Monday, August 11, 2003 :::
I'm sure Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. knows more about international relations than I do, but I read most of this piece on North Korea mulling over a counterpoint:Worse yet, the history of arms control in general and past dealings with serial treaty-buster North Korea in particular suggest a sorry prospect: When (not if) Pyongyang violates whatever obligations it assumes in the course of the new negotiations, the West will nonetheless feel constrained to honor its commitment, i.e., not to topple the north's dictatorship. On the contrary, it seems to me that this is exactly what we want; offer the pledge of nonagression as part of the agreement, and design the agreement to be absolutely sure that - it will be violated and
- North Korea will be promptly and publicly caught in the act.
That, then, becomes our pretext. We just need to make sure that this takes place under Bush's watch, so that he'll follow through.
::: posted by dWj at 4:53 PM
|