North Korea is a soverign state, and should have the right of self defence, given that George.W.Bush has refered to it as being in an axis of evil, and seeing what was done to Iraq on the premise od Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. Hypocritical to say the least from a country which posseses 5000 nuclear weapons of it's own. Add to that the many other countries with nuclear weapons, the U.S.A. should mind it's own business for a change the globle would be better off. Just because North Korea has a different system of government that the U.S.A. doesn't like, should not give it the right to poke its nose in when it's not wanted.

For a born again Christian Bush certainly didn't learn "thou shalt not kill"

There seems to be an assumption, both from Joseph Camilleri and SHONGA, that North Korea has developed its nuclear weapons solely as a deterrent against the US. Its as if North Korea's closest neighbors (China, Russia, South Korea and Japan) do not count.

In our English speaking centric world we seem to assume that just because less news is coming out from Russia and China - a function of the small amount of Chinese and Russian speaking Western journalists - alternatives to a North Korean/US bilateral standoff reason don't exist.

North Korea in the long term, may be developing its weapons to deter invasion from its most powerful land neighbors, Russia and China. Land invasion from those countries rather than air strikes (probably the only serious option for the US) may be a major factor behind North Korea's buildup, yet this issue goes unexplored.

North Korea has a history of being dominated by Japan, China and Russia, not by the US.

Its so easy for commentators to spin the North Korean issue into America's court but it misses so much about North Korea's long memory of domination by its neighbors. Nuclear weapons are the best way to deter future land invasions by North Korea's neighbors.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

To recommend "slow progress" in dangerous times, is an act of the politically doltish.

Force is not always brutal, and it can be creative if one knows when and how to use it.

Con George
http://www.con.observationdeck.org

I think Camilleri is right.
The West, read USA, promised light water reactors for Korea’s energy needs in place of the Russian provided plutonium ones., oil during the change over, diplomatic recognition and end to the war. Carter and Clinton and South Korea helped, G Bush stopped any progress, already in trouble, with the label evil empire and resorted to attempting Korean self implosion. Failing that, right is might was, as is currently the approach to international problems, to operate.

The media of course ignored the context and ran with the big bad wolf story.
Helpful!
Warm inner glow as hairy cheats exposed!

We saw and see similar in the Lebanon/Israel and Israel/Palestinian problems, indeed detailed analysis suggests we combine in righteous might, probable illegal, under international law.

A dog behaves better if coaxed and to a degree allowed its head with set limits. Beating or spoiling have not dissimilar results to the ones observed in human’s. Vicious behaviour or cowardice on the one hand or cooperation on the other.

The West has been and is hypocritical in its stand on non proliferation.

untutored mind,
You have much wisdom, if the others could see past their predudices, they may also be able to see the situation clearly. That fact is that Bush named them in the axis of evil speech, along with Iraq. North Korea can see what happened to Iraq, invasion under false pretences, so it has armed itself for self defence. If anything the west, se U.S.A. is the aggressor, let them mind their own business instead of everyone else's.

Bush's foreign policy has undoubtedly contributed to the current crisis- it's not so much that he was wrong to agressively condemn the regime, but more the fact that by getting bogged down in Iraq he has lost the ability to coax through threat of force. It is no coincidence that both North Korea and Iran have suddenly trumpetted their nuclear progress while the US and UK are committed in Iraq. However comparing Bush to Kim Jong Il (no matter how fashionable) is an afront to the plight of North Koreans primarily.

The American bashing is old and causes thinkers to lose sight of the bigger picture. What about the roles of France, Russia and China? Does anybody seriously think that they dont share responsibility for the problem? Russia for example has supplied nuclear cores to Iran, and France sold Iraq its nuclear technology. China has no interest in regime change brought about by internal or external factors because a flood of starving refugees will be terrible for the economy and even worse for the upcoming olympics. So why is the US the only state demonised?

The sad fact is that the UN consistently fails to act. The North Korean crisis has proven two things; (a) it wouldnt have mattered if Sadam had WMD's as Chapter 7 deterrents can't even be invoked by blowing up an atom bomb; (b) Millions more will die in Darfur because if the world can accept a nuclear North Korea then its not going to care about a repeat of Rwanda (which the UN said would never happen). I'm not a war monger, and with relatives in the military the prospect of military confrontation is especially close to home, but what price is the UN prepared to pay for peace?

The fighting in the Korean war finished 50 years ago but a peace treaty was never signed. Technically the US is still at war with North Korea. No wonder they are so paranoid about security.

But let's look at where to go from here. We want to be safe from nuclear attack (by NK or others), they want security. Surely there is scope for a deal here.

Military is not an option. Our army is preoccupied in the middle east and even the Chinese are not keen to go in. What's more NK could flatten Seoul with conventional artillery.

Sanctions aren't really an option either. They don't have money to buy anything. Even a ban on military hardware won't do much as no one is keen to attack.

The mere fact that NK is the hermit kingdom means that we don't have any power over them. In fact it would be much better to trade with them as we then have the threat of removing trade. The biggest danger of further sanctions is that they won't have any money and must be more tempted to sell nukes to terrorists.

