virus: Why We Won't Invade North Korea

Why We Won™t Invade North Korea
By Orson Scott Card
We™ve been hearing it from a lot of anti-Bush commentators “
including some who should know better:
œWhy are we preparing to invade Iraq, which has no nukes yet,
when we™re using diplomacy with North Korea, which actually
has them?
Of course, you can take that as a self-answering question. Let™s
see “ which is safer to invade, the country that almost has nukes,
or the country that already has them?
But the real answer is much more complicated.
First, let™s keep in mind what we™re actually trying to accomplish
in Iraq. We aren™t preparing to invade because Saddam Hussein™s
been a bad boy, or because we want to have an America colony in
Mesopotamia. It™s not a punishment, it™s not retribution.
It™s prevention.
You can™t fight a war to prevent something that™s already
happened. Preventive war to keep North Korea from getting nukes
is impossible.
At the same time, it is absolutely imperative that North Korea™s
nukes be neutralized. But how is that to be done?
For some Americans, the first thought is, œSend in the Marines!
But military action should never be the first resort. Every time you
use military force, you teach your enemies how to defeat you the
next time. The best use of military force is to create the
impression of invincibility “ and then avoid testing it.
Conventional military action is not quite the last resort, however. I
would put œnuking them back to the Stone Age even farther
down the list. Even lower than œsending Bill Clinton to negotiate
another great treaty.
Most people don™t understand what President Bush means when
he says that we will pursue a œdiplomatic solution.
He doesn™t mean that we™ll negotiate with North Korea. What
would be the point of that? They don™t keep their treaties anyway.
The diplomacy that will solve the problem is happening right now
“ between us and China.
That™s right, China. Because this is China™s problem as much as it
is ours.
The only reason North Korea exists as a separate political entity is
because in the early ™50s, when UN forces had virtually overrun
all of North Korea, China sent a huge army that flung us back
south. Only when each army held roughly the territory that had
been North or South Korea before the war did the Chinese agree
to an armistice.
This was a huge victory for China, and it remains one of the
proudest moments in their history. Never mind that it has meant
50 years of desperate poverty and utter lack of freedom, while
being forced to virtually worship a couple of megalomaniacal
dictators. China beat the US-led allies and kept North Korea safe
for communism.
Do you think there™s even the slightest chance that China would
let the US conduct any kind of military action against North Korea
without massive retaliation?
At the very least, there would be a prompt invasion of Taiwan. At
the worst, it might mean some level of nuclear war “ certainly
against South Korea, and quite possibly against Japan and even
the US.
Foreign policy is conducted in the real world. In the real world,
madmen like Saddam Hussein respond only to credible military
force “ and sometimes not even then. For the safety of our friends
and allies in the region (notably Israel, Turkey, Jordan and
Kuwait), and to protect the First World™s vital oil supplies from
domination by a ruthless enemy, it is reasonable to strike that
enemy before he wreaks devastation again.
In that same real world, however, there are opponents whom it is
simply too dangerous to fight, unless you are forced into it. If
China or Russia attacked us, of course we would defend
ourselves. But we would have to be insane to provoke either of
them into war.
That™s why we left Russia to deal with Chechnya without our
interference while using military force to protect Bosnia and
Kosovo from the Serbs.
Does this mean that we™re like bullies, picking on the little guys
while leaving really dangerous enemies alone?
Not at all. It means that while we have a moral responsibility to
prevent truly dangerous or evil actions wherever it is within our
power to do so, we can™t do it where it is not within our power
without unleashing worse evils on the world.
Militarily challenging Russia over Chechnya would almost
certainly have plunged the world into a massive war, to no good
end.
Likewise, taking military action in North Korea would lead to
immediate war with China. And sane people don™t want that.
So what do our negotiations with China consist of?
Cutting through all the diplomatic niceness, here™s what we
undoubtedly said to them:
œYou™re the ones who kept us from getting rid of the Kim
dictatorship 50 years ago. So now it™s your responsibility either to
take away their nukes, or get rid of the Kim government and
replace it with a sane one.
To which the Chinese almost certainly replied, œPerhaps we can
work something out. You can take the first step by withdrawing
all military support from Taiwan. After all, why should we be
responsible for North Korea, which isn™t part of China, while you
won™t let us take responsibility for Taiwan, which is an integral
part of China?
Our reply: œWe will not discuss Taiwan.
Their reply: œThen we will not discuss North Korea.
All this was absolutely predictable and led nowhere. Here™s how
we raised the ante: œAll right. Since you have allowed North
Korea to develop and build nuclear weapons, while we have
prevented the much-more-technologically-advanced South
Koreans from doing so, we have no choice but to level the playing
field so that North Korea will not be able to threaten our allies.
Those options would include:
(1) Stationing tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea ... with the
option of placing them under the control of the South Koreans.
(2) An embargo “ or even a blockade “ of North Korea™s ports, so
that China becomes the sole supplier of all goods to North Korea.
(3) Holding China economically responsible by cutting back “ or
cutting off “ trade between the US and China.
None of these options would be tolerable to the Chinese. Putting
nukes in South Korea would humiliate the Chinese leadership.
Putting them under South Korean command would terrify them.
Economic sanctions against North Korea would force China,
whose economy is not all that robust, to assume the huge burden
of keeping North Korea afloat the way the USSR did with Cuba
for so many years.
As for sanctions against China itself “ its economy has become
significantly tied to trade with the US. America could trigger a
major recession or perhaps even a depression in China, even if we
couldn™t persuade other economic powers to join with us.
Now, the Chinese know that none of these options would be
painless for us. Stationing nukes in South Korea would provoke
massive anti-American demonstrations in that country and in
Japan as well.
An embargo against North Korea would be slow and sievelike,
while a blockade would be casus belli and lead to confrontations
between us and friendly powers.
And a cutback in US-China trade would hurt our economy, too,
and there are those who think our own highly-evolved economy is
less resilient than China™s more primitive one. (I think, however,
that they are wrong.)
But even though the Chinese know that we are reluctant to use
any of these options, they also know that President Bush means
what he says, and, because he is his father™s son, they believe he
will act on his threats even if it means political risks.
And there is another factor that the Chinese leadership always has
to keep in mind: the possibility that any of these events might
trigger domestic disturbances, a coup or even a revolution within
China.
Dictators live in constant terror of a mob of civilians swarming
through their palaces or office buildings, dragging the dictators
out into the streets, and killing them.
The Chinese have very clear memories of what happened when
communism fell in Romania. That™s why they ordered soldiers to
fire on their own people in Tiananmen Square.
But they™d rather avoid any possibility of this. So at some point, if
they believe that we are sufficiently earnest about the urgency of
neutralizing North Korea™s nuclear threat, they will decide that it
is in their best interests to do something about North Korea.
And here™s what they™ll do. They™ll talk to Kim and let him know
that he has two choices.
(1) Kim lets the Chinese come in and take away his nukes and run
his nuclear reactors and make sure he never gets nukes again. In
exchange, the Chinese will make loud public guarantees that
North Korea is now under their nuclear umbrella, so that there is
no need for North Korea to have its own nuclear program.
(2) The Chinese cut him off from all economic and military aid
from any source, and let it be known that they very much want a
new, anti-nuke government in Pyongyang. Kim knows he
wouldn™t last a week before one of his enterprising generals “
perhaps one of those already in the pay of Beijing “ decided that a
change of government was in order.
One way or another, North Korea would be de-nuked. And it
would all be done through diplomacy.
The reason none of this could work with Iraq is that there is no
power in the Middle East comparable to China™s situation vis-à-
vis North Korea. We are the only nation that can put a stop to
Saddam™s ambitions.
But the key, of course, is that none of these conversations would
take place in public. China can only bend to US pressure when
they are not seen to be bending to US pressure.
In other words, if President Bush openly threatened China, then
China could not cooperate with us without losing face “ with the
risk of a coup.
That is why President Bush cannot answer his critics. There is no
answer he could give that would not wreck the diplomatic
process.
When an American pundit or politician criticizes President Bush
for being a hypocrite or a bully because he™s using diplomacy with
North Korea and the threat of war with Iraq, it tells us one of two
things.
Either the critic is hopelessly ignorant about geopolitical and
diplomatic realities ¦ or the critic knows that President Bush
cannot respond to his criticism, and therefore the critic can make
political profit at the expense of American foreign policy.
In other words, those who make this particular accusation against
the president are either squirrels or snakes: either chattering
stupidly or poisonously biting the president while he™s trying to
protect us and our friends from a serious danger.
I prefer to think that these critics simply haven™t thought things
through. And I™m happy to point out that few of those who have
made this particular accusation are responsible officeholders.
You don™t throw rocks at the guy who™s trying to tame the tiger.
And what about me? Haven™t I just made all those private
negotiations public?
Of course not. The Chinese don™t care what I say. I don™t speak
for the government. I don™t have any contacts in the White House
or the State Department.
I™m just a guy who knows how to read a map.
Orson Scott Card, author of more than 50 books of fiction, has
lived in Greensboro since 1983.

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>