Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats      (24 comments)

Ambling towards Disaster; Bush's North Korea Policy

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend
Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (20 fans)   -- Page 2 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com

The Bush team will probably follow their familiar pattern of ignoring the dilemma while creating a public relations smokescreen to conceal their incompetence.

Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice will undoubtedly make their appearances on the morning talk shows claiming that "we are all much safer" under the enlightened leadership of George Bush. Perhaps, they could synchronize their silly assertions to coincide with the explosion of Korea's next nuclear weapon.

How could Bush let the situation get so out-of-hand? After all, the central tenet of the war on terror is: "We will not let the world's most dangerous weapons fall into the hands of the world's worst dictators"? Instead, they have elevated an unstable megalomaniac into a nuclear-armed menace. It could turn out to be the greatest foreign policy meltdown in American history.

Bush needs to forgo the Texas bravado and make substantive changes to the present policy before North Korea becomes the world's largest WMD-production factory.

First, he should agree to two-party talks with representatives from the North, which is what North Korea has demanded from the very beginning.

Second, he should review all sanctions directed against North Korea and publicly state that he will reassess whether they are truly justified.


Third, (and most important) Bush should offer firm assurances in the form of a treaty that North Korea WILL NOT BE ATTACKED BY THE UNITED STATES IF IT ABANDONS ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMS. This has been the North's primary demand from the very onset of the crisis. (although it has been omitted from newspaper coverage to conceal the fact that the rest of the world is actually terrified of the America's erratic behavior)

Forth, the administration should reconsider providing the oil, food, and light-water reactors which were part of the original "Framework Agreement" as long as North Korea agrees to undergo intensive "go anywhere, see anything" inspections conducted by the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA.

A larger tragedy can still be averted if cooler heads prevail. The time for bluster is past. The present policy is a dead-loss which has put everyone in greater peril.

The North is currently working out the kinks in its Taepo-dong ICBM. If we are serious that "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," (as Condi Rice opined) the administration must take positive steps to defuse the present crisis; its time to change directions, amend the policy, and negotiate a peaceful settlement. The alternatives are too horrific to even consider.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Mike is a freelance writer living in Washington state.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
24 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

So you are giving the DPRK South Korea by Vulture on Monday, Oct 9, 2006 at 5:42:58 PM
Please speak out, or shut the hell up. by Daniel Geery on Monday, Oct 9, 2006 at 9:43:03 PM
Diplomacy? What's that? by Pappy on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 4:05:09 AM
I merely pointed out the flaw in his proposal by Vulture on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:26:39 AM
How many examples do you want... by Steven Leser on Monday, Oct 9, 2006 at 9:46:34 PM
apples and oranges by Vulture on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:16:14 AM
OK, I tried taking you seriously... by Steven Leser on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:23:42 AM
Please go childish why don't you by Vulture on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:40:26 AM
Rob by Vulture on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 1:21:28 PM
your name by Katrin R. on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 9:06:59 PM
And I thought by Katrin R. on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 9:44:45 PM
Everybody is a mini-Michael Moore by DonMcKellar on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 7:18:35 AM
Typical by Timothy V. Gatto on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 9:16:07 AM
Negotiations With Hitler by DonMcKellar on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:46:57 AM
I said below, there is 100 miles of grey between appeasement by Steven Leser on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 12:08:57 PM
Negotiations with an idiot. by Pappy on Wednesday, Oct 11, 2006 at 5:20:47 AM
Further reading by Daniel Geery on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 9:19:38 AM
strange labels by DonMcKellar on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:26:59 AM
I find myself agreeing with you to a point... by Steven Leser on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:31:33 AM
There is about 100 miles of grey in between appeasement and by Steven Leser on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:28:30 AM
big Sticks by DonMcKellar on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:57:28 AM
Yes, but it also becomes completely lost if you whack by Steven Leser on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 at 11:43:31 AM
Big stick? Where? by Pappy on Thursday, Oct 12, 2006 at 3:31:52 AM
Genocide Humanity: That's the plan by Patrick on Wednesday, Oct 11, 2006 at 12:11:42 AM