Here are a few suggestions for intelligent analysis of the North Korea situation, which now includes missile tests, a nuclear test, and even a warning that "[North Korea] is no longer bound by the 1953 armistice that halted the Korean War." And you thought Virginia politics were rough? Ha. :)The Washington Note by Steve Clemons has an article entitled, What Should Obama Do When Kim Jong Il is Not "Kim Jong Well"? Clemons says "there are simply few real options," advocating "patience" and diplomacy to "find a way to co-opt the North Koreans into a new dance." Clemons adds:
North Korea's provocations are reckless but while going higher up the ladder of naughtiness, they do not meet the standard for invasion or attack -- and a tougher "sanctions regime" may give the bad guys in North Korea's unstable political order exactly what they want.
The Telegraph's Diplomatic Editor, David Blair, also advocates patience writing that "North Korea's unique combination of might and fragility rules out the use of economic or military pressure." Blair concludes:
In the end, Mr Obama has only one viable option: waiting for North Korea's regime to destroy itself. In the meantime, America and her allies will have to contain Mr Kim's serial delinquency, perhaps by throwing him the occasional bone.
Foreign Policy magazine has "How Scared Should You Be: Six Takes on North Korea's Nuclear Test by six different analysts. Donald Gross advocates "careful calculation and skillful diplomacy," including "energizing the Six Party nuclear talks" and "vigorous bilateral diplomacy" are the ways to go. Daniel Drezner hopes that the North Korean provocations will help "goad China and Russia into doing something." Steven Walt warns against "going into full panic mode." To the contrary, Walt believes that "the best response is to remain calm, and stop talking as if this event is a test of Obama's resolve or a fundamental challenge to U.S. policy." Philip Zelikow proposes a two-track approach to what he calls the "spreading cancer of North Korea": 1) "to offer -- in good faith -- a genuine opportunity for the North to make a constructive strategic choice for the future"; and 2) "to strengthen U.S. and allied ability (political as well as military) to defend themselves if the North made a different choice." Siegfried Hecker writes, "North Korea's tests are not the scary part. It's the country's collaboration with Iran." Hecker concludes that "[p]reventing escalation of nuclear and missile cooperation is critical to avoid destabilizing Northeast Asia and the Middle East."
Anyway, those are just a few examples of intelligent analysis regarding the North Korea situation. Who do you listen to on this part of the world?
