A novel suggestion from Hans Blix, who might know a thing or two about it, to defuse the North Korea nuclear imbroglio. The US, he argues, should ratify the test ban treaty.
Gardels: Has the U.S. posture on nuclear weapons during the Bush administration encouraged this unease, if not caused a backlash by the new proliferators? The U.S. abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; it has a program to modernize its nuclear arsenal with a “bunker buster;” it has refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT); and, of course, it undermined the U.N. arms inspectors in Iraq before the war.
Blix: Yes, the U.S. has sent a signal of arrogance, a signal that the rest of the world should do what the U.S. demands but the U.S. is above it all and can do what they like. Since the U.S. has been the backbone of non-proliferation efforts for decades, this has undermined the credibility of the whole effort. In fact, in 1995 the U.S. shepherded the extension of the NPT under Clinton; but in 2005 it reneged, saying those commitments were given in another era.
Nothing would be more important in turning the tide with North Korea and Iran if the U.S. ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. How can the U.S. demand that North Korea not test weapons again, as the just-passed U.N. resolution calls for, when they are unwilling to make that commitment themselves? That certainly doesn’t put the Americans on the moral high ground.
Because the U.S. has not ratified the CTBT, China won’t either. The U.S. has the key in its hand. Wouldn’t their demands be more credible and effective if they themselves agreed not to test?
WHAT????
What’s the scenario here?
What is wrong with you woman.
So you mean that these communists. Who have already murdered people in the millions… that they will see this generous measure by the Americans…
AND THEN WHAT.
WHAT IS YOUR THINKING HERE?
Try and THINK about the crowd you are talking about and not project silly crap on to them.
So the Dear Leader and his cronies notice that the States has buckled due to a 1 kiloton explosion ……A ONE KILOTON EXPLOSION….
And they buckle.. and then the Dear Leader and his fellow murderers do what???
What is this stupidity all about?
My my, what would the Panelbeater think of the British Conservative Party’s Boris Johnson suggestion that we should give Iran the bomb!?
[link]
Boris is a self-promoting ponce. As a RWDB I don’t resile from the fact that the British Conservative Party, the same as the Australian Federal ALP, don’t deserve to be in power with the number of nonces they have in their ranks. Getting rid of Steyn from the Speccie was an unmitigated disaster, also.
Bloody marvellous -yes lets add the Treaty (now!) to the sanctions, being so whole heartedly enforced by the Ruskies and the ChiComms and that will fix it.
Now, where is Chamberlain when you need him???
I wouldn’t think much of it. And I cannot see what your argument is.
Well well?
I find myself being let through even though I’ve been pretty harsh.
Good show.
I think I’ll take things down a few notches.
But seriously. When we are wanting to influence hard-core murderers and torturers we are well advised to THINK about THEIR reality.
Not look in the mirror and think about what will make US feel saintly.
These people are no different from the Nazis. And the people they murder every day in their gulags die much more horribly, in a much more drawn-out death then any of that other socialist (Hitlers) victims.
This interview simply reflects one thing: the arms control community view all security issues in terms of arms control treaties. For them, there’s no problem that can’t be solved with a good treaty.
Of course, NK’s nuclear ambitions are fueled by the political dynamics of the region, and the regime’s desperate search for something, anything, to give it leverage with the US and the neighbours. A hundred treaties would not have sufficed to change their policy.
I do, by the way, support a CTBT for different reasons and I wish the Americans would ratify it, but it would have made no difference to the NK situation.
Reasonable point, Paulus, but how about the fact that US adherence to the treaty would have given it added diplomatic cred in trying to gain support for a solution?
Whats DIPLOMATIC CRED?
Let me ask that in a different way.
Why is it always the Brits and Americans that are called upon for negotiations?
Why not Cyril from the Gay-Vegans bicycle-repair-shop-consensus-based co-operative?
Its got to do with NEGOTIATING POSITION.
The Americans slashing non-defense spending by 1.5 trillion would help their negotiating position….. That is to say their “DIPLOMATIC CRED” as it were.
Stiff-arming the South Koreans to slash their own non-defense spending and invest in massive missile-defense would beef up thier NEGOTIATING POSITION/DIPLOMATIC CRED.
The Americans had more then 1000 nukes on the Peninsula.
Bring them back. That will help.
Make moves in train to nuclearise Japan… Thats pretty credible don’t you think? Nuclearising sons of samurai?
We have the best of friends. And the only worry is even thinking about ever having to fight them again.
Not like these CHUMPS and shabby child-killers we keep on giving a head-start THESE days.
Now here I’m not saying these are good or bad MEASURES I’m suggesting (not advocating). Only lets not get confused as to what sort of things the North will take seriously.
And ultimately all your negotiations with troublesome regimes have China as a silent partner.
So improving your negotiating position against CHINA is improving you DIPLOMATIC CRED with North Korea.
Sorry to go OT Kim, but just thought I’d let LP readers know that the reason so many righties are swarming your site just now is that Catallaxy is having a server problem. To all our loyal readers and friends, we are working on it!
