What To Do With North Korea?

First North Korea tested a nuclear explosion thought to be 20 times more powerful than their one in 2006 and now, in the same week, they conduct a test of two short-range missiles. Now it would be difficult at best for anyone other than the North Koreans to decipher a strategic direction to these recent actions. Unlike past instances, North Korea went ahead with their plans without announcing them far in advance which typically led to a good amount of hard diplomatic talk usually stemming from South Korea, backed by the United States. The long lead up to tests by North Korea usually allowed them to negotiate some sort of compensation like being removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism or the removal of sanctions. That is why these recent moves do not make for good foreign policy on the part of the DPRk; by not following their typical problem they have drawn the ire of the great powers while not succeeding in gaining anything of value to them.

But what should the rest of the world do (or not do) in response to North Korea's recent actions?

One type of recourse could be to impose either unilateral or multilateral sanctions upon the totalitarian regime. But sanctions have shown themselves to be largely useless as a means to address North Korean actions. Furthermore, sanctions have been shown to be an ineffective means to punishing a troublemaking state. Sanctions only really punish the weakest people in society leaving the ones in charge unlikely to feel the effects of the sanctions. While it is possible to direct sanctions at the leaders of a rogue nation, it is difficult to do and with the recluse nature of the leadership of North Korea they are unlikely to be successful.

Another avenue is of course to militarily intervene in North Korea. Technically as there has been no official end to the Korean War, the US and South Korea could "legally" intervene in response to the recent actions (I believe this to be accurate but I am by no means an expert on international law). The problem with this recourse is that the DPRK has the 5th largest standing military in the world (approximately 1.1 million active troops); quite a bit bigger than 6th place South Korea (just under 700,000). Also against this course of action is the fact that the United States is already engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and very unlikely to engage in another war, especially one against a nuclear state.

The last thing possible thing to do is to do nothing. This "nothing" includes mere statements condemning North Korea's actions as well as inaction by the rest of the world. This course effectively encourages the North Koreans to continue this pattern of behaviour in the future. North Korea is showing a blatant disrespect to the rest of the international community by ignoring nuclear regulatory norms. In a time where the upcoming rounds of nuclear disarmament talks are showing promise in their initial stages, this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated. To do nothing is tantamount to ensuring that there will be more clashes down the road between North Korea and the rest of the world.

North Korea appears to be a no-win situation. Sanctions and cheap talk won't work, the only action that will have any effect involves the use of military force but with the United States already becoming over-extended and the lack of political will by the rest this route is almost guaranteed not to happen.

This is what happens when you leave things unfinished (Korean War)!

- blenCOWe

Sanctions Falling on Deaf Ears

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in New York speaking to the United Nations this week. He is spouting off his usual rhetoric about the great powers "bullying" Iran over its nuclear program and so on.

In response to recent moves/remarks by Ahmadinejad and Iran, the United States and its allies are pushing for the Security Council to pass sanctions on the renegade state. I am supremely confident that these sanctions will not have any effect. Why am I so sure? Because the previous THREE sets of sanctions haven't had any effect to curb the rebellious attitude of Iran.

In the end, another set of sanctions will just be more empty talk between the two rivals.

- blenCOWe

Whose Victory is it?

A victory over racism? Not quite!

The defeat, by veto, of the recent UN Security Council resolution concerning Zimbabwe is being praised by Robert Mugabe and his fraudulent government as "a victory over racism and meddling in its affairs."

This was not a victory over racism, it was a victory over democracy and the rule of law. What has happened here is that a precedent has been set that authoritarian governments who abuse their power to maintain their position. In the future, dictators will be able to look back and point to this situation and use it to justify their actions.

What is really ignorant in this situation is the tone that Zimbabwean officials have taken towards the international community. For example, the Information Minister Skihanyiso Ndlovu told Reuters that,

"We are very happy with the turn of events and would like to thank those who helped defeat international racism disguised as multilateral action at the U.N."

This was not a random move or an act of spite. This resolution was a show by the majority of the members of the Security Council (who are elected by the international community) to condemn the manner in which Mugabe has retained power.

And those members of the Council who helped to bring down the resolution, what was their reason? They claimed that,

"imposing sanctions would indeed have impacted negatively on the current dialogue process among Zimbabwe political parties."

That seems like a responsible answer but one that doesn't reflect the current realities of the situation. These talks, that Russia, China and South Africa were afraid of damaging, are virtually non-existent as of right now.

Reuters is reporting that, "President Robert Mugabe's party and the opposition failed last week to agree to a framework for talks to end Zimbabwe's crisis." Without even a framework in place, how can these three nations believe that taking action against the Mugabe government would negatively influence the talks when the two parties cannot even agree to the manner in which the two sides will come together.

In the end, these members are using the talks as a shield from their unwillingness to take a stand against the ongoing attrocities.

This was a victory for Mugabe and Mugabe alone and has nothing to do with racism or influencing the peace talks.

- blenCOWe