In the proliferation of punditry that has accompanied the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, much has been said about the prospects for a chaotic transition, and even about the need to prepare for military action in case his son, Kim Jong Un, engages in saber-rattling (or worse) to "prove" himself to Pyongyang's military leadership.
It's too early to tell how smooth North Korea's change in leadership will be, but if past history is any guide, U.S. policy would be best served by preparing for a new round of diplomacy, not a new round of hostilities. Prior to his death, Kim Jong Il had offered to stop uranium enrichment in exchange for food aid, and to observe a moratorium on nuclear and missile tests during renewed talks on its nuclear program. As Leon V. Sigal has noted in a piece for the National Interest, "The prudent course would be to resume negotiations soon and test whether Kim Jong-un is ready to follow his father's lead and suspend his nuclear and missile programs."
This isn't the first time the United States has faced this predicament. When Kim Jong Il's father Kim Il Sung died in 1994, he and the U.S. were in the midst of negotiating the 1994 Agreed Framework. Negotiationsresumed within a month of Kim Il Sung's death, and the resulting deal delayed North Korea's nuclear weapons and missile programs for years until the Bush administration cut off negotiations early in its first term. The abandonment of the talks was driven by neo-conservatives in Bush's inner circle, in opposition to Secretary of State Colin Powell's argument that they should be continued. The result of this alleged "get tough" policy was an acceleration of Pyongyang's nuclear efforts that led to its production of eight bombs worth of nuclear materials. As Graham Allison of Harvard noted in an interview with the New York Times, "When the history of this era is written, the scorecard will be Kim 8, Bush 0."
Picking up where nuclear talks left off may be the best way to promote stability on the Korean peninsula in this time of transition. There is no guarantee that it will work, but it is by far the best option available.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! No more wars to make Cheyney and his cronies filthy rich!!! We can't free everybody and fight their wars for them, hell we've got people starving here at home.
http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/korea/u-s-army-in-south-korea-begins-transformation-of-forces-1.115890
I see citizens of the south, are sending bundles of pamphlets attached to balloons to their northern counterparts. Wouldn’t a few sweets or a piece of chocolate be a more comradely gesture?
"Prior to his death, Kim Jong Il had offered to stop uranium enrichment in exchange for food aid"
If any nation operates a system under which its people starve. Is such an ideology worth fighting to the death for?
"When the history of this era is written, the scorecard will be Kim 8, Bush 0."
And that doesn’t even take into account, all the unproductive effort expended in bunkers.
The best way to deal with that kind of uncertainty is to be prepared for anything. I think the most likely scenario to play out involves Kim being marginalized within the government, at least temporarily, until he can assert himself. That might involve saber-rattling, but it won't be anything more serious than Yeonpyang Island. We need to anticipate that and still be prepared to parlay with them.
there is always a war to fight when you have a war machine like america's. must use it or lose it.
it is amazing to think that with 720 military bases around the world and 40% of their federal budget going for their war machine and americans dont consider themselves imperialists. Ike knew better but they paid him no mind.
Stability meaning, a nation state that is under the direct influence and control of the US. That is the diplomatic meaning within the US foreign policy circles.
Given the objectives of US foreign policy in the pacific, (America's Pacific Century by Hillary Clinton. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/americas_pacific_century I suspect that North Korea has become a much more complicated project.
Their should be no serious debate about the use of diplomacy as the only other choices are do nothing or war.
A good place to start would be to formally end the Korean war, something that is long overdue and a persistent point made by the North over the years. That would take a profound attitude and ideological change in the US, but, if the parties are serious about resolving issues, why not start there?
They still parade visitors through a US naval ship captured by their great navy in 1968 as proof of their superiority - while many of their nation don't have food, running water or electricity.
It will take time to create an open society and while the dictatorial regime is in power it will be impossible.
Fear and false power still has a firm grip.