North Korean Nuke Test A Success

I hope America decides to do something out of action instead of reaction. We should act swiftly and effectively if we want this threat to end as soon as possible. We've tried every trick in the book. They will not disarm peacefully. They have the nuclear weapons for a reason and that is for attention. They will not go away until the spotlight is off them and that will be when Kim Jong Ill is out of power.

Isn't it nice we all have a topic we can agree on. Better than arguing polar political views!

I was chatting with a few guys from my politics class and we were thinking what would we do now if we could. We agreed with the idea of regime change but the question is how. Any military endeavour requires the backing of the US armed forces, without them it realistically aint going to happen. I think it is safe to say that America would be over stretched if they had to lead a Korea invasion, plus keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. With that taken into account it is necessary to bring China heavily into the equation. China has for a long time been the strongest supporter of North Korea and have had the most influence. We came to the conclusion that if China has as much influence of NK as they say they do, and hold the financial viaility of this nation in their hands they should have the capacity to overthrow Kim Jong Ill. With Chinese efforts promoting a peaceful coup de tat using covert operations we may be able to end this whole drama peacefully. Then China can capture the nukes, and even keep them if necessary. 6 or 8 (the presumed number they have) primative nuclear weapons will be practically worthless seeing they already possess hundreds. This would minimise the chances of war, limit the need of a naval blockade, reduce the threat of a new arms race and return the worlds focus to the next potential problem in Iran.

Seems good in theory...

Beyond a means suggested above and diplomacy we don't have many options that don't lead us into a scary situation and an era of uncertainty. I think everybody wants the same objective - a North Korea without nukes - and wants to achieve that goal quickly and effieciently without the use of force. War has to be a last option, but not disregarded none the less. Hopefully people our age don't have to risk their lives to overcome this obstacle to world peace and the nuclear non proliferation regime.

China doesn't necessarily want NK's regime to collapse because that means 1.) NK refugees come pouring over the border and 2.) A successful capitalist republic shares their border. (Even if they're fast becoming best buddies.)

Daddalup Daddalup Daddalup, UPDATE: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/19/D8KS3JD00.html

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il expressed regret about his country's nuclear test to a Chinese delegation and said Pyongyang would return to international nuclear talks if Washington backs off a campaign to financially isolate the country, a South Korean newspaper reported Friday.

"If the U.S. makes a concession to some degree, we will also make a concession to some degree, whether it be bilateral talks or six-party talks," Kim was quoted as telling a Chinese envoy, the mass- circulation Chosun Ilbo reported, citing a diplomatic source in China.

Kim told the Chinese delegation that "he is sorry about the nuclear test," the newspaper reported.

Of course, we all know Jong Il wants bilateral talks because it's what got him the 1994 protection agreement.

China doesn't necessarily want NK's regime to collapse because that means 1.) NK refugees come pouring over the border and 2.) A successful capitalist republic shares their border. (Even if they're fast becoming best buddies.)

I think China would prefer a regime change for 2 reasons:

1) The containment of North Korea prevents the likelyhood of Japan and Taiwan building their own nuclear weapons programs. If this occurred China would find itself in a situation where both Taiwan cannot be easily invaded so it falls under their power, and if relations btween Japan and China go really sour again the threat of muclear war lingers.

2) The refugee problem exists, and I believe on a much larger scale, if an invasion is required to get rid of the bombs and the regime. A Coup de tat could be swift and peaceful. It could also make the everyday lives of North Koreans easier if the new regime falls in line and sanctions are reduced and aid is restored. Also, who's to say the regime couldn't remain a communist state, just under new leadership. Even if the coup led to a new capitalist nation or even a unified Korea, it would create a bigger market for China to trade with and further increase their economic growth.

If anything is going to make North Korea stop, it will be China. Where's Team America when you need them

Reminds me, I watched that movie again... something so stupid is so funny to me

Ok, let's just take one huge step back. Further than you've ever gone before.

State sovereignty.

There! Bi- or multilateral agreements is the only legally admissable or morally acceptable way of any other state to influence NK to dismantle.

Ok, let's just take one huge step back. Further than you've ever gone before.

State sovereignty.

There! Bi- or multilateral agreements is the only legally admissable or morally acceptable way of any other state to influence NK to dismantle.

True it is the right legal avenue, but should you take the correct legal paths to deal with a regime that isn't responding to traditional diplomacy? PLus, you can't say stuff like this has never happened behind the scenes. Key example would be the Vietnam war.

