OnPrincipleBlog

One of the perpetual frustrations in US foreign policy for 2 decades has been our absolute stumbling response to North Korea’s nuclear intentions. Any rational observer must surely admit the Clinton administration’s back-slapping self-congratulations were a bit premature. But that same observer must scratch the head in wide-eyed wonder and the aimless dance of the Bush Administration’s 6 party talks.

An analysis of the history of this problem and a dissection of the last 7 years of our policies toward North Korean would surely take a cumbersome tome to detail. In short, I think it all boils down to 3 key points:

1. It’s not North Korea: A petty dictatorship which can’t feed its own populace and which engages in blatant global narco-trafficking and counterfeiting of US currency is not our stumbling block. When interpreting the daily news out of this region, please don’t fall into the trap of wondering “How does Kim Jong-il do it?” He doesn’t. Any sort of naval blockade and economic sanctions supported by the US and China would quickly cripple this potbellied despite.

2. South Korea: The sad reality is that the US has not had a strong partner in South Korea at the negotiating table. South Korea is separated from its deranged sister by an imaginary line drawn to win a quick peace. While the world could crush North Korea with economic sanctions, South Korea would be left of mop up the mess of fleeing refugees and familial ties which have bridged the Demilitarized Zone for half a century. These concerns have tied the hands of the US in pushing for negotiations which are stronger than South Korea is willing to pursue.

3. China! China!: Many folks don’t understand why China would ever support US policy toward North Korea. Won’t China do anything possible to thwart our interests? Perhaps. But reality on the ground is far more basic than that. North Korea also poses a HUGE destabilizing, boiling pot of potential refugees. While China’s economy is booming, it is extremely unstable and the addition of hundreds of thousands or millions of poverty stricken refugees won’t help its stability. Well, isn’t China concerned about a nuclear armed North Korea? Probably only marginally. North Korea exists largely because of the economic, agricultural and pharmaceutical aid of China. China’s military might outstrips that of North Korea beyond any analogy of David and Goliath. So, in short, no – China is not that concerned about North Korea’s nukes, but it is very concerned about onerous economic sanctions.

Based on the above, how can the US hope for any progress in this year? The answer lies in changing the dynamics of one of these points. In this case, South Korean’s democratic electorate has decided for a change. The new South Korean government, headed by President Lee Myung-bak has strongly stated its intention to align with the US and its willingness to place pressure on North Korea again – changing years of South Korea’s policy of friendship toward North Korea. So, perhaps, this impediment to progress may be adjusting into an additional push for progress.

With this change, the US now has some key momentum to move China. China, in addition to fearing economic instability from a refugee crisis also eagerly desires economic leadership in the Pacific realm. South Korea, not a small player in the new economy, may not be willing to work in unison with the US and Japan to build a network of supports for China and sanctions for North Korea which will move China into a more proactive role of ending North Korea’s ambitions.

Kim Jong-il is China’s lap dog. Present China with a much enlarged dog dish and I think they may be willing to neuter this tramp.

On Principle,

CBass

Unless you travel via Horse and Carriage like our Amish friends or have been floating down the Amazon for the last week, you’ve heard the news that former Vice-President Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Pundits and Analysts across all media forms are dissecting this award along predictable lines:

1. So what, look at past NPP winners
2. What does Global Warming have to do with World Peace?
3. What about nominee, seriously, Rush Limbaugh?
4. What about Al’s above average energy consumption?
5. Despite his foibles, isn’t this a worthy recognition of his exhaustive efforts?
6. Is Al Gore’s science even accurate?

I must confess that while expecting this sort of talk from “insiders”, I was just bracing for yet another mass acceptance of propagandist intentions from liberal leaning, academic elites. Until I saw this headline:

“CNN.com readers sound off on Gore, Nobel Peace Prize“.

Curious, yet instinctively dubious, I clicked through. Note a few key entries - from CNN, not FoxNews:

Roy Woodcock of Rochester, Washington

What a disgraceful choice. Al Gore has promoted bad science and dishonesty, but done nothing to promote peace. I must conclude that his selection is based on pure politics.

(Cbass Comment: Well, in fact, the Peace Prize is selected by Politicians. Unlike the Prizes for many other disciplines, such as Science and Medicine, it tends to be awarded to current leaders based on global perceptions of their current efforts. Other Nobel committees feature discipline specific academics and practitioners who review the PROVEN contribution OVER TIME of a particular idea, discovery or research finding. This Prize, while sometimes given to positive reformers, is intrinsically designed to be a political prize.)

Chris Smith of Bexley, Ohio

Al Gore? Nobel Peace Prize? Wow, that really degrades my image of that prize. Why not give it to Michael Moore while we’re at it? How sad.

(Cbass Comment: Great and original comment! I think the burden falls to the Nobel Committee to show how Al Gore’s work is much more than that of spokesman and polemicist. Perhaps Michael Moore could get the prize for Medicine. Oh wait, that’s right, the prize for medicine goes to someone how has made a lasting impact upon the field.)

Phillip Bernard of La Grange, Illinois

The peace prize should be reserved for furthering peace in our world. The work Mr. Gore has done is conjectured quasi-science. His research does not employ a scientific method, otherwise it would have been considered for the prize for science.

(Cbass Commnet: Another good observation. Why isn’t this the Prize for Science? Probably because it would never pass the first test outlined above. One really does need to show how this is related to Peace, however - and I mean something beyond the cliché, “In 100 years, the world will be so hot and so disrupted in weather that nations will battle for water and the few remaining stable environs”. This sort of predictive award is a bit of reverse of the “wait and see” attitude of the other Prize Committees.)

Matthew Whitley of Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Over the last decades, the Nobel Peace Prize has increasingly become a laughingstock. That Al Gore of all people should be honored this year is another nail in the Nobel Peace Prize’s coffin of legitimacy and relevance. Much like the prize for literature, the peace prize is becoming nothing more than a political bauble awarded to some political insider advocating the cause of the week.

Al Gore has been “working” for climate change for an enormous period of four whole years, coincidentally discovering this new passion right when his political career was slouching to its end. The Nobel Committee actually expects us to believe that, out of all human organizations working for peace and the improvement of the human condition, Al Gore’s paltry four-year media circus of climate change advocacy is the most significant achievement we have to show for ourselves?

How ridiculous. I’m embarrassed for the legacy of the Nobel Prizes, I’m embarrassed for my country, and, if I were Al Gore, I’d be embarrassed to stand in front of the world claiming to be a worthy, legitimate recipient of the peace prize.

(Cbass Comment: Pretty much stands on it’s own.)

Michael Chiu of ??

The Nobel Peace Prize should have gone to the Monks in Myanmar. I guess leading peaceful demonstrations for freedom and democracy and consequently suffering arrests, torture, and death is not enough though.

(Cbass Comment: But they have personal motivations. . .)

Just when I think we’ve all gone crazy - I see some glimmerings of hope in sanity.

On Principle,

CBass