When two young boys square off in the school playground, they will often appeal to higher powers. “My big brother can beat up your big brother!” they cry out as a scare tactic. Even if the two kids don’t come to blows, one will still try to impress the other by claiming that his elder brother is stronger, richer, or more successful.
The United States and North Korea are negotiating a resolution to the current nuclear crisis. Enthusiasm in Washington for regime collapse in Pyongyang has died down. But the United States hasn’t changed its fundamental approach to Northeast Asia.
After finally receiving $24 million in frozen assets, North Korea shut down its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon in July. The optimists cautiously celebrated the move as the first step toward the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and the eventual establishment of diplomatic relations between Washington and Pyongyang. The pessimists drolly pointed out that we’re back to where we were in 2002, except that now North Korea has a whole lot more nuclear material and possibly a bomb to boot.
While the American people are seeking a way to bring the troops home from Iraq, the President and his administration are aiming to stay for much longer by redefining “victory” in Iraq once again—this time as a permanent occupier. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters on June first this year that he favors a mutual agreement with Iraq in which “some force of Americans…is present for a protracted period of time….” Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, in charge of daily military operations in Iraq, supported this idea, comparing our involvement in Iraq to our continued military presence in South Korea. This type of “victory” was not what America signed up for as Bush led the nation to war. But even worse, this victory isn’t even realistic.
Film poster for A Schoolgirl’s Diary. Photo by Nicholas Bonner.
As part of our China Focus, we asked two leading scholars to reflect on the tensions and possibilities in U.S.-China relations. Bonnie Glaser is a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. James Nolt is a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute. We asked them first about the potential for a strategic security partnership between the United States and China, then about their economic relationship.
Time Magazine in its July 8 issue makes a rather bold statement declaring “The end of cowboy diplomacy” of George W. Bush. These type headlines are seen during the slow news season of August or September in Washington when the U.S. Congress is in recess and not much is happening. But there is no lack of high drama right now.
Even though North Korea’s long-range missile turned out to be a dud, Pyongyang has nevertheless achieved its aim by getting the world’s attention. Governments around the world have rushed to condemn Pyongyang. Japan and the United States want to bring the full weight of the United Nations against the country. North Korea, meanwhile, has argued that it would consider comprehensive sanctions an act of war. It’s threatening a nuclear strike if attacked.
Headline news about the threat of nuclear terrorism and the concerns about the nuclear capabilities and ambitions of Iran and North Korea regimes has led some Washington policy makers and pundits to conclude that the nuclear nonproliferation system has failed. A new strategy, they say, must be developed to replace it, or, perhaps, we must even accept that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable.
Daryl Kimball contends that I and my former boss, Ted Galen Carpenter (vice president of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute), are "like the Bush policy team" because we advanced "the proposition that aggressive and erratic regimes with nuclear weapons are a threat to their neighbors, while nuclear arsenals in the hands of stable, democratic, U.S. allies are not."