If you were in control of dealing with North Korea, knowing that whatever agreement we reached would probably only include a fraction of what each side really wants...
•Which of the things they want from the rest of us (removal of American forces from SK, end of exercises with SK right in front of NK's faces, more money, more food, more weapons) would you be willing to offer, and in what order or for what in exchange?...
•And which of the things the rest of us want from them (end of nuclear weapon & missile development, removal of artillery aimed at Seoul, better treatment of its own citizens, more open borders so foreign aid can be properly managed by those who are giving it and more people from both sides meet each other and see that the others aren't enemies) would you demand/request, and in what order or for what in exchange?
NK's nuclear & missile programs get the most attention, but to me the more pivotal issue is the artillery. That's essentially a WMD they already have, even though there's only one place it can be used against, whereas nuclear missiles are WMDs they don't have yet. Thus, the artillery has been serving the role of nukes in the North-Korean equivalent of MAD so far; the automatic response if anybody suggests regime change or a strike on their nuclear & missile development facilities is "then they start shooting Seoul"; eliminating the nuclear missile threat like Israel did to Iraq would be so simple without the artillery threat that it probably would have already been done by now. Unfortunately, although a lot of the bluster coming from NK is about the future nukes, I think at least some of them understand how much more important the artillery is, which would be confirmed if that were our starting point in negotiations, so it's what they'd be the hardest to budge from. But it's not all-or-nothing; out of 700 guns, maybe an agreement could be reached about the removal of some lower number.
Overall, their likely stubbornness about the artillery might mean that the more effective place to begin is the more open borders to let the NK people see who the rest of the world really is and allow foreign aid workers to actually get the aid to the people who need the aid. This would not only be better for the actual citizens of NK (remember them?) but also shift the subject of the overall process, from military confrontationalism to how to actually make things better for people.
Something that might make this simpler for me than a lot of other outsiders is my willingness to give them parts of what they want, because what they want is not stuff that I deem important to withhold.
•Which of the things they want from the rest of us (removal of American forces from SK, end of exercises with SK right in front of NK's faces, more money, more food, more weapons) would you be willing to offer, and in what order or for what in exchange?...
•And which of the things the rest of us want from them (end of nuclear weapon & missile development, removal of artillery aimed at Seoul, better treatment of its own citizens, more open borders so foreign aid can be properly managed by those who are giving it and more people from both sides meet each other and see that the others aren't enemies) would you demand/request, and in what order or for what in exchange?
NK's nuclear & missile programs get the most attention, but to me the more pivotal issue is the artillery. That's essentially a WMD they already have, even though there's only one place it can be used against, whereas nuclear missiles are WMDs they don't have yet. Thus, the artillery has been serving the role of nukes in the North-Korean equivalent of MAD so far; the automatic response if anybody suggests regime change or a strike on their nuclear & missile development facilities is "then they start shooting Seoul"; eliminating the nuclear missile threat like Israel did to Iraq would be so simple without the artillery threat that it probably would have already been done by now. Unfortunately, although a lot of the bluster coming from NK is about the future nukes, I think at least some of them understand how much more important the artillery is, which would be confirmed if that were our starting point in negotiations, so it's what they'd be the hardest to budge from. But it's not all-or-nothing; out of 700 guns, maybe an agreement could be reached about the removal of some lower number.
Overall, their likely stubbornness about the artillery might mean that the more effective place to begin is the more open borders to let the NK people see who the rest of the world really is and allow foreign aid workers to actually get the aid to the people who need the aid. This would not only be better for the actual citizens of NK (remember them?) but also shift the subject of the overall process, from military confrontationalism to how to actually make things better for people.
Something that might make this simpler for me than a lot of other outsiders is my willingness to give them parts of what they want, because what they want is not stuff that I deem important to withhold.
- Threatening military exercises right over the border or even over NK ground? Gone; I don't care about them a bit. They already know we can kick their butts, we can practice kicking their butts in other ways, and rubbing their faces in it has never done any good but give them more threats from the outside to point at as needing to be countered.
- Scaling down or eliminating American military presence in South Korea? Fine; it costs us money, a substantial amount of the South Koran populace doesn't really like it either, and the need for it, in order to help them defend themselves, decreases if we get some kind of decrease in the threat from the North in exchange anyway. (Imagine Korea with no nukes, Seoul not being held hostage with artillery anymore, no American bases & soldiers, and no foreign military exercises encroaching on Korean land to threaten anybody in Korea with what the foreigners might do to them; how is that not better for both sides?) The one military tool we'd be most likely to need to use over there is air power rather than infantry & cavalry anyway, and that can be done from Japan & Guam, which NK hasn't been demanding the removal of, and ground forces can always be sent back in later if really really needed.
- More food & money? Perfect; one of the things I'd be asking for is to let us help them anyway, as long as it's managed by someone from our side so it goes to those who need it instead of becoming another tool of oppression.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2K8465B
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire