That one was hard to see coming
China to Block Vote Condemning N. Korea (Colum Lynch, WaPo)
China and Russia presented the U.N. Security Council Wednesday with a draft resolution that "strongly deplores" North Korea's July 4 missile tests. But it endorses only voluntary measures aimed at restraining Pyongyang's ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs.
The move threatens to head off a U.S.-backed effort to impose mandatory sanctions on North Korea, and places the United States, Japan and their European allies in the difficult position of having to offer concessions to secure Beijing's and Moscow's support or face a certain veto of their tougher sanctions resolution.
China's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, confirmed Wednesday that he is prepared to veto a legally binding, U.S.-backed resolution that would condemn the missile tests, demand North Korea cease launching missiles, and ban trade in nuclear or missile technology with North Korea.
Okay, all you fans of diplomacy, what next?
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 07/13/06 10:22 | International | Technorati
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
TrackBack
There are currently no trackbacks for this item.
Incoming trackback pings have been disabled because of abusive spammers. Technorati is now used to track cross-blog conversation.
Comments
What are our other options at this point? I'm not sure we have the wherewithal to pull off a military strike by ourselves. We wouldn't even be able to put together a Potemkin coalition like we had for Iraq for Korea. Unlike Iraq in 2003, North Korea has a formidable army waiting. Even massive airstrikes alone would send their army pouring across the 38th parallel, and Seoul is only 35-40 miles from there.
Unilateral sanctions? Do we even get anything from them? or vice-versa?
Besides, the draft the Chinese and Russians submitted was stronger than the responses they've been giving the Koreans to this point, so diplomacy is starting to work, now that the Bush administration is actually beginning to use it. Plus, any concessions we'd make at this point would be to the Russians or the Chinese, not the Koreans. That's not particularly palatable, I know, but the Koreans are certinly going to listen to the Chinese or the Russians before they listen to us. We simply don't have the juice anymore to pull off this kind of thing without diplomacy. Any goodwill or political capital this country had was squandered long ago by the Bush administration.
Posted by another precinct chair @ 13:37 on 07/13/06
What are our other options at this point? I'm not sure we have the wherewithal to pull off a military strike by ourselves.
Oh, I'm sure we do. :)
Now, whether that's the best approach or not, I don't really know at this point. I really am soliciting advice!
Posted by Kevin @ 13:48 on 07/13/06
Isn't it obvious? If "strongly deploring" doesn't work, we shall just have to taunt them a second time.
Posted by Tom Hanna @ 14:43 on 07/13/06
I'm including political will in wherewithal.
Without doing, you know, actual research, I don't really have any good advice. I certainly don't want to try and pass myself off as some kind of Asian expert.
In spite of good advice to the contrary, we've fought two land wars in Asia. Neither turned out well.
Posted by another precinct chair @ 15:02 on 07/13/06
Even if we traded anything other than barbs with the DPRK sanctions still wouldn't work. Their people are already starving and they have virtually no contact with the outside world.
Here is an interview with Bradley Martin that may be interesting for anyone who cares about this topic (He has a novel approach to diplomacy):
http://www.frontpagemag.com...
As someone who has made the short drive from Seoul to the DMZ I can say that the idea of military action against Pyongyang seems utterly ridiculous. They don't need long range missiles to level Seoul; they need about 30 minutes.
Posted by Ethan @ 15:28 on 07/13/06
In spite of good advice to the contrary, we've fought two land wars in Asia. Neither turned out well.
What two were those? Sure Korea was fought to a draw, but that was our goal. Ditto with the 1991 Gulf War where we achieved our objective and left the southern Iraqis to be slaughtered. If you define well as "total victory", I guess I'd have to agree, but since total victory wasn't our goal I can't. Hmmm...maybe you meant Afghanistan where our goal was to leave a chastened Taliban in power, but the military did too good a job and they turned tail and ran?
No land wars in Asia is the wrong advice. The right advice: No half-hearted efforts in war.
Posted by Tom Hanna @ 16:07 on 07/14/06
I was letting my Cold War mindset get in the way (history degree and all), and I realized that after I had posted. I figured someone would call me on it. The advice I was referring to was MacArthur's famous quote (and I can't remember it exactly off the top of my head) about anyone advocating a land war in Asia clearly being out of their mind, or words to that effect. I tend to think of the Middle East as its own specific area, but you're absolutely right; it's in Asia.
The two I meant were Korea and Vietnam. I'm not sure losing 54,000+ lives in a stalemate qualifies as anything other than a net loss, but you make a good point about our goal going into the conflict.
Getting to the more recent Asian wars, though, I have to agree with you completely on Gulf War I. Afghanistan? Leaving a chastened Taliban in power? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Wasn't the idea to put an elected government in place? Again, I'm working off the top of my head here, but wasn't the idea for Karzai to root out the Taliban with US help? Well, that hasn't happened. The Taliban has retrenched and is gaining strength in Afghanistan. I wish it weren't so, but it is. Half-hearted is what happened in Afghanistan when the Bush administration got obsessed with Iraq and diverted all its assets there and forgot about Afghanistan, where there were actual terrorists.
Posted by another precinct chair @ 09:47 on 07/15/06
Add Comments
While it is not required, creating an account for commenting provides a number of benefits (such as comment editing and bypassing the captcha challenge). You may log in to your account here.
No flames or impolite behavior. Any questions, see the site policies. Older posts are moderated (because of spammers), so if your post does not appear immediately, that could be why.
HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
[b]text[/b] will produce bold text. [i]text[/i] will produce italicized text.
Comments for this post must be approved before being published. Thank you!
BLOG
» Create Account
» Log In
DISCLAIMER
Content and design copyright © 1997-2008, Kevin Whited.
Posts represent the views of Kevin Whited (and occasional guest bloggers) only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of employers, family, friends, or significant others.