North Korea's Nuclear Threat: A Bigger Problem
Even before the US knew it didn't have the votes for a second UN resolution permitting force against the Saddam-ite regime in Iraq, many critics of the administration wanted to know why North Korea was being treated differently. The reasons are legion, ranging from the Freudian to the militarily pragmatic, but there appears to be no avoiding the issue any longer. The time has come to end the Korean War, and a peace treaty is the cure for the ills of the Northern Pacific.
One can hear the shrieks of hysteria in the Bush administration over the very thought of a formal peace treaty. Yet, there are no other realistic and acceptable alternatives. Doing nothing will result in a plutonium market for those who wish us ill. War will result in the devastation not only of North Korea but South Korea as well. And negotiations ultimately have to result in some kind of deal -- except perhaps in the Middle East.
There will be complaints that evil is being rewarded. There will be accusations that the US is giving in to nuclear blackmail. There will be worries that any deal will weaken America's stand against the Axis of Evil. None of this should derail the Bush administration.
The Saddam-ites are gone because a military victory there was possible, despite the rolling start, too few troops and wargaming against the wrong enemy. North Korea is different; the last time the US tried to replace the regime in Pyongyang, the Chinese army came streaming across the Yalu River. The Chinese prefer having a buffer state there.
And that is the key. China has an interest in keeping the peace and containing the regime if only to preserve it. The solution still lies with Beijing, and the Bush administration will be better served in trying to get the Chinese leadership to do the job.