Posted on 06/16/2004 5:07:46 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
The Dangers of Self-Delusion
Appeasement failed with Hitler, and it won't work with Kim Jong Il
BY NICHOLAS EBERSTADT
Monday, Jun. 14, 2004
How can we make sense of the seemingly never-ending spectacle that is the North Korean nuclear crisis? Let me suggest an answer: we're watching "conference diplomacy" all over again—that is to say, the approach to conflict resolution embraced by the great powers of Europe in the 1920s and '30s. The premise underlying this peculiar mode of "diplomatic engagement" was that international disputes were really just disagreements among reasonable gentlemen. If only these men could gather to talk things out, the wishful thinking ran, a peaceful settlement agreeable to all could surely be reached. Each new round of talks was hailed as a success, with the antagonists' willingness to sit at the same table held out as proof that conference diplomacy was working. But without giving away the conclusion, we can tell audiences that the tale of conference diplomacy was not a story with a happy ending.
How could an approach that solved none of Europe's security problems have been allowed to continue for years? You have to remember that the world was a frightening place back then, that the balance of power in the region had broken down and that a stable new equilibrium was not yet at hand. Ambitious dictators took advantage of this new playing field, and self-deluding Western statesmen opted for a strategy of talk and appeasement rather than facing the awful scope of the dangers gathering before their eyes.
That, of course, was then—and this is now. The analogy to the North Korean nuclear drama is imperfect. But the similarities between the two situations should give pause. The upcoming six-party talks in Beijing may be "merely" the third time that Pyongyang has sat down to discuss the current nuclear unpleasantness with China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the U.S. But North Korea has, off and on, been involved in formal nuclear negotiations since the 1990 talks with Seoul, which led a year later to the North-South deal for the "denuclearization" of the Korean Peninsula.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Ping!
Ping!
Jung-Il is on China's hit list. He will not make it to the end of the year.
If Bush wins the next election, Kim Jong-il is as good as dead.
I don't think Bush will do it. He'll only put pressure on the Chinese to do it. I'm convinced that they've already tried and failed once. They move slow and methodically. It's just a matter of time before they take another shot at him.
What I meant is that, if Bush loses, China may drag her feet again. However, if he wins, China will follow through and finish Kim Jong-il. I am not implying that Americans will be directly involved.
Have they worked out the line of succession? In other words, assassination is rather meaningless IMHO if the guy or the cabal who takes over, as they wipe up the blood on the floor, is the same or even worse, with respect to nukes and overall belicosity.
OK, I can buy that. Kerry certainly would not put pressure on China to get the job done.
I thought it was pretty interesting, though, that China blew up the train and missed. Doesn't say too much for their competence. On top of that, they blew up some Syrian military personnel. Couldn't ask for better luck.
If China is behind it, the successor will be someone who is not so problematic.
ISCSEAACKWPHSKJI?
"Kita Chosen Rodoto So Shouki Oyobi Chosen Minshu Shugi Jinmin Kyowa Koku Shunou Kim Jong il no Ansatsu Keikaku Kokusai Kenkyu Junbi Iinkai"
I don't think Dubya going do miltary smackdown on Little Kim
He probably put squeeze on China get NOrth Korea stop run smack chat on the world
IF NOT
That when at last minute Dubya would lay smackdown
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.