February 13, 2007

Kick can down road, repeat....

Harold Sutton writes:

North Korea to Close Reactor in Exchange for Raft of Aid - New York Times:

Does this kind of trade off have even a slight chance to produce the desired effect? Or are we being snookered again -- a la we give up something, they give up nothing? What are your thoughts?
Perhaps equally important, the United States and Japan agreed to discuss normalizing relations with Pyongyang. The United States will begin the process of removing North Korea from its designation as a terror-sponsoring state and also on ending U.S. trade and financial sanctions.

…. [[and at the bottom of the article, as you might expect it]]

Some experts doubt that the North will ever agree to turn over its weapons, which it considers its main bargaining chip with the West, and Kim's only insurance policy against being toppled.

My answer to him: I'd guess the chances of it working are slim to nim. It's another sham to paper things over. And that the real failure here, as ever in the War on Terror, is the failure of the resolve of the West.

If we are in a war on terror (and the whole or most of the West IS in such a war; among other things, we have an alliance called NATO that says an attack on one is an attack on all) then any terror-supporting country can legitimately be attacked, or forced into regime-change. And I'd add, any of them also making nuclear weapons MUST be attacked.

We have the right to take care of NK in the same way that we had the right to attack French Morocco or Rumania, in WWII. Or to occupy neutral Iceland, for that matter. And we also have a humanitarian obligation. NK is a genocidal death-camp nightmare on a scale with Nazi Germany. Remember "never again?" What a joke that turned out to be!

The West has a Christian obligation to act. NK is the lunatic wandering the streets attacking people and screaming threats. WE are the cop on the beat. WE are the law-abiding citizens. Sorry, but the job falls to us. ("WE" meaning Western Christendom--there's the real lack, I guess. As far as Christian in any meaningful sense goes, it's "America Alone," these days.)

(I think I'll make this e-mail a blog post, since I've gone on so long here. "What oft was said, but ne're so tediously repeated.")

Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace. For peace is not sought in order to the kindling of war, but war is waged in order that peace be obtained. Therefore, even in waging war, cherish the spirit of the peacemaker, that, by conquering those whom you attack, you may lead them back to the advantages of peace; for as our Lord says: 'Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God.'
--Saint Augustine

Standing idle while lunatics build nuclear weapons is the opposite of "peace," although our fake-pacifists would so define it.

Also, International Law, as expressed in the Bush Doctrine, says that sovereignty is dependent on democratic legitimacy. Attacking NK would not be attacking a sovereign nation. And in fact would not really be a war at all; just cleaning up a mess, a sort of infestation of bandits. (Yes, I know that "International Law" includes no such thing. But if The Bishop of Bormenia can claim that "international law" supports whatever position of appeasement he happens to prefer at the moment, I can do the same thing.)

* Actually, The whole War on Terror is not a war, in many senses of the word. It's a new thing, more like a campaign against bandits expanded to global scale. That's the source of much of our confusion and hesitancy. We need a new word for this thing.

Posted by John Weidner at February 13, 2007 8:24 AM
Weblog by John Weidner