Is it inevitable that the world will have to accept North Korea as a nuclear power? For now the international community is committed to a denuclearized Korean peninsula. The world may be forced to reconsider this proposition.
We have seen countries consider development of a nuclear weapon (or in possession of such technology), but later change their position (almost always under pressure from the international community and the West in particular). Libya did, after being made into a pariah in the West, though not in the rest of the world. South Africa came clean on its weapons program after the apartheid regime relinquished power. Ukraine actually inherited an arsenal when the Soviet Union collapsed, only to later, and wisely, relinquish them to Russia. South Korea has seriously given thought to building its own nuclear deterrent, but to this day it has accepted American security guarantees instead.
Then there is the other side of the coin – countries that did drive toward nuclear status in spite of international concern or even condemnation. It is widely believed that Israel has a large arsenal of nuclear weapons. However, because of its special status as part of Washington’s strategic thinking, Israel is allowed a special indulgence around and in defiance of international law. Pakistan and India are also in the nuclear arms club. The other members of the club, over the years, have bowed to this political reality.
Many believe Iran aspires to join the nuclear arms club. It claims otherwise and also claims it is in compliance with its international obligations on the issue. According to Tehran it is only interested in peaceful use of nuclear power. This story is ongoing and remains to be played out.
North Korea is in a category of its own. It has contempt for anything it has signed regarding weapons development. In fact, it has shown that it can use words of conciliation while planning to up the ante to get what it wants. This is where we are at. Not only is North Korea a member of the nuclear club, but it also demands to remain in the club and use membership to green-mail the entire world to secure the country’s sovereignty and extort badly needed aid.
I find it very odd that the mainstream continues to regard North Korea as a crazy or irrational state. The opposite is true. North Korea is acting in a way that is very pragmatic given its international standing and domestic conditions. It is simply wishful thinking to assume North Korea will disarm because others countries have done so in the past. Those countries had many reasons to reverse course – North Korea doesn’t.
Hopefully, long and hard negotiations are ahead and not a conflict of any kind, but it should be remembered and reflected upon how North Korea has taken extreme advantage of the poor state of the current international non-proliferation regime. This has happened because the West has been too selective on its implementation. Now we are being made to pay the price for this negligence.
Nothing is inevitable, I suppose, but I won’t be surprised that the world will eventually have to accept a nuclear North Korea and a very much nuclearized northeast Asia. The alternative is to destroy the North Korean regime. Is the world prepared to do this? I think not. The negligence and complacence of the past is catching up with us.
29 May, 2009, 13:37
“The alternative is to destroy the North Korean regime. Is the world prepared to do this? I think not. The negligence and complacence of the past is catching up with us.”
They can’t afford to. To integrate East and West Germany into a single state after the fall of the USSR it cost over £1 billion dollars to integrate North to South Korea would cost over $1 trillion plus China would not be to welcoming of a potential exodus of Koreans into China.
I think the internal apparatus of North Korea is pretty weak they could probably arrange a coup of top army generals who could poison him or wait till he dies and take control.
I think we should be more concerned with Pakistan's stockpile with the instability there.
29 May, 2009, 12:09
Peter,you write "It has contempt for anything it has signed regarding weapons development. In fact, it has shown that it can use words of conciliation while planning to up the ante to get what it wants."
What you fail to mention, and most people conveniently forget is that America has equally reneged on every deal made with north korea, it's thinking that the regime is about to collapse, so there is no need to fulfill their end of the bargain. Maybe if America fulfills it's end of deals it makes, we will see some progress.
29 May, 2009, 11:29
Yes that's the teaching that has been given. If you don't have Nukes then the US and NATO are on their way to rape your woman and torture your relatives. They will come even faster if you have oil or gas. All supported by their public. We haven't controlled the bullies, so people have wised up, and know they have to look after themselves with Nukes.
With limited resources, it is the best option for them.
29 May, 2009, 11:27
Peter,
A recent rough estimate (guess?) of the total number of nuclear weapons per country is as follows: Britain 185, China 410, France 464, India 60, Israel 200, North Korea ???, Pakistan 25, Russia 10,000, United States 10,500. I gathered this information from the following web site: http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html.
Submitted by Gene H.
