the case seems strong for direct intervention, but it also does for Burma (Myanmar)also Somalia and a number of other rogue and failed states.

In 1994 it could have been - and should have been - Rwanda, but with President Clinton's dithering over the word 'genocide', the default of no action was taken, to the world's eternal shame.

Maybe it's the timing, rather than the reasoning for intervention.
But, as Benjamin Franklin said, "There was never a good war, or a bad peace."

The author's arguments are sound, in principle, however China has the veto over international humanitarian intervention in North Korea and the oligarchy in power in the Middle Kingdom doesn't give a rat's about human rights. Order,stability and a buffer state are more likely the main considerations of the mandarins in Beijing.

The refusal of the west to do something about this odious regime illustrates the hypocrisy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If ever there was a legitimate candidate for "regime change" North Korea is it. Instead our leaders took us into failed and pointless wars for oil.
Either democracy and freedom is what we believe in and we believe in it for all people or we are just hypocrites who can take on the weaklings(saddam, the taliban) but when it comes to anyone who might need some actual sacrifice on our part we are nothing but cowards.

"If your human rights are not for everybody, they are not rights, they are just privileges."

Shrode - I certainly agree: NK is far from the only country whose people need help, but as we can't fix all these rogue/failed countries at once, we need to approach them in some order of priority, in this case the security implications add strongly to the humanitarian ones. Like a doctor or engineer with a failing structure, you work where you can be most effective & gain the most benefit even if major problems loom in other areas. Multiple problems are an incentive for action, not a justification for inaction.

Mac - China certainly doesn't care about the human rights violations in North Korea. But if it thinks the regime is going to fall apart (Kim Jong Un may not hold anything like his fathers control), or that South Korea and Japan will develop nuclear weapons in return, it may change its mind. I'm doubtful, but we should at least discuss it.

I would not be certain what an interventionist theorem would achieve; other than the typical Imperial hubris and the defence or that should be The Aggressor force, for that is what it does now; The whole concept of a National Defence force was exactly that; - Defend Us from Aggression, intervening into another Governments business is no different than someone interfering in our own business whether we think they are right in what they do , or wrong ; It is not our choice to force someone else’s own will upon others.Nor ours onto others.
Nth Korean Government is without its doubts a despotic regime, but it is no more Despotic and probably less corrupt than our very own Despotic democratic regimes. But our Despotism is cloaked in a thin Demagogic veneer of Populist Politics and the purchase of votes by stealing someone else’s wealth ; So in all seriousness rethink about to catastrophic disaster our own despotism has created and apply aid to those who are closest ; and realise it.
Interventionist philosophy is nothing other than a branch of the Feudal lord era of military conquering; But Who foots the bill?

I would not be certain what an interventionist theorem would achieve; other than the typical Imperial hubris and the defence or that should be The Aggressor force, for that is what it does now; The whole concept of a National Defence force was exactly that; - Defend Us from Aggression, intervening into another Governments business is no different than someone interfering in our own business whether we think they are right in what they do , or wrong ; It is not our choice to force someone else’s own will upon others.
Nth Korean Government is without its doubts a despotic regime, but it is no more Despotic and probably less corrupt than our very own Despotic democratic regimes. But our Despotism is cloaked in a thin Demagogic veneer of Populist Politics and the purchase of votes by stealing someone else’s wealth ; So in all seriousness rethink about to catastrophic disaster our own despotism has created and apply aid to those who are closest ; and then realise it.
Interventionist philosophy is nothing other than a branch of the Feudal lord era of military conquering; But Who foots the bill?

I was just a little stunned by this throwaway line.

>>The objections to intervening are many, and present important issues to work through. The terrain in North Korea is rough; they really do have nuclear weapons, their military is far more capable than Iraq's and their artillery on the border casts a dark shadow across the 24 million people living in Seoul.<<

The objections here seem logistical, rather than ethical or moral.

Surely there is more to a policy of invading a country whose actions you dislike than "can we get away with it without too much damage to our own troops"?

An interesting piece Mr Carr. My only difficulty with any sort of military solution apropos bringing a type of democracy or human rights to North Korea, is a mighty big ask.

They (the NK's) are probably one of the best prepared nations in the world, in terms of prosecuting a war with anyone. One of their greatest (recorded) human right's abuses has been to circumvent Aid that was given to feed their hungery, and applying it to further expand and dilate their already immense military potential.

And from all reports, they possess a limited nuclear capability too, and aren't reticent in using it either.

I'm a Vietnam Vet. and we had to contend with both the NVA and VC (whom we operated against in the Long Hai hills) being resupplied from as far away as the Ho Chi Minh trail !

Therefore, I'd hate to think of how we'd ever have any sort of military victory over NK without causing millions of casualties amongst the innocents.

In my humble opinion, North Korea is no Iraq or even Vietnam. If we, the western world and it's allies, do consider starting anything militarily, we better be prepared to go the whole way, and I for one don't want to be here to see it.

Innocent people may get hurt, but not all people there can be apponents of n korea.

Andrew Carr,

If the Chinese assessment of North Korea's future is pessimistic they might,just might, agree to an 'intervention' however it would be on their terms and not for humantitarian reasons.
Who knows what degree of influence, or even control, Beijing has over North Korea. My money is on North Korea as a puppet of Beijing and not the 'rogue state' it's represented as in the West.
The Chinese allowed Pyongyang to develop nuclear weapons,compelling evidence, in my opinion,of Chinese complicity in North Korea's 'foreign policy'. Of course no Western politician will state the obvious, for 'diplomatic reasons'.

I'm going to guess that Andrew your of military age. If so why don't you join up and take the fight to the bad guys. Or is it other who die for your beliefs not you?
Just what we need another person willing to order other people to kill and be killed?
If you haven't learnt anything from the past 500 years, then you should at least grasp that these situations can only be resolved by the Korean's themselves. If the everyone else keep out of it and not give the dictator oxygen.

Leave it to the Koreans to sort out. Do you think this bloke would stop at one.
This regime is clearly a nut case.
Dangerous to the world and dangerous to them self.
Anyone that joins the army knows what they are there for, thats the nature of the job. You can't pack an army in cotton wool.
China would probably like to see them sort it out them self.
That is equally dangerous.
The korean war has not finished yet, they were just seeing if they could live together, although separated.
This separation is too much for the north to handle.

How wrong can an old guy be. When I read, "A case for humanitarian intervention", I thought how nice: somebody is suggesting that we flood North Korea with humane gifts of food and stuff with the idea of making them feel less bitter about their lot and thus more likely to be friendly. The idea of equating "humane" with bombing the bejusus out of them never occurred.

Israel has 200 illegal nukes.Perhaps we should do a pre-emptive strike on it also.What a lot of war mongering nonsense.The invasion of Iraq was a lie just like Vietnam,and now Afghanistan.

The neo-cons in the USA/Israel are looking for an excuse for war.Attack North Korea and you'll have to contend with China and Russia.The truth is that the elite facists in the West are more afraid of their own people,so they will seek war as an escape from the evil which they have perpetrated.The nutters and psychopathic aggressors are in control of the most powerful war machine on the planet.

So choose,freedom or oppression and possible nuke anniliation.

Cheers to all for their comments.

GlenC - We tried that, and all the resources ended up in the regimes hands & strengthening their military. As Bill Clinton once quipped, nuclear weapons are North Korea's only export industry, such is the aid they have gained on unfilled promises of disarmament and improved human rights treatment.

History should inform us, but it is not our destiny. The pessimism on the left today, with often lose & exaggerated historical references (Arjay - Afghanistan was a lie?) has fundamentally limited our willingness to act to help others around the world. The left is no longer willing to bear any burden or pay any price for human rights and peace. As such it is sometimes unrecognisable to the values I grew up believing, and the great individuals who advocated them.

I'd like that to change, but it has to begin by discussing what we can actively do to bring change, not simply refighting the tired efforts of laying blame over past wars. We will not save anyone by that path, by taking a new, positive, outward looking approach, maybe we can.

Arjay,

Your analysis is interesting: do you have any proof for any of your statements about US involvement in an invasion of North Korea ? You are serious about them wanting to get involved in yet another war, aren't you ?

