Accountability a good thing
The American leadership has told two feudal tyrants that they will now be held accountable for the weapons they proliferate, for the agreements they violate and for the deceptions and betrayals they undertake against democratic societies. The era of appeasement is over.
Kim Jong-il is now threatening war if the UN imposes economic sanctions. It should be patently clear that his nuclear gambit is 100 percent a staged publicity stunt, a pathetic attempt to get attention.
The only sensible response to a temper tantrum from a spoiled child is just to ignore it. When he sees his behavior is not eliciting the desired response, he'll crawl back to his sandbox and threaten somebody else.
Saddam Hussein's weapons declaration, alas, declared nothing. Largely photocopied from documents submitted before to the UN, it contained no mention of weapons programs for which the UN acquired hard, factual evidence during its last weapons inspections. We have absolutely no explanation of what happened to those stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqis seem to think that their assertion that no such weapons exist constitutes proof.
Saddam has now balked at allowing interviews with Iraqi scientists, claiming these would only serve US intelligence purposes. Yet every occasion on which inspectors have uncovered evidence of Iraqi violations in the past has occurred as a result of interviews with Iraqi scientists.
Obviously, his intention all along was to make such spying accusations as a prelude to expelling the inspectors as spies for the US. This will occur the moment he believes any risk exists that a scientist may reveal details of the covert weapons programs.
Being in the habit of having everything your own way does tend to make dictators predictable, however. The West should use this. Tyrants expect the West to negotiate, to make proposals, to come to agreements. Our cultural bias towards seeking rational accommodations with opponents is, in fact, a dangerous folly when dealing with illegitimate rulers. The Chinese military philosopher, Sun Tzu, asserts this as one of his basic precepts.
Can we at last learn the hard lesson that no dictator will ever feel bound by agreements? They dishonor any expectation of a social contract, a social agreement with their own people, so any agreement they reach with democratic governments will also be honored only in the breach. The paramount rule when dealing with terrorist regimes, as in the movie, Die Another Day, is "no deals."
The way forward, then, is eminently clear. Let us not give a gram of food aid to North Korea, not a drop of fuel oil. Pursue a full embargo with all possible force. No deals. Let us not continue the current charade with the Iraqi regime. Being in clear and definable breach of its weapons declaration obligations and, it appears, in its obligations concerning scientist interviews, it should be fully disarmed by military force. No deals.
After North Korea verifiably dismantles its nuclear program in its entirety, the international community will expect the regime to resign. The world cannot allow Kim to starve the North Korean people any longer. Any failure to disarm will, quite simply, result in its being disarmed by military force. No deals.
Accountability is a beautiful thing.
Stephen Carter
Bangkok
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath