A Win For North Korea

For those who are interested in the current peace talks between North and South Korea, it would be helpful if they read about them with some perspective about the U.S. role.

For more than six years the Bush administration has been attacking the North Korean government, listing them among the axis of evil, and saber rattling while the North Koreans have postured their nuclear power plants and sent missles out over the Sea of Japan (East Sea).

Now, with seeming surprise, there is talk that America will promise not to undertake an aggressive war against North Korea in return for the North’s promise to stop its nuclear endeavor. Shades of remarkability, is this not the same proposal that President Clinton made nearly a decade ago. And was it not seen then as a “win” for North Korea.

Well, that is because it is. I don’t usually buy all that Bruce Cumings says about the Korean War, but he is sure on the mark in his recent comments when he explains just how much of a win it is for the North.

North Korean Economy: http://nkeconwatch.com
Roundup: Historian. http://hnn.us/roundup/1.html#44102

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

An Obvious Question?

Surely it is time someone in the Bush administration asked themselves the obvious question: What does North Korea want?

In between the sword rattling and the rhetoric about peace treaties, the message does not seem to have changed a great deal in the past thirty years.

More than anything North Korea wants to be left alone. By left alone, I mean treated like any other sovereign country, free of international harassment, free of a foreign power poising troops on its border, free to trade for the food and energy it needs.

And is this too much to ask? Somehow I don't think so.

http://www.etherzone.com/2006/raim070706.shtml
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/IF02Dg01.html

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

Will Iraq Become Another Korea?

There has been a great deal of talk the past few weeks over President Bush's comparison of the war in Iraq to that which began in Korea more than half a century ago. The president seems to be suggesting that the long-range mission in Iraq will keep American troops stationed there well into 2065, and that they will continue to be needed in such a way as to cause them to be in harm's way.

Some of the disagreement I hear about this has to do with the stretch involved in the comparison of the two wars. I suppose this is correct even though the two seem to have a great deal in common. True, Korea was more traditional in the beginning with the localized fighting of hill wars and urban conflict coming near the end. But in both cases we are dealing with a civil war that will not (did not in Korea) end when the primary fighting is over. In both cases we are dealing with highly nationalistic peoples who, while seeking their own agenda, are willing to take on the cover of an international crusade (Islamic or Communistic).

Part of the difficulty, I believe, it that the current administration, like so many we have had recently, do not have any historical sense whatsoever, nor have they learned anything from America’s involvement in numerous localized wars. In Korea it was obvious from the beginning that we did not understand Communism, nor did we comprehend the distinctions between national and international communism, linking China, Russia, and then North Korea within the same system. Systematic to the problem in Korea was the determined nationalism of its leaders, both north and south, and failure of a UN imposed division of their nation. In what way is the problem in Iraq much different?

But aside from these arguments of comparison, let us not ignore the horror of what is being suggested: American soldiers will be engaged in another dangerous occupation well into the last three quarters of this century. Have we thought this one through?

Senior Fellow Paul Edwards