What joy it must be to live in proof-free Conspiracy World !

On the other hand, I'm surprised that the North Koreans haven't claimed that their artillery/rocket attacks were 'anticipatory retaliation' and at the same time accused the South of 'retrospective provocation'.

And really, would it cause China much angst if there was another full-scale war, which took out South Korea's economic prosperity ?

Joe

Re bombing the NKs with food and stuff: yes, if it has to be got in via the regime, it might not work. Is it beyond our wit to find a way of getting it directly to the people?

I defy any of you to disprove the science of freefall which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that all 3 towers of WTC were a controlled demolition. http://ae911truth.org/ In fact member of our group has offered $ 100,000 reward for anyone who disprove the physics and the chemistry.No takers?

Not even Hudiney could pull off a stunt like that.

If we do nothing, hundreds of thousands of North Koreans will suffer and die.
If we intervene, hundreds of thousands of North Koreans will suffer and die, as well as tens of thousands of South Koreans, and Americans, and Australians, and Chinese, and...
My compliments to Shrode for the Ben Franklin quote:
"There was never a good war, or a bad peace."

Both WW1 and WW2 were created by bankers and the industrial military complex which JFK referred to,for profit and power.Nothing has changed.In fact it is worse now with global corporate elites controlling our Govts,minerals,energy and resources.

So choose,freedom or facism.

Arjay,

Once and for all, it was not JFK who referred to the military-industrial complex, but Eisenhower in 1961, in his final speech as President, section IV, at

http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Joe

Joe is was both Dwight Eisenhower and JFK who warned of the military industrial complex. JFK "Our way of life is under attack by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence........" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKJUIuy7cwU So we have two past Presidents who have warned us.JFK was in the process of breaking control of the Federal Res by printing his own money which the constitution allows.We all now know it wasn't just Oswald.There were many involved in his death.

Now this cabal of Oligarchs control the most powerful military machine on the planet and look like taking us to war under the false pretext of Muslim terrorism.

Arjay,

No, JFK did not refer to the military-industrial complex, but to communism, and perhaps to the Mafia as well, hard to say.

" ... the false pretext of Muslim terrorism ... " ? It's real enough, Arjay, you just have to get your head out long enough to look around.

Joe

Loudmouth we have the absolute scientific proof that cave dwellers in Afghanistan could not possibly do 911.

Much of the Muslim terrorism exists because of Western Imperialism.The Industrial Military Complex want to control the world's energy and resources,so they demonise socially backward Muslim countries with oil, in order to conquer them.

Why does not the West want to save Zimbabwe,Burma and a miriad of poor countries that are oppressed? That's it! They forgot to find the oil that makes them terrorists.

Arjay - "Why does not the West want to save Zimbabwe,Burma and a miriad of poor countries that are oppressed?"

So would you then support action to 'save' these countries? Or will you invariably find reasons why each and every country is just an distraction from other countries or excuse for some criminality.

This was one of my main reasons for writing the piece. During the Iraq war many of us rightly complained that there were better targets that should have been addressed. But to prove it wasn't simply an excuse to oppose for personal or partisan reasons, we on the left need to now follow through and say which and how we should deal with those countries regimes.

Arjay,

" ... cave dwellers in Afghanistan could not possibly do 911 ... "

Who on earth says this is so ? Al Qa'ida and all of the other Khalifa/Khilafa-related groups, i.e. reactionary Islamists, i.e. those who 'logically' believe that Islam must be imposed on the entire world, by force and terror if necessary, on you and me and everyone else, in order for the Koran to become real for all of us, come from all sorts of walks of life.

Please don't be so idiotically simplistic about the multititude of atrocities that have been committed in the cause of a Caliphate over the last fifteen or more years. Why assume that they are all cave-dwellers ?

And in what conceivable universe is al-Qa'ida, in any sense, progressive, radical, left-wing ?

And what has this to do with North Korea ? As a Leftist since birth (hence the name), I'm appalled with how often 'socialism' has degenerated into fascism, and the so-called DPRK, North Korea is a ghastly example of this, regardless of the US, capitalism or the military-industrial complex: its faults are sui generis, internally generated, if you like, innate. And, I suspect, innate to the entire socialist project-in-action. Think Katyn, the laogai, Cambodia.