29 May, 2009, 10:55
Mr. Lavelle,
I agree that the world and international relations are complex. In this multi-polar world, large and powerful nations like Russia, the U.S., China and India would be best served if they cooperate to find solutions to very difficult issues. For example, China more than any other country, can greatly influence North Korea and encourage them to take a more reasonable path. Russia can have the same clout with Iran. The United States has similar pull with Israel, though it is widely suspected (wink, wink) that Israel already has close to 200 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. And India, through constructive dialogue, could ease tensions with Pakistan. I also agree that it is disingenuous to say that some countries can have nuclear weapons and others cannot. Unless the great powers are willing to eliminate their own nuclear arsenals altogether, they can't righteously dictate that certain smaller nations are not allowed to also have such weapons. India has accepted this reality with Pakistan. The sad fact is, however, that the world becomes a much more dangerous place as nuclear proliferation spreads.
Gene H.
29 May, 2009, 10:03
Since the invasion of Iraq every small country in the world knows that only being aligned with a major power or having there own nuclear weapons will ensure they will not be invaded . Thats the real politic and we will have to live wth it.
24 June, 2009, 18:38
Elictricity 24 hours a day - European Magic! How do they do that! Such innovation, such grasp of cutting edge technology, what will come next! can anyone see the future, maybe some device for seing pictures. Something, so I can talk to someone far away, oh stop! the contemplation is too enormous, the possibilities are boundless! But wait, I can see something, its large, its a Union, a new idea, the EU to be precise, I can see it clearly, it robs countries of their sovereignty, It installs a political master class, it puts its population into tax slavery, it ignores the rule of law, oh stop, what is this Frankensteins creation, that tries to suck the blood from its people, 65% tax, a huge mortgage, cerdit cards, delux coffee machines for Brussels beurocrats, huge expense accounts, quick cut the power, this is a monster. Good the lights are still on, hope they last 24 hours, its truly magic. Now a revolutionary thought, that countries could just be independent and not in blocks. All sitting within global security and finacial structures on equitabke terms. Sort of the way they were designed to be, nothing magic in that, can't be Europe!
24 June, 2009, 17:28
Peter I think this is part of Brezinski’s Grand Chessboard agenda rather than a Neocon one although the favours an Israeli centrist US foreign policy although the Neocon are heavily prevalent in foundations, think tanks, NGO’s and media pushing the GCB agenda.
@giustino
The post soviet Oligarchical system came to power due to IMF imposed economic policies implemented by George Soros through his Open Society foundation putting the economy in the hand s of a few western aligned oligarchs.
Lord Rothschild of London transferred billions of dollars to Khodorkovsky and others to influence Yeltsin to run auctions of state asset’s which they bought up at fire sale prices.
Khodorkovsky was on the verge of signing a contract handing over oil pipeline rights to Exxon mobile essentially out sourcing the Russian economy when Putin took action. In fact he was on the plane about to sign the contract when he was arrested.
It turned out that Lord Rothschild was the major shareholder of Yukos and Khoderkovsky was just the front man. Other senior shareholders include Henry Kissinger and Nevzlin.
The same pattern happened with the auctions in Ukraine.
Lukashenko saw the danger that it would have on the economy and kicked out the IMF policy makers when he was elected in 94 avoiding the economy suffering the same fate as Russia and Ukraine.
Shevardnadze was helped into the presidency by George Soros who set up shop in Georgia in 94 to oversee US pipeline deals which would go through Azerbaijan, Georgia, to Turkey and Israel
Ukraine’s economy started to grow in 2000 when he followed Putins lead and went against the IMF backed ruling Oligarchy.
He was removed from power when he began to negotiate pipeline deals with Gazprom and Russia. in a Soros sponsored coup by Saakashvili who worked for a Soros law firm in New York and was director of a CIA affiliated NGO USAID linked NGO ( actually I was going to post a link to the Asian Tribune article but it seems to have been removed).
Or Azerbaijanis western backed family ruling class system presidency handed down from father to son.
I could also cite US and Europe’s support for every Arab regime in the Md East Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc. as well as the states they help create in Bosnia an Islamic hub in Europe and Kosovo where 75% of Afghan heroin runs through KLA networks in Europe.
Brezinski clearly states the US objective in regards to states in Eurasian’s sphere in his 97 book The Grand Chessboard:
"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)
"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)
As for Karimov in Uzbekistan he changes alliances between Russia and the US when he feels his position is threatened. Russia would favour him in power as the ISI/CIA created IMU in 92 would seize power and a hub and base for Islamic terrorism in the region which would destabilise the whole region which has millions of Russian civilians living in the region.
"Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)
"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)
How is Putin/Medvedev government a neo-Brezhnevian regime?
Georgia was Russia’s only use of military force outside the country since the break-up of the USSR and only after it’s peacekeepers and South Ossetian capital were bombed by Grad rockets and an emergency UN security council meeting was called by Russia putting forth an emergency ceasefire resolution was vetoed by the US and Britain.
Contrast hat to the US and Britain and there wars across the world since the end of the Cold War. Days after the Georgian assault US forces in Iraq bombed villages in neighbouring Syria without informing them killing civilians claiming it was
I don’t think Putin is static I think you’re a victim of western propaganda that these oligarchs have put these money into financing media and think tanks, NGO’s like the Carnegie Endowment for Democracy, HRW, etc.
Putin has managed to reduce poverty by half, introduced a flat rate tax system, develop a nano-technology industry, paid of most of Russia’s foreign debt and taken measures to tackle Russia’s demographic decline.
Although he has still to tackle problems of corruption, large sections of the economy in the hands of certain individuals Oligarchs, court and army reform, etc which Medvedev has addressed. We will see how it develops.
24 June, 2009, 16:28
Too much vodka makes for confused thinking. The russian terrorists are to blame for what happened, not the cowardly tie-eater.
24 June, 2009, 13:41
Pauline,
I do live in Europe, a magical place where, in most places, one can count on electricity 24 hours a day. Many Georgians still cannot count on that. I am not sure if you still have running water and electricity in Michigan. I hope so.
It's like I said, if I was the leader of a small post-Soviet nation, looking for a good deal, Russia wouldn't really be on my shortlist of options. What are they going to give me? Some oligarch in power for life like in Belarus or Uzbekistan?
That's what Georgia had until 2003 and would still have today -- Shevardnadze.
Russia's neighborhood policy is ultimately unsustainable because it relies on static, personality- focused regimes (not unlike its own neo-Brezhnevian regime of Putin). But, eventually, local dictators will have to be replaced. The question is with what. If the West is no longer the answer, what is?
24 June, 2009, 07:53
Fully agree with Count Cash. There will always be an industry that gets its sustenance from the "Russia is wrong" take. It was there before the Russian revolution in 1917 - the British were locked in a struggle with Russia in the Great Game - and it continues long after the communists have tucked the red flags in the back of their drawers. The end of communism in Russia has exposed the hatemongers in London and New York who continue with their bear bating. I think it basically boils down to the clash of civilizations cliche. In this case the Anglo-American (English speak nations) versus the Orthodox Slavs. Living in Auckland, New Zealand, I know that many people here swallowed the American line in the war with Georgia (of course some thought the Russians had invaded the southern American state of Georgia and were wondering why WW III had not yet begun!). However, it's all going to matter little in the end. As the Hindu aphorism coined thousands of years ago in India goes: Truth Alone Wins.
24 June, 2009, 01:16
Guistino,you are very funny. You talk as if it were 1994 or something! You should see all the vacant stores in my neighborhood, which is among the best in the USA, actually. We have whole cities going into the ground, like Flint, Michigan or Detroit, Michigan. People are FARMING on the vacant land in the center of Detroit! We have 2 million people in prison, FAR MORE per capita than the USSR ever had in jail! China currently has only 1 million prisoners and 1.4 billion people! We have 61 million people without health insurance, and our industry cannot compete because of the employer based health care. Maybe you are talking about EUROPE, not the USA? I understand France, wth a social democratic system is doing pretty well about now?
23 June, 2009, 18:33
Saakashvilis miscalculated actions freed S Ossetia and Abkhazia form the eternal poverty in Georgia. It freed them from the exploitation that the western masters had planned for them, with their willing designated governor Saakassvili. However, the Georgians have to keep on suffering, until they can free themselves, also from the western puppet. The west considered Georgia and its people, like it does all countries, an animal to be devoured for its net worth, and then left discarded as a carcase on the side of the trail. Abkhazia and S Ossetia are luckier, they have moved on to freedom, thanks to Russia, free of the western exploitation that sadly the Georgians will have to suffer under the oppressive west, until they too can free themselves. They will though one day, like all the exploited countries, awaken and push back against the western empire. yes when they do, they will see a second wave, of western exploitation through invasion, torture and rape, the pattern is well known, but in the end they will free theselves of the western opression, and stand freely in a multipolar world created by Russia. The west just has suffering to offer, nothing else, it is disintegrating, due to internal pressure from its own people who are waking up to the media control they are continually subjected too. The western rotten exploitative regime will fall like a deck of cards, allowing the western people to also join a multipolar world. The institutional west is desperate, the world is developing without their control, and like all control freaks, they become violent, when they can't control.