As far as bilateral and mulit-lateral agreements as being morally acceptable, I agree that in some circumstances that can be the case. Yet the acquisition of nuclear weapons against the terms of the NPT (even though NK is no longer a signature they still are morally obliged to follow the intention of the threaty they signed on), having thousands of traditional weapons targetted at Seoul, and defying the UN and other diplomatic channels and consequently threatening international stability; morals can become less and less significant. I think the world has a right to force North Korea to give up its nukes as they are going against the intention of the NPT and challenging the international order for their own objectives.

State sovereignty is important, but taking a realist or a liberal perspective we can see that conflict along these lines is either innevitable or requires diplomacy and international structures to handle. In the case of North Korea, the development of nuclear weapons is a decision made by a sovereign state but it affects the international communtity. Therefore the argument that they have the sovereign right to do what they please is weak because it justifies a new arms race and the development and deployment of all forms of WMDs. Morally, I would side on the protection of the international community rather than North Korea's sovereign rights.

True it is the right legal avenue, but should you take the correct legal paths to deal with a regime that isn't responding to traditional diplomacy? PLus, you can't say stuff like this has never happened behind the scenes. Key example would be the Vietnam war.

The whole concept of dimplomacy is a preferred path, but not something that can be forced upon any state. It's never been, and never could be a demand for nations to take part in the international community. That's the whole basis of soverignty - the opportunity and the right to choose. Closed borders are never good, but it's not a must to open them unless you've ratified any agreement saying so.

Your whole argument bases on "well they should!" seen from your perspective. We can express a want, or demand a change, but we as a international community can never force these things on another nation. No matter if it's NK or Tahiti. It's not another nations place, nor right. And that would be the key of all arguments regarding the international community - without abstracting it into a theoretical discussion.

As far as bilateral and mulit-lateral agreements as being morally acceptable, I agree that in some circumstances that can be the case. Yet the acquisition of nuclear weapons against the terms of the NPT (even though NK is no longer a signature they still are morally obliged to follow the intention of the threaty they signed on), having thousands of traditional weapons targetted at Seoul, and defying the UN and other diplomatic channels and consequently threatening international stability; morals can become less and less significant. I think the world has a right to force North Korea to give up its nukes as they are going against the intention of the NPT and challenging the international order for their own objectives.

Now let's see, they've negotiated their ratification and yet you want them to be held to it? And then you argue that the moral implications are on the side of the international community? Now that just can't be right.

A signed agreement evokes the other signee/s right to hold all parties responsible for the fullfillment of the agreement. But in no way does that negate the right to remove the ratification. Since any international communication rests on the basis of sovereignty you must count for a change in circumstance for either party involved. You argue the liberalist/realist approach and yet you do not see this? Come on.

State sovereignty is important, but taking a realist or a liberal perspective we can see that conflict along these lines is either innevitable or requires diplomacy and international structures to handle. In the case of North Korea, the development of nuclear weapons is a decision made by a sovereign state but it affects the international communtity. Therefore the argument that they have the sovereign right to do what they please is weak because it justifies a new arms race and the development and deployment of all forms of WMDs. Morally, I would side on the protection of the international community rather than North Korea's sovereign rights.

The innevitability of conflict argues nothing but the reason for state sovereignty. We can agree that att nations are first and foremost looking to expand and maximize their own intrest at any point in any negotiation or action. Right?

If you accept the first term, being that of state holds it's own intrests first at all times, you must also adhere to the rule of nil. In any case where party A maximises, party B must give something up. State sovereignty protects the core, the nation in itself. It's a guardian for expanding states in a negative way - see the Huptsbergian Reich for a classic example. Or why not Angola?

No matter how inevitable you see conflict, you must also see the absolute need for sovereignty since without it all states that doesn't think like the biggest armed force of the time are excluded and will never be a nation on their own. Cultural relativity...

So let me get this straight, basically you're arguing that North Korea has the right to possess nuclear weapons because it is their sovereign right to choose to have them or not. Even though their nuclear weapons program was developed before they withdrew from the NPT and was consequentially in breach of the International law they had signed and ratified. As an analogue, in these terms you are basicly saying that it would be morally acceptable to molest a child if no such law existed in a particular society? How wrong does that sound? And how can this principle not apply to weapons with the capacitry to kill thousands of lives instantaneously? Just because they can does not make it right, and the argument that sovereignty justifies their actions fails to recognise the moral and ethical issues in concern. I mean, does this allow acts such as the holocaust or ethnic cleansing or apartheid to be accepted by the international community because particular nations are using their sovereign legislative capacities to institute such policies. I doubt any body can argue the 'yes' side of that equation and not think of the dire consequences such events have orchestrated.

