Posted by
JDComments on Friday, December 15, 2006 2:14:29 PM
As opposed to the ISG report which is idealism and fantasy falsely packaged as Realist because of the reputation of its leaders,
this article by Doug Bandow detailing a non -military strategy for responding to North Korea's nuclear threat shows what "realism" in foreign affairs actually should look like.
Bandow's idea is not new, but rather an elaboration of the "tit for tat" approach which others have bandied about but I have never heard fleshed out as well as here. Simply put, we have to get the Chinese to deal with North Korea for only they have the leverage to do so without firing a shot. To do this we have to align the Chinese interests with ours, which means giving them a vested interest in seeing that North Korea not go nuclear which is stronger than their fear of collapse of that country's regime which will flood their country with a tidal wave of immigrants. It is the belief that , like many extremely weak authoritarian governments, if Korea cannot constantly increase its military capabilities it has a good chance of falling as it's people lose faith in the only thing it seems to do well.
To accomplish this redirecting of the Chinese interests, Bandow goes farther than most, and suggests the US pull back it's nuclear umbrella while giving a tacit green light to the development of nuclear weapons by not only the Japanese, but also the South Koreans and Taiwanese. This should give the Chinese the same warm fuzzy feeling that North Korea is causing us, and hopefully the game of chicken would end with the North Koreans being put in their place by their Beijing masters.
Bandow also points out how so far the administration has taken the exact opposite tack and overtly reconfirmed our protection of our Asian Allies, a noble but morally and diplomatically wrong gesture which is placing us in a worse position than ever to play hardball with the North and Chinese and thus increases the probability of Kim Jong Il brandishing the Bomb. It's so stupid it almost sounds like it was designed by the ISG.
And that gets me back to my main point. Contrast this tough assessment of how to change the dynamics of Asia through the only thing that matters to most countries, their national self interests, to the useless guidelines recommended for pacifying the Middle East, among which is ending the Israel- Palestine Conflict [it's only been going on for 60 years!] and negotiating with the Iranians and Syrians based on their
perceived interests in the region which includes reducing the chaos and violence in Iraq. This pie in the sky , Hail Mary attempt at diplomacy overlooks that Syria and Iran are a major
cause of said turmoil, and assuming they want to stop it is almost incomprehensible.
Let's not even bring up the implicit timetable for troop withdrawal, which they then denounce as dangerous for the region. This report is thus not even consistent within its own absurdist Universe, but this is to be expected from a "bipartisan", essentially political effort to wage a war.
If we are going to go the "realist route" as opposed to the "idealism" of fostering democracy , then we better get people who understand conditions on the ground as well as human nature, things the ISG seem to be totally oblivious to, and who are willing to play "tough" and not subscribe to the "feel good" diplomacy which wishes and hopes a lot while seeking to alienate no one, but has no chance of succeeding. Maybe Mr. Bandow should have headed the ISG. Or better yet, maybe he should have been the only member.