The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.
IEET readers are more likely to want the US and UN to get tougher on North Korea than to ignore them.
Of course, dealing with nutty dictatorships with powerful weapons of mass destruction will only become more pressing in the future, as genetic, nano and cyber technologies become more accessible.
The question shouldn't be whether or not they are a "threat" to the United States, or any western country. The question should be "How can we help North Korea." The people of North Korea comes before the corrupt government. So thinking of creative ways in helping the people of North Korea seems like the right thing to do for me. And because i suggested this, one example i have would be reviewing what kind of media they are exposed to on a daily basis, and ways that we can get through that media in a positive way. The Internet is a powerful tool. Regimes like this need to be eliminated, and i think we can think of creative ways to help in this technological world instead of going to war. Information/concepts (memes) and ways to relate to fellow minds - are perhaps the best weapons we will have in the future.
We already sort of have it now, but only if people would listen.
"Of course, dealing with nutty dictatorships with powerful weapons of mass destruction will only become more pressing in the future, as genetic, nano and cyber technologies become more accessible." is a true statement, and needs to be considered. It is of the upmost importance that radical human rights abusing regimes do not get access to this kind of technology... but war.... war is not the answer.
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21185
And of course we have to watch how our own government's utilize these technologies. We should also keep in mind our own history of using advanced technology. Thinkers such as Bertrand Russell, Noam Chomsky, and Howard Zinn, have outlined the atrocities of our own government(s) in recent history - abusing the power in which new technology allows. So while we have to worry about N. Korea and the like, we also have to critique our own usage of current technology and of course the forthcoming technology of the next few decades. Writers such as Gregory Stock and Simon Young, including all of those participating in IEET are beginning to look at the usage of future technology in similar light as those stated above, so we can learn from the past and move on to an amazing future of ethical use of these technologies.
But what does the US and UN getting ''tougher'' on North Korea actually mean? More sanctions that don't accomplish anything or actually end up impoverishing the North Korean people more while strenghtening the nutty dictator's hold on power?
The solution seems to me to actually engage in diplomacy that actually gives North Korea what it really wants:
1. Agreements with the U.S. that will outlast a change of U.S. presidencies.
2. A bilateral U.S.-North Korea nuclear arms reduction negotiation in which North Korea is accorded a status as a nuclear weapon state that agrees to mutual nuclear arms reductions (not elimination) and confidence building measures.
3. A non-agresssion pact AND a positive security assurance from the United States that it will not allow the regime to collapse during a Chinese-style economic reform process.
LS,
I absolutely agree, pass that one on to the Obama Admin! Can you elaborate on point #3 "not allow the regime to collapse during a Chinese-style economic reform process" the pact would be with the people obviously, simultaneously with bilateral arms reduction? what would that look like?
"IEET readers are more likely to want the US and UN to get tougher on North Korea than to ignore them. "
I'm sure the readers from Hawaii are unlikely to ignore them, given today's news.
Also, LS, your reasoning is precisely what the Left thought about pre-bush-iraq-war sanction policy. The Clinton administration was big on sanctions and bombing of Iraq as we know. So bad was it that in an article written from the Daily Star from Lebanon, states Denis J. Halliday (United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq from September 1, 1997 until 1998) in saying "the US, and specifically the Clinton administration, could "be blamed for crimes against humanity, including possibly genocide" because of the sanctions."(2) Hopefully we will actually get somewhere this time around in the case of North Korea, helping the people, decreasing political tension, and opening up the floor for discussion about future technology which may equal, or surpass nuclear weapons in their threat against the survival of our species. Obviously N. Korea does not have enough Nukes to destroy the entire world, but we really need to have a worldwide table of discussion about forthcoming high-tech weapons, where every state is in some kind of communication and cooperation.
The below link talks about current sanctions and the tension that Washington and the U.N. creates, for example in dealing with North Korea "the Obama administration is, so far, at least as bad as the one it replaced. Just last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the administration was considering placing North Korea back on the State Department's terrorist list."(1)
It would be amazing to see an internet-aided uprising like that which is currently going on in Iran, happen in N. Korea, but communications in N. Korea are extremely controlled by its government. According to this wiki entry "Internet use in North Korea is restricted to internet cafes or hotels designated for foreign tourists in Pyongyang, connected via a satellite link."(4) I hope this changes along with the eradication of sanctions so that the people of North Korea can have a real say and help end the suffering.
1. http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/21699
2. http://www.commondreams.org/views/070700-103.htm
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_North_Korea
''North [Korea] wants a particular type of security assurance from the United States. This stems from the fundamental reform dilemma that the regime faces: it needs to open up to survive, but the process of opening leads to the regime's demise. Thus, what Pyongyang wants is an assurance from the United States that it will not allow the regime to collapse during a reform process. This is different from a negative security assurance. The negative security assurance was given to North Korea in the 2005 Joint Statement when the US agreed "not to attack North Korea with nuclear or conventional weapons." This statement : astounding on its own merits : led the Russian delegation to pull aside the North Koreans to tell them they believed the US was serious, based on their own Cold War experience when they could not get such an assurance from Washington. But this is not what the North wants. They want an assurance that the United States will support and bolster the regime in Pyongyang as they go through the dangerous and potentially destabilizing effects of a reform process.''
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?ots591=4888CAA0-B3DB-1461-98B9-E20E7B9C13D4&lng=en&id=100611
IEET Blog |
email list |
newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.
Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT
06106 USA
Email: director @ ieet.org phone:
860-297-2376
IEET Blog