of the peninsula historically can be traced to american authorship and intervention, (3) caters to and aligns itself with the hardline neoconservative current governments of tokyo and seoul, and (4) forgoes seeking peace--not war (the state of u.s.-nk relations since the formally unconcluded korean war)--as the basis of u.s.-nk relations?

[arvay]

He's OK with a war on the Korean peninsula because even though hundreds of thousands of people would be killed, maimed and maybe irradiated -- Israel is safe, no?

[oxi]

And what is the U.S. sending (selling) to countries around the world? How much U.S. taxpayers are footing for Israel's nuclear weapons?

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?

[GardenerNorCal]

The time to reasonably deal with the North Korean problem was at the beginning of the Bush/Cheney administration but like with Osama Bin Laden they didn't feel it was a priority.

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.

[RRRichmond]

Dr. Etzioni -- I find your question intellectually insulting and childish. There is more at hand here than you are considering. You speak as if you are 100% sure that the ship contains "weapons of much destructio­n." Some of us have heard this chant before. You have collateralized the term "reasonable suspicion" to match earlier Neoconisms that demanded military action if a question met the criteria of Mr. Cheney's One-Percent Doctrine. (low-probability, high-impact threats). Not only does such a position require limitless economic and military resources, it enables a worthy opponent the opportunity to hide a truly threatening thrust amounst his diversionary parries. Your simple view of all threats being equal lead to 99 failures out of a 100 actions. Do you really believe that even the most gullible of your panic-button clinging chickenhawks would long support the covering of your bets? Not only do I question the sanity of your proposal to act with such leveraged suspicion as a tactic, I will redouble your position as a counterproductive strategy.

R.R. Richmond
Melbourne, Florida

[libwingoflibwing]

This is a straw man attack. I'm a progressive who marched against the war in Iraq. I don't remember any of us setting up the criteria this article presents and saying, "If you met these, we'd support you."

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.

[VeggieVeal]

Meaning, you and your "progressive" comrades want a return to Isolationism. That worked really good in 1914 and 1939, eh?

[libwingoflibwing]

We weren't isolationists in either 1914 or 1939.

[glockman]

But Wilson was a "progressi­ve."

[bluescat47]

I think you are correct. Many on the progressive Left are never comfortable with the use of force by the U.S. and wont acknowledge the important role of American military power in the world, from keeping the straits of Hormuz and Malacca open, protecting global sealanes, throwing a security blanket over approximately 55 countries that are bound to the U.S. by treaty, and taking the lead on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, missile exports, and the spread of chemical weapons. The U.S. does the heavy lifting out there - Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia.
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.

[vim876]

I should hope none of us are ever 'comfortable' with the use of force. I have not seen progressives marching against the war in North Korea, have you? One of the reasons progressives don't necessarily publicly push for action under these (future and theoretical due to the fact that no arms have yet been found on such a ship) circumstances is that there are plenty of bellicose conservatives to push for the broad unthinking application of force at the slightest provocation. It is the role of progressives in our society to say 'No, wait. Let's try to find another way."

[noneIn2008]

Use the prior progressive approach, send him a signed basketball. He discovered Jordan no longer plays and now wants one signed by Kobe.

[natturnerx]

"north korean ships are carrying missiles & materials from which chemical & nuclear weapons can be made."

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".

[Berettasskeeter]

What was unproven about the WMD's of Saddam? That he had them? Ask the Iranians and Iraqis that were gassed!
Semper fi

[vim876]

Don't be disingenuous. We didn't go to war because he had the materials for chemical weapons. If we had, we might as well declare war on every American household with bleach and ammonia in the cupboard. We were scared of nukes. He didn't have materials to begin constructing nuclear weapons, as Bush told the American public. The yellowcake uranium from Niger was a lie. Everything Colin Powell presented to the UN was a lie cooked up by the Bush administration. There was no connection between Sadaam Hussein and Al Qaeda. We went to war under false pretenses. Period.

[Douglas White]

Just what would you have our government do. give up their sources maybe. so we can sit back deaf, dumb and blind while N Korea lobs nuks at HI or maybe the west coast.
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.

[natturnerx]

there is no precedent in the history of the world that any regime in korea (formerly known as the hermit kingdom) has waged an aggressive war outside the borders of korea.

[regroupthink]

If using force is the smart thing to do, I'm confident that this progressive administration will employ it effectively.

[FearlessFreep]

They may do it even if it isn't smart!

[Chris Ellison]

North Korea is just testing the waters mostly to see how far they can push a new administration. I seriously doubt that the little toad that rules NK is deluded enough to think that the US could wipe his entire country off the map within hours. KJI thinks that this will push the US into relaxing UN sanctions with the use of fear. While I do feel that negotiation is key in this instance, this is one time we may have to flex some muscle.

[jlewis88]

You spent 6 or 7 paragraphs detailing the well mentioned news of the situation but not giving much of your position regarding as to what to do. What do you think should be done? I simply believe, the North Korean ships should be blown out of the water and I do not consider myself a conservative or anybody close to the right wing on anything. I just think that the guy is, just as his name, is ' ILL'. If he starts firing missile test toward Hawaii, his goose step army should be fried. Are you feeling me?

Lewis

[vim876]

the missile he tried to fire into space to place a satellite crashed into the ocean instead. We must consider that before armchair generals like yourself commit our soldiers to a third conflict.

[mcmchugh99]

I am a social democrat and progressive who lived in South Korea for five years,and regard that country as worth defending. It has made huge political and economic progress over the past 30-40 years, and developed a vibrant democracy. North Korea on the other hand is still the same Stalinist dictatorship that Stalin himself installed there after 1945, and as a member of the democratic left
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.

[bluescat47]

Your points are well taken. However, the South Koreans have no interest in reunification; it would be catastrophic for them economically and politically. They prefer some kind of moderate authoritarian regime in the North with China taking the lead.

[Berettasskeeter]

I don't believe you know the will of the Korean people. There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of S. Koreans with relatives in the North who fervently desire reunification. Having served there, and knowing many, many, people whose families were forced to flee the Socialists, I am fully aware that most want their entire country back.
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

[frontman9000]

In as much as those on the left have been silent for the most part as to how we should deal with NK and its ruthless dictator, we should feel comfortable that we have multilateral support in dealing with this repressive regime. For what it's worth, our actions have in the very least, prevented this suspected ship with dangerous cargo from reaching its destination. While Kim Jong Il ponders his next move, he must surely realize that round one has been won by the U.S. and its coalition of support. I am curious to know why KJI has not spewed any of his rhetoric in the last few days about declarations of war and so forth. Also, there has been no news of any recent missile test that NK had promised.

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.