I think you're very fatalist BillA. Personally i think you need to lighten up a little bit
.
Back to North Korea.
Two widely held views blame a) either the United States and the Bush administration's "hard-line" policy towards North Korea, or b) the North Koreans, who, according to proponents of this view, failed to honor most of their commitments.
I go with both. But thats no surprize . Inicially there was a good effort with the Sunshine Policy between both South and North Korea. It was working rather well until recently when the Bush Administration called it off, and labeled the North Korea as part of the "Axis of Evil". That was a direct insult to the N.Koreans, and didnt help one bit. Those type of subjects need to be dealth with with a more sensitive diplomacy.
It's like calling "bloody muderers" to every company that manufactures guns. And enter the cliche frase " guns dont kill people, people kill people".
The North Koreans arent helping either by not complying with a number of requests from the UN , and being a country that has a mass industry of balistic missiles and selling them to whoever has the money. But they do need the money, they are in an economical mess. Its a dilema for them also. Having a neighbour with a very strick line of diplomacy doesnt help either, creates an instability between both, leading to a security paranoia.
However, the north koreans, feeling they were next in line due to the fact they "sell missiles to whoever pays", boosted the nuclear program. Its not about using it. Its about reaching an agreement, and a degree of respect for their soberany. They basically want to be paied off. I bet if the UN (countrys, support) develops an AID package , new trade and economical agreements, the problem literaly goes away. With some luck, they'll even let inspectors access the nuclear programs.
If not, a good deal of political and economical pressure can go along way. It has worked in the past. Using the UN , it ca go to the point of imposing sanctions/embargos until a change of "heart" can occur towards the inspectors. It requires, however, the support of the most influential countrys in the UN, and for that , an agreement is needed. But that's something we'll find out soon enough.
Unless.. the US/Uk declares war on them.
But there's another topic to be discussed here. South Korea. They're not a choir boy. There's been a good deal of internal skirmishes , specially with the Sunshine Policy. I'll take a few quotes :
- The government's minority status. President Kim used his sunshine policy to improve both his personal political position and his minority party's electoral prospects. This approach riled his political opposition and politicized what had generally been considered a non-partisan issue.
- The role of reciprocity. Support for government policies in any democratic society hinges on a public view that such policies are effective in advancing important national interests. Absent clear manifestations of North Korean reciprocity, the "payback" for South Korea's largesse became increasingly hard to demonstrate.
- The approach to domestic critics. The President's confidence and conviction kept his policies focused and solidified his support among the left but also alienated many more in the middle of the political spectrum and narrowed the potential base for political consensus.
- The war with the press. The Administration's attack on the media under the rubric of "reforming" the press stimulated a de facto allegiance between the press and opposition parties to prevent the government from achieving its objectives.
- Lack of trust and willingness to compromise. South Korea's short experience with democratization has allowed little time for alternative approaches to the political rigidity and "winner take all" attitudes that have traditionally bedeviled Korean politics. Also, the government attempted to exploit internal discord in the opposition parties, which intensified distrust and weakened the opposition parties' willingness to compromise.
This last is very important to fully understant the local politics. Doubles for North Korea. To make a point on the political and economical landmines scattered through out the entire subject. Its not a simples "good / bad " approach. The reunification of both Koreans it nowhere to be seen , and their relationships dropped to a new low recently due to the comments made by the Bush Administration, combined with the personal gains from the South Korea , the pointing of fingers.
Bottom line, there are a number of paths that can be followed, and most not directly connected to a declaration of war. But even then , a misplaced word (hint) can be all it takes to screw it up.
....