There's actually some substance behind this species of complaint. Does Kerry actually think the US "leads by example" -- namely that if we stop developing bunker busters, Iran and NoKo will *not* want nuclear weapons? That's batty. They want the nukes weapons because it's in their interest to have them, full stop. I am seeing here the shadow of a foreign policy proceduralism that is *not* realist, and almost defines the failure of liberal (and I mean that descriptively, not as a synonym for "left") thinking about foreign policy. That's why people worry abotu a 'global test,' as well, it smacks of a goof-ball IR proceduralism.
Last question. Could someone explain to me why bilateral talks with NoKo are a great idea? I understand that for rhetorical purposes all tactics of the Bush administration must be misguided (he's sending humanitarian aid, not logistical aid!), but why exactly do we want talks without China at the table. Isn't that just dumb?
baa, as regards your first question, I think the point may be that the US has enough nuclear weapons. We're not short on them or anything. So, why more? I don't like the suckers. And while not developing more nukes surely isn't going to lead by example in places like Iran, it may be leading by example in other places. Conversely, I would think our continued development encourages all other countries to try and keep up.
re your zinger: I understand humanitaian aid to be dropping food over there, and logistical aid to be making sure the food gets to the people. Also, this was one of my favorite parts of the "debate", because Bush misunderstood Kerry's answer.
last point, I don't keep up with NoKo as well as I should have, but it has seemed to me from the beginning that KimJongIl has been wanting to barter from the beginning. His country's in bad shape, and "crazy" or not, I still think the nukes began as leveraging tool for the bargaining table. If it can still be done, give him what he wants in exchange for the nukes. We'll have disarmed a nuclear power, looked compassionate, the people of N. Korea will have more food, and the people of countries nearby will stop sweating. But I don't trust China to represent our interests.
You so crazy. Kerry was making the lead by example point on bunker busters. And who, exactyl, are we leading by example? Iran? Paksitan? India? NoKo? Israel? Malaysia? This is daft. Of course, he may *also* be harking back to his nuclear freeze days, to which I say "good luck with that."
On NoKo -- both Bush and Kerry want to barter, the issue is how. Bush says, don't make this a US vs. NoKo issue, its the concern of lots of other states as well. It's multilateralism! And of course China doesn't represent our interests, but they do have a shared interest in stoppnig NoKo from deteriorating (sendnig refugees over their borders) and in having asia tunred into a nuclear armed camp (NoKo, then SoKo, then dare we say ... Taiwan). Bush wants China at the table, backing the US up and bearing the costs. This is precisely the complaint lodged vs. GWB on Iraq. So what's the deal? [again, other than the Bush must always be wrong principle]
Could someone explain to me why bilateral talks with NoKo are a great idea?
Given that every one of the other nations involved in the multilateral talks would like for us to open bilateral talks, I think you have plenty of people to whom you could pose the question. Let's go from the other end, though: what has been achieved so far by dint of having China at the table?
There's actually some substance behind this species of complaint. Does Kerry actually think the US "leads by example" -- namely that if we stop developing bunker busters, Iran and NoKo will *not* want nuclear weapons? That's batty. They want the nukes weapons because it's in their interest to have them, full stop. I am seeing here the shadow of a foreign policy proceduralism that is *not* realist, and almost defines the failure of liberal (and I mean that descriptively, not as a synonym for "left") thinking about foreign policy. That's why people worry abotu a 'global test,' as well, it smacks of a goof-ball IR proceduralism.
Last question. Could someone explain to me why bilateral talks with NoKo are a great idea? I understand that for rhetorical purposes all tactics of the Bush administration must be misguided (he's sending humanitarian aid, not logistical aid!), but why exactly do we want talks without China at the table. Isn't that just dumb?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 10- 1-04 6:05 AM
baa, as regards your first question, I think the point may be that the US has enough nuclear weapons. We're not short on them or anything. So, why more? I don't like the suckers. And while not developing more nukes surely isn't going to lead by example in places like Iran, it may be leading by example in other places. Conversely, I would think our continued development encourages all other countries to try and keep up.
re your zinger: I understand humanitaian aid to be dropping food over there, and logistical aid to be making sure the food gets to the people. Also, this was one of my favorite parts of the "debate", because Bush misunderstood Kerry's answer.
last point, I don't keep up with NoKo as well as I should have, but it has seemed to me from the beginning that KimJongIl has been wanting to barter from the beginning. His country's in bad shape, and "crazy" or not, I still think the nukes began as leveraging tool for the bargaining table. If it can still be done, give him what he wants in exchange for the nukes. We'll have disarmed a nuclear power, looked compassionate, the people of N. Korea will have more food, and the people of countries nearby will stop sweating. But I don't trust China to represent our interests.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10- 1-04 9:53 AM
You so crazy. Kerry was making the lead by example point on bunker busters. And who, exactyl, are we leading by example? Iran? Paksitan? India? NoKo? Israel? Malaysia? This is daft. Of course, he may *also* be harking back to his nuclear freeze days, to which I say "good luck with that."
On NoKo -- both Bush and Kerry want to barter, the issue is how. Bush says, don't make this a US vs. NoKo issue, its the concern of lots of other states as well. It's multilateralism! And of course China doesn't represent our interests, but they do have a shared interest in stoppnig NoKo from deteriorating (sendnig refugees over their borders) and in having asia tunred into a nuclear armed camp (NoKo, then SoKo, then dare we say ... Taiwan). Bush wants China at the table, backing the US up and bearing the costs. This is precisely the complaint lodged vs. GWB on Iraq. So what's the deal? [again, other than the Bush must always be wrong principle]
On Sudan, I stand by my zinger.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 10- 1-04 1:25 PM
Could someone explain to me why bilateral talks with NoKo are a great idea?
Given that every one of the other nations involved in the multilateral talks would like for us to open bilateral talks, I think you have plenty of people to whom you could pose the question. Let's go from the other end, though: what has been achieved so far by dint of having China at the table?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 1-04 1:39 PM
I understand why the other nations want us to pick up the tab and stand in NoKo's cross-hairs as enemy #1. Why we want to do this is the question.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 10- 1-04 1:51 PM