Sure. I’m up for a treaty.
skeptic – I missed catallaxy at work today! Hope you solve the server problem soon.
I can only agree. We have to think about their reality, but the step then, I think, is to do something that will encourage them to see our reality. Endless threats aren’t encouragement; they tend to ensure even greater defensive posturing by those who are threatened.
As Blix says, “How can the U.S. demand that North Korea not test weapons again, as the just-passed U.N. resolution calls for, when they are unwilling to make that commitment themselves?”
A little show of good faith might – might – encourage dialogue. I fail to see that any of the more aggressive alternatives will serve us – or the poor bastards dying of starvation or of torture in gulags – any better than such a display.
Maybe if the US signed the treaty their position on these matters wouldn’t be telegraphed for all to see. This would make the diplomacy, if not easier, more successful. Even if the US did sign the treaty it is in no means clear that they had to follow it or ditch it at some point in the future. If they did sign it they gain credibility with those who care about such things and they don’t telegraph their strategic thoughts.
The US lately, especially with Rice as foreign secretary, seems to publically announce their position on everything before any negotiation takes place. It’s the political equivalent of the schoolyard bully saying “I’m gonna thump you”, which of course puts all eyes on them, and any backdown looks like a defeat.
Factual error time. The US low yield deep penetrator nuclear bomb (the so-called ‘bunker buster’ or B61-11) was cancelled in May 2005 when funding was blocked by the appropriations committee.
The US has also led the world in using computer simulation to replace testing. The last US nuclear test was in 1992.
So what point is there in the US ratifying a treaty banning tests, when they don’t do that any more?
How on earth will the USA ratifying a treaty to ban something it does not do affect the intentions of the North Korean government? The NorK government does not give a rats if its own people starve, so silly symbolic acts as suggested probably will cause them bemused puzzlement, and not much more. The argument is quite senseless unless one is grasping at straws to somehow try to blame the US for what the NorKs have done as a sop to pretend that some ‘action’ has been taken.
Basically, we either work out a way to collapse the NorK regime (leading to a humanitarian disaster at best and -at worst- a rather severe re-ignition of the current state of frozen war with the NorKs, complete with use of a small number of nukes), or we wait for the regime to collapse of its own accord, with a humanitarian disaster at best and -at worst- a very severe re-ignition of the current state of frozen war with the NorKs, complete with use of a moderate number of nukes.
Really bad or very much worse. Them’s the choices, Hobson.
But that is what happens when people display that oh-so human trait of following a spectacularly stupid idea (communism)to the bitter end no matter HOW much it hurts.
MarkL
Canberra
“…That my baby’s so vain,
she is,
All MostaMirror….” (Cave)
“We have to think about their reality, but the step then, I think, is to do something that will encourage them to see our reality…..”
No
No you are WRONG.
See you started PRETENDING to think. And you started paying LIP SERVICE to investigating the reality of the regime-leadership.
But with a quick LOOKOVERTHERE!!!!!!… and you were back to lovingly inspecting your own likeness.
We are not trying to get them to UNDERSTAND US.
We are trying to get them to see us like ancient pentitents would see wrathful gods.
We are not worried what they think of us.
They must worry about our whimsical anger.
Lets put a bit of the human element back into this.
“Maybe if the US signed the treaty their position on these matters wouldn’t be telegraphed for all to see. This would make the diplomacy, if not easier, more successful”
Maybe………………………………….N!!!!O!!!!!T!!!!
It will do the opposite. And besides. We want to be testing because we want to get rid of the bigger nukes that would target civilians and develop the smaller ones that would destroy command and control and leave the civilians dead in the tens of thousands rather then tens of millions.
It is a sign of weakness to do what you are saying.
“Maybe if the US signed the treaty their position on these matters wouldn’t be telegraphed for all to see. This would make the diplomacy, if not easier, more successful.”
What is the meaning of this?
Say this to yourself again. And while doing it think about only the Chi-Coms and the North Korean criminals.
You will find if you keep them in mind you ought not be able to keep saying this stuff and still mean what you are saying.
MarkL,
The reason why the US should ratify the CTBT is the message it sends to the many middle-power states who might contemplate developing nukes at some point — Brazil, Japan, Indonesia, etc, etc. It sticks in their gullet that the declared nuclear powers not only have nukes, but keep alive the possibility of future testing. It’s a rather flagrant division of the world into have’s and have not’s.
Similarly, the US and other nuclear powers should continue reducing their vast arsenals — as they’re supposed to be doing under the NPT.
I totally agree with you, however, that these treaties will do nothing to affect NK’s behaviour.
Would it give the US more diplomatic cred in dealing with the NK crisis, as Kim suggested? Maybe. At this stage, however, I think countries are acting with an eye to strategy rather than legality — and in particular, how to avoid the many disastrous end-game outcomes that potentially await.
I don’t think that the US should sign the treaty for the sake of the North Korean regime but for the sake of their negotiations with Europe, Russia and China. It is quite clear that the US hasn’t got a pressing need to physically test their nukes and if they did do a test their are few countries that might be able to verify this. They could put much more pressure on North Korea if they could get Europe, Russia, and China to agree to a position.