Sure state soveriegnty is a necessity. It is a foundation of the modern nation state. But I don't think that can be used as a cop-out to protect states that are committing breaches of international law, let alone taking actions that jeopardise peace. Especially in the case of North Korea where the regime is a dictatorship and the people are suffering at the hands of the governments spending and mis-management. I don't see conflict between states as inevitable because I see the international community and the treaty law that binds it, alongside international pressure as powerful actors that can determine the outcome of events that arrive in this sphere of politics. I mean you argue that diplomacy is the preferred path towards resolution but it cannot be imposed on a state. This does not mean that state sovereignty is the be all and end all. Just because a nation like North Korea decides to possess nuclear weapons and does not want to change its stance, it does not mean there are no other options. This very instance is why sanctions exist, why the UN Security Counsel holds persuasive authority, and why the UN can legitimise a war on these grounds.

If China had the capacity to trigger a coup in North Korea that would rid them of their nuclear weapons and implement a new governement that wasn;t in breach of so many basic human rights, who would be arguing that they violated North Korea's sovereign rights? What if China convinced the military to turn against the regime? Just because theoretically it is not right to trespass on a nations right to self-determination does not mean it shouldn't be done in certain circumstances that benefit the majority. I think Mills would agree with this principle, along with Kant and Grotius.

So let me get this straight, basically you're arguing that North Korea has the right to possess nuclear weapons because it is their sovereign right to choose to have them or not. Even though their nuclear weapons program was developed before they withdrew from the NPT and was consequentially in breach of the International law they had signed and ratified. As an analogue, in these terms you are basicly saying that it would be morally acceptable to molest a child if no such law existed in a particular society? How wrong does that sound? And how can this principle not apply to weapons with the capacitry to kill thousands of lives instantaneously? Just because they can does not make it right, and the argument that sovereignty justifies their actions fails to recognise the moral and ethical issues in concern. I mean, does this allow acts such as the holocaust or ethnic cleansing or apartheid to be accepted by the international community because particular nations are using their sovereign legislative capacities to institute such policies. I doubt any body can argue the 'yes' side of that equation and not think of the dire consequences such events have orchestrated.

I think we're arguing diffrent things here. Yes - it is their right to have nuclear arms. No - it isn't ok from a moral standpoint. It is however impossible to defend any actions taken against NK from a moral standpoint due to state soverignty.

What I am arguing is that it is our right to express a negative stance towards NK due to the unnecessity (sp?) of nuclear arms, and yet it is our duty to never breach state sovereignty.

Sure state soveriegnty is a necessity. It is a foundation of the modern nation state. But I don't think that can be used as a cop-out to protect states that are committing breaches of international law, let alone taking actions that jeopardise peace. Especially in the case of North Korea where the regime is a dictatorship and the people are suffering at the hands of the governments spending and mis-management. I don't see conflict between states as inevitable because I see the international community and the treaty law that binds it, alongside international pressure as powerful actors that can determine the outcome of events that arrive in this sphere of politics. I mean you argue that diplomacy is the preferred path towards resolution but it cannot be imposed on a state. This does not mean that state sovereignty is the be all and end all. Just because a nation like North Korea decides to possess nuclear weapons and does not want to change its stance, it does not mean there are no other options. This very instance is why sanctions exist, why the UN Security Counsel holds persuasive authority, and why the UN can legitimise a war on these grounds.

I agree with every point. No questions asked. Only I thought you where a realist, and judging from the italics (added by moí!) - you're not.

If China had the capacity to trigger a coup in North Korea that would rid them of their nuclear weapons and implement a new governement that wasn;t in breach of so many basic human rights, who would be arguing that they violated North Korea's sovereign rights? What if China convinced the military to turn against the regime? Just because theoretically it is not right to trespass on a nations right to self-determination does not mean it shouldn't be done in certain circumstances that benefit the majority. I think Mills would agree with this principle, along with Kant and Grotius.

Well... I'm not sure I agree that Mills would agree that it is morally acceptable to overrun the nation and replace it with a "better" goverment. Kant might though, and I'm not familiar enough with Grotius to argue either side.

But the veil of ignorance is quite intresting to apply to any international dilemma since it really shows what no realist would argue.

Hmmm... I think we are pretty much agreeing on everything. It is sometimes hard to get a solid understanding of everybodies arguements online. Even though they are written clearly I find its hard to know which points are being heavily empthasised over others. Anyway it's good to discuss this kind of stuff.

The only bit my opinion differs is:

I think we're arguing diffrent things here. Yes - it is their right to have nuclear arms. No - it isn't ok from a moral standpoint. It is however impossible to defend any actions taken against NK from a moral standpoint due to state soverignty.