23 June, 2009, 11:09
Saakashvili came to power because the post-1991 settlement in the successors of the USSR is not sustainable.
Eventually, all of the men who have been in power since that time -- Lukashenko in Belarus, Karimov in Uzbekistan -- will eventually have to be replaced, just as Georgia's leadership was in 2003.
Replaced by what? Russia would like to maintain the status quo -- friendly, anti-reform regimes tied to the center by financial interests. That is the regime that is in place in Russia anyway. They are the same kinds of oligarchs who are busy milking the country's natural resources. Of course, they put rival oligarchs into prison or exile. But they are not fundamentally different in attitude towards the state.
The problem is that people in places like Georgia, at least the ones I have met, are sick of substandard living conditions and will gladly back those who promise to lead them away from being post-Soviet.
Saakashvili is one of these politicians.
The reason that such a power vacuum exists and will continue to exist in these countries is that, at its heart, the Russian Federation is anti-reform. It has nothing to offer. It has nothing to export, except maybe gas or oil.
That's why some politicians in these countries look West. Given the choice between ex-Soviet countries and open economy held down by a Western security guarantee, you can see why people supported Saakashvili.
This is a problem that isn't going to go away. The post-1991 settlement is rotting, just like old Soviet housing tenements. Eventually, it will fall, just like those buildings will have to be demolished. But what will be built in its place?
Russia so far has nothing to offer.
23 June, 2009, 09:12
I'm wondering why there are still people willing to fight wars of the neocons. If neocons believe the case they put forward, they should put themselves forward to the frontlines of their wars. This is an easy way for everyone to see the difference between the plot and the true cause.
21 June, 2009, 21:16
Hi Peter,
I was walking down the street this past Sunday evening. I saw a black fellow about my age standing on the corner and he was smoking a cigarette. I went up to him asked if he had a spare one. He said, "no, but you can share this one with me". I mentioned to him that I had just called my 86 year old mom and made her laugh. I didn't mention that I had told mom that I dressed up as a drunk Polish woman named "Anita Brewski." He got tearful and pulled out a pamphlet from a church. It had a picture of his mom who had passed away the previous week. He said "I just buried her this last Tuesday. She told me to always be kind. Keep calling your mom". He said, "I am blessed to have met you". I said, "Don't make my cry dude. No I am blessed to have met you". This complete stranger and I hugged and parted ways. We both had a tear in our eye.
Perhaps I am biased, but I think that the recent events in Iran, though sad for human rights, are positive for world peace. The United States has no right to meddle in Iran's election or internal affairs. With the election of President Obama, we have had our own peaceful revolution. I understand that America still remains as an international bully of sorts, but things are changing for the better.
Gene H. from San Francisco
20 June, 2009, 20:05
When we see all the dirty tricks still fomented by US neocons and their NATO croonies; don't you think strange that the "messi" of freedom (a certain Obama) has so far done absolutly nothing to curb that anti-russian feeling (except when he needs).Beware of that man'sincerity! Sorry Future Generations
Jean-Claude Meslin
20 June, 2009, 11:10
I can strongly recommend Prof. George Hewitt's reply to Svante Cornell’s Daily Telegraph Article.
http://circassianworld.blogspot.com/2009/06/reply-to-svante-cornells-daily.html
19 June, 2009, 20:41
Peter, once again good comments, however, I question whether comments are needed at all. The western propaganda machine is well known, and will operate continually, regardless of any astute observations, Russia will always be portrayed as wrong, as it is the whole purpose of this propaganda machine to deliver according to that tune. The enlightened in the west know this, the Russians know it, so let's just have a chuckle at the likes of this, an the Daily Telegraph and concentrate on the real issues that matter, like building a stable Saakasvilli free zone for the Caucuses. We are too locked in a look west mentality. Let's glance west and look everywhere else, because a western obsession is pointless. The west has nothing to offer us in terms of moral or other values, it is the invader, the torturer, the raper, the controller; be aware of it, but don't waste too much time on it. There is a wider world out there developing in a free manner, a true multipolar world.