Instead, the US continues to put forward positions that others either cannot publically agree with (even if they privately agree with them, like in the case of Europe) or they broadcast their position so that Russia and China can easily erode the image of the US.
MarkL, the nub of the problem indeed is that no one in the region wants the regime to collapse. In a way, Clinton’s policy recognised this. Not that it worked.
I think it’s worth pointing out, as her comment above acknowledged, that Kim isn’t endorsing Blix’ argument, just drawing attention to it. Her point is that the US would be more able to gain consensus among those who can materially affect NK to act in a certain way.
Interdicting the income that props up the regime seems one way. But then you end up again with the “what happens if the regime collapses?” trap. The great danger is an attack on South Korea. But I’m not sure that the diplomatic tool that can square all the various circles has been developed.
We’ll let the people out of their Gulags.
Try and nurse them back to health.
But other then that we’ll pop the champagne.
For goodness sakes Mark.
You mean to say you actually WANT this regime to survive?
No, indeed I don’t Birdy. It’s a cruel, criminal and abhorrent regime.
The issue though, as MarkL alludes to, is what happens if it collapses? Does the Dear Leader go down in a blaze of glory and attack Seoul? He can already hit Seoul with a whole range of missiles. It’s been reported that the Chinese drew up plans to invade in 2003 but decided against it on the grounds that he could do some serious damage.
MarkL has it right:
On a lighter note for a moment, I deeply resent the use of the term “Nork” in this context. It has a specific meaning and place in the lexicon of the Australian male, and it doesn’t belong in a serious discussion such as this. Thank you.
I’m with Youie.
Good point!
I think any bird – even a panelbeater – would have to agree on this point, Mick…
What does Ahura Mazda say, though?
Something sensible, I hope; but perhaps you could help out, Kim?
No idea, Youie.
You may have missed Bird coming out as a Zoroastrian.
See:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/10/13/confusing-marx-stalin/#comment-162711
Ah, I missed it. My knowledge of Zoroaster/Zarathrustra is limited to Richard Strauss’ little organ-led paean to his existence. But sadly, Mr Strauss is no longer with us, and thus he’s unable to lend his advice regarding what the best way is to cause mayhem on the Korean peninsula.
Signing the CTBT will not make a decisive difference but that measure, along with a few other gestures of humility, would increase the moral authority of the US.
Currently US moral authority is rock bottom and that must surely harm its diplomatic efforts.
“Signing the CTBT will not make a decisive difference but that measure, along with a few other gestures of humility, would increase the moral authority of the US.”
No it won’t.
Moral authority comes from doing ethical things.
There is nothing ethical about the US, who already has giant nuclear weapons, not testing them and improving upon them.
Find a theory of ethics to back this one up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
“The issue though, as MarkL alludes to, is what happens if it collapses? Does the Dear Leader go down in a blaze of glory and attack Seoul?”
Well obviously the ethical thing to do then, is to stiff-arm the South Koreans into deploying the latest high-tech missile defense and whatever systems can be used to close down all those artillery pieces.
But your death cult has, in order to neutralise just such a plan, developed a mad opposition to missile defense.
Well, I can see having a Non-Proliferation treaty, but why would there be a ban against tests? Presumably if you have a nuke, you’d want it to work properly, and that’d mean testing it. You certainly don’t want them fuckers going off accidentally at all hours of the night, right?
If a treaty or a consensus sez somebody can or cannot have nukes, that’s fine. But if, for whatever reason, you’ve already got them — then I say by all means, test away! No fuck-ups allowed on *that* job!
btw, so — what’s a “nork” in Oz usage?
Boobs mate. Hmm, norkular weapons – that’d work for me.
Our government has an irrational approach to foreign policy. GWB is a problem, but the larger problem is the system that promotes such incompetant, corrupt, dishonest, and foolish people. We nned a new government, not a different set of clowns at the helm.
“Well, I can see having a Non-Proliferation treaty, but why would there be a ban against tests? Presumably if you have a nuke, you’d want it to work properly, and that’d mean testing it. ”
No it hardly makes sense does it.
But the answer is that OUR ALLY HAS THE STRATEGIC LEAD.
Ergo a test ban allows other people through espionage and other methods CATCH UP TO OUR ALLY.
Now it might be that as individuals not all leftists have the goal of hurting our countries strategic position, and thereby getting us into another catastrophic war……. It may be that this is no conspiracy.
But the fact is that the left AS A GROUP always works to get us in exactly this sort of trouble.
Put it down to complexity theory. I don’t know.
But we have to start holding them responsible for this if it is ever even slightly plausible that we have the justification..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Test banning our allies is OUT OF THE QUESTION.
Why not test-ban less internationally responsible people?
We need testing. We need a GREAT DEAL of testing. We need, in the name of humanity, to get to a stage where we can get rid of the megaton and high kiloton bombs and have the smallest possible warheads….
To be able to practise extreme deterrence without risking killing millions of people is the goal.
We cannot reach that with test bans. Test bans is just giving other people a head start in a future extended nuclear war.