No amount of ducking and diving, and conspiracy theory, can confuse that fact.

So yes, as you noted earlier, do we defend human rights and freedom, or fascism ?

Joe

Still in your own fantasy world I notice, Arjay.

>>I defy any of you to disprove the science of freefall... In fact member of our group has offered $ 100,000 reward for anyone who disprove the physics and the chemistry.No takers?<<

We've been through this before. There is no defined challenge, and no "reward". It is all a figment of your hyper-active imagination.

And your JFK sound-bite is classic Arjay-confusion.

Here's the speech in full.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm

He was talking about Communism, Arjay. The Cold War. As was everybody back then.

>>we have the absolute scientific proof that cave dwellers in Afghanistan could not possibly do 911<<

Apart from the absolute arrogance - and ignorance - contained in the "cave-dweller" description, the incontrovertible fact remains that you have no proof whatsoever that contradicts the commission's findings.

Let alone "absolute" or even "scientific" proof.

One day you will wake up to the fact that you have wasted an entire portion of your life on this rubbish, when you could have been out there doing something constructive for yourself.

I see warm and close friends are engaging in light hearted banter! With such camaraderie NK should be a simple issue to resolve. Do the above comments, or rather their divisiveness, point to why we won’t resolve NK (as though it had to be fixed)?

Who is my neighbour that I should care for them?
By what authority do I judge others and carry out sentence?

As Ganhi put it “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?”

NK requires connection to the world to survive, even if only to the extent the oligarchs of NK import food for themselves. The probability of countries acting in unison by cutting NK off totally is minimal; each acts to their own interests and to their own agenda.

In judging NK are we dealing with an extreme of behaviour that is common across the globe?

I am not sure what the Apes have done to invoke such a harsh criticism Arjay; Primates act out of instinct where our Telebandits operate out of the notion of Fatalist Despotism.

I do not think you will convince me or others of the theory that the state was responsible Directly in 9/11; for the primary reason is that to associate the cognition and ability to Organise and execute is well in excess of the State – Government or any of its Minions to do so; They for the obvious reason that had transpired after the event proved that it was in fact Dysfunctional. Oligarchic and Higher law in structure; to associate Engineering fetes of the kind alleged is well in excess of the Conspiracy charges. The only conspiracy they can execute flawlessly is to Rob everyone.
To charge them with the abillity to acheive any thought by Government is Oxymoronic.

I suspect that J F K met his match when he initially intended to cut military spending and weapons Acquisitions – Who dares interfere in the Iron law of Oligarchs will pay the consequence and fatally .

Communism was never the direct threat to anyone other than it is only a stem of the main threat- And anything that has an association with Collectivism, wether it is Socialism – Communism – Fascism- even egalitarianism- Democracies ; has its direct intention to own you and confiscate your mind and property.

For that is the conspiracy and nothing else. State Elites at war with other state Elites – what the hell does it have to do with you and me , other than to surrender our worth to a pile of despotic morons funding their Imperial motives and or their selfish egos and attitudes.
So they hate each others guts ; Send them to some Anger management classes. heheehheh.

Andrew, as many have said above in one way or another: It is for the (South) Koreans to decide - have you asked them? They know what it's like to live in a warzone. South Korea has rebuilt itself and then some. They have the choice of containing the North or going to all-out-war which would equal destruction and death. Or do you think that by invading the North with the might of American-backed muscle the South would get off scratch-free?

Like you said we gave North Korea aid, they (unsurprisingly) rorted the system. They attack South Korea and South Korea protests, halts cross-border family reunions etc. but stops short of full retaliation, even though the US would back them in a second, as China is the unknown factor in all of this. The North, with its nuclear warheads has the perfect deterrent.

If we try to find a way to give aid directly to the people then the regime has one thing less to worry about (if it even worried about it in the first place).

China protects the North in the UN, the US protects Israel (granted not directly related, but trying to make a point)...has the Cold War finished or has it just entered a strange and new phase with new players after a brief holiday?

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/