What I am arguing is that it is our right to express a negative stance towards NK due to the unnecessity (sp?) of nuclear arms, and yet it is our duty to never breach state sovereignty.

I believe they have the sovereign right to decide whether or not to have nuclear arms but are prevented by former international law obligations from attaining them

My opion also differs over breaching their state sovereignty, which I put down to a differing opinion over IR theory. I consider it ok to breach state sovereignty only in very specific situations such as humanitarian intervention, peace keeping and if all avenues fail to prevent regime's like that of North Korea's from possessing nuclear weapons. But that is more personal opinion than theory, and goes against IR traditions but in my view is more practical.

BTW, I'm not a realist. Probably more of a liberal. I generally am opposed against any sort of military intervention but my paficism (sp? - opposition to conflict) changes regarding nuclear weapons. Been studying WMD politics, deterrence and stratergies at Uni this semester which has evolved my views.

How the world would be so different if we could establish the world we would create after escaping the veil of ignorance. Good ol' Rawls. Got an exam on him tomorrow actually. Good times...

OT a bit: You're a swede right? Where about do you live? I spent a year on exchange in Ljungby i Smalland a couple of years ago. Can still speak a bit of Swedish but you don't get much practice in Oz. Also are you studying and where at?

(Sorry for any spelling and grammatical errors - can't sleep and it's 2:30am)

Hmmm... I think we are pretty much agreeing on everything. It is sometimes hard to get a solid understanding of everybodies arguements online. Even though they are written clearly I find its hard to know which points are being heavily empthasised over others. Anyway it's good to discuss this kind of stuff.

The only bit my opinion differs is:

I think we're arguing diffrent things here. Yes - it is their right to have nuclear arms. No - it isn't ok from a moral standpoint. It is however impossible to defend any actions taken against NK from a moral standpoint due to state soverignty.

What I am arguing is that it is our right to express a negative stance towards NK due to the unnecessity (sp?) of nuclear arms, and yet it is our duty to never breach state sovereignty.

I believe they have the sovereign right to decide whether or not to have nuclear arms but are prevented by former international law obligations from attaining them

My opion also differs over breaching their state sovereignty, which I put down to a differing opinion over IR theory. I consider it ok to breach state sovereignty only in very specific situations such as humanitarian intervention, peace keeping and if all avenues fail to prevent regime's like that of North Korea's from possessing nuclear weapons. But that is more personal opinion than theory, and goes against IR traditions but in my view is more practical.

Aye, that would be the point we disagree. I think the sovereignty is supreme, however I would want to be different. I would really have wanted someone to just go in to Darfur and doing what was possible.

But sovereignty reigns supreme for me.

BTW, I'm not a realist. Probably more of a liberal. I generally am opposed against any sort of military intervention but my paficism (sp? - opposition to conflict) changes regarding nuclear weapons. Been studying WMD politics, deterrence and stratergies at Uni this semester which has evolved my views.

How the world would be so different if we could establish the world we would create after escaping the veil of ignorance. Good ol' Rawls. Got an exam on him tomorrow actually. Good times...

OT a bit: You're a swede right? Where about do you live? I spent a year on exchange in Ljungby i Smalland a couple of years ago. Can still speak a bit of Swedish but you don't get much practice in Oz. Also are you studying and where at?

(Sorry for any spelling and grammatical errors - can't sleep and it's 2:30am)

I live in Växjö so that's right near Ljungby. I go to Vaxjo University which you may, or may not be familiar with.

Vaxjo hey! Nice town and really nice university from memory. Had a couple of big nights out there, especially one night at the old castle thing near the campus. It was an all night party with DJs and the band Melody Club played. Are you from Vaxjo originally? What course are you studying? No anybody named Jon from Ronneby (good friend of mine over there that is a big Basketball fan and studies at the same University)?

And somewhat back on topic - the Darfur situation is so sad because it gets so little attention even though it is a major dilemma. It is very reminiscent of Rwanda in the rest of the worlds reluctance to act, and they will probably leave it too late again. Will they (being the leaders who make these decisions) ever learn?

Also what do you think of the proposed naval blockade of North Korea to prevent nuclear weapons escaping 'potentially' to rogue states and terrorists (regardless of how slim the chances really are I guess)? Seems to be gathering a bit of support. I'm not 100% sure if there is an international agreement to allow this kind of action, but I do know something alonf these lines has at least been proposed. I guess it still allows North Korea it sovereign capacities, while containing the situation and I guess in a way limiting the security threat posed to the rest of the world. IMHO its a good idea in theory but may be a little too provocative at the moment and may keep tensions to high for too long. I guess we'll just wait and see.