Now imagine if we went the other way. We sign a peace treaty guanteeing their borders. Then we make a bombs-for-aid deal where nuclear inspectors come in to audit the nuclear materials and we provide economic aid. Part of the aid could be a sattelite dish in every living room or even a PC and internet connection. While this may sound expensive, it would probably cost about the same as a few days war in Iraq. With South Korean soapies in every living room , free travel for North Koreans the regime couldn't hold out, it would collapse within a few years.

Such a deal is not without precedent. In the 60's we promised not to invade Cuba (and to to place nukes in Turkey) if the russians pulled their weapons out of Cuba. That deal was kept. Sadly we also imposed sanctions on Cuba with the result that Castro is still in power, decades after the collapse of communism.

Well, it is good to see all the usual "it is all America's fault" crowd out again. Slow progress, can someone explain to me how North Korea exploding a nuclear device is slow progress! I do wish the left would also rediscover some concern for human rights. Hundreds of thousands of North Koreans have died of starvation while Kim and his cronies indulge their taste for caviar; ex North Koreans tell horrifying stories about torture of dissidents and yet the left does not care. Look at Shonga, not one mention of how North Koreans are treated by the leadership - extraordinary!

The "change from the inside argument" is a common one of the soft left. It is also the argument that was made about Saddam for 25 years, China for the past 50, Burma for the past 20 and every other dictator you can imagine! The only time outside pressure has really ever worked was Reagan and the Soviet Union and the left does not dare mention that because it does not fit into their creed of "blame America for everything." They were also all against Reagan's successful policy.

I once had respect for a lot of people on the left and their concern for human rights. Unfortunately now, anti-Americanism comes before human rights for the left. It is time for the left to put human rights ahead of their hatred of America.

Matt,

While I am no fan of Bush, I don't consider myself as anti American. I spend many years in the US and know it (reasonably) well.

Softpower does work. We have seen many democratic revolutions in eastern Europe. The last time east europe was democratic was in 1919, it fell back into dictatorship within a decade. Since 1989 eastern Europe has been and is still democratic and is becoming more democratic. The carrot of the EU is very powerful. Even Turkey is making massive constitutional changes in the hope of joining the EU.

North and South Korea are both inhabited by Koreans and the prospect of joining South Korea must be a tempting carrot for North Koreans.

It may not be the right tool for the job in all situations. But I think it can work in NK.

Even in China I think we have made in-roads. Many communist civics such as the prohibition on private ownership have been abandoned. According to the free trade agreement China has a market economy. While it is by no means a liberal democracy it has come a long way since the cultural revolution.

How would you solve the Korean crisis?

I will acknowledge that the news tells us that Kim has not managed his economy to the benifit of his people and that he has dealt savagely with them. I will even add narco state, counterfieter, dealer in nuclear technology if you will acknowledge Guatamala, Grenada, since you mention Regan, Chile, and others, failure to act in the spirit of NPF prefering special treatment to allow the joy of America to be given to all, passing of nuclear know how to India, ignoring Israel etc.
So where does that get us except to say few are interested in international law. Perhpas working to have INT law and Order and how might be a moreproductive effort that the sterile he said Mummy I said it first>

I agree very much with Matt. It has become so fashionable to 'American Bash' that many are losing an ability to objectively look at the issues- its akin to saying all cancer is caused by cigarettes and being so obsessed with the one cause that all the others are left unchecked.

Nobody in their right mind wants a military confrontation with North Korea but the option should not be taken off the table. Successful military action would not be an impossibility! Firstly significant portions of the DPRK Military are very unsatisfied with the regime and three attempted coups in the past decade have only just been thwarted in the eleventh hour. Secondly the DPRK is already short of oil and has barely enough for the winter let alone to mobilise its massive army. Thirdly Seoul is only in range of medium to heavy artillery which is very vulnerable to sophistcated air and naval attack, an art which NATO has perfected. Finally the people of the DPRK have a healthy respect for China and a deep seated emotional attachment to South Korea. After decades of abuse, it is likely that most North Koreans would welcome Chinese and Korean ground troops from the north and south respectively.

Such an attack would defeat the regime, stop the famine and stop the DPRK scientists from further development of efficient nuclear weapons. However, despite being more than feasible, the above scenario is extremely unlikely to ever come to fruition. As I said in my previous post, the world has no stomach for moral military action. The left has facilitated the disengagement by Europe from policing famine and brutality by blaming the US for everything. If firing missiles over a country's capital city and then six months later setting off an atom bomb is not enough to galvanise the UN, what will be? I again ask, what is the price we are prepared to pay for peace?

Anyone who comes here and defends North Korea needs serious medication.

You are defending a corrupt power elite who do not suffer the challenge of democratic or free elections and pursue a policy of deliberate starvation of its own population as a political tool.

USA will not make a difference to NK policy nor will Australia, Russia, South Korea or Japan.

The country which will decide to remove the current bunch of butchers from their despotic reign will be China.

Starting with sealing the land border will be a wake up call for the lunatics and their destructive course. This, linked with the air ans sea blockade will faciliate a speedier end.

NK does not have the political or military clout to prevent a Chinese decision to stop NK continuing on its wayward path.

I think the point at which China will decide that “enough is enough” is close.

I would even be willing to put a bet on it.

And when China does decide, the end result for those in power now will be that same as that which befell Caucescau & Co of Romania.