…That’s Kissinger, on the Fox News channel. I’m sure he understands perfectly well why it’s not happening. (That, or he’s really, really gone off his rocker.) But what does he mean by “international system”?
Now, if Japan, China, Russia, the United States together cannot convince or -- a country of the size of North Korea by creating enough pressure, what is the sense of talking about an international system at all? And I believe that China and we and Japan should be able to bring about the denuclearization of North Korea.
…
[I] f we cannot deal with a country that has no natural resources that others want, no significant trade, totally dependent on its neighbors for supplies, then what is the sense of talking of an international system?
ADD* (25 May): Kissinger asserts that “China and we and Japan should be able to bring about the denuclearization of North Korea”. Perhaps, but if so, he, as an expert and practitioner of international relations, should not be throwing up his hands over “the international system” like some petulant blogger and instead should be telling us something the rest of the world has not been able to figure out so far. After all, if a key component—in this case China—in pursuit of its interests fails to put the squeeze on the transgressor—in this case North Korea—then the “system” will obviously not achieve its goal. And it’s pretty obvious that China has what it perceives as quite sensible reasons from a national interest perspective to take its current tack.
* ZI’s comment reminded me that I failed to explain my criticism of Kissinger’s comments in my original post. This addendum is intended to rectify that omission.
5 comments:
I think he means "international community". Its main characteristic, as Kissinger highlights it, is precisely to be non-existent.
ZI: Being the power-politics realist that he is, Kissinger most likely would not equate the term “international system” of sovereign states acting out of self-interest with an “international community” that suggests an underlying amity that compels nations to put the common good ahead of national interest. Either way, if he “knows” that it doesn’t exist, he wouldn’t be so insistent that “China and we and Japan should be able to bring about the denuclearization of North Korea”. Your comment reminds me that I was a little cryptic in my criticism of Kissinger’s talk. I’ve gone back and added an addendum for clarification.
There is possibly some truth in that mumbling. To be sure, it is absolutely wrong to say North Korea has no natural resources.
However, it is true that it does not seem to be in anyone's interest to resolve the North Korea problem. It is in everyone's interest to keep it nasty until someone can get the upper hand. Besides natural resources, North Korea has very very cheap labor.
So until someone can figure out how to access the resources and labor, everyone will just have to make due with a threat. And everyone likes a threat, it keeps the Japanese militant, the US in Asia, and the South Koreans nervous. And all this gives the Chinese and Russians something to do other than take care of their people. All good for everyone.
And Aso now got the "Kim bump" which in his part of the political world is way better than the "Colbert bump." Aso is counting on the Norks to win the election for him.
And, as usual, we note that there is not real threat to Japan whatsoever.
Japan "has what it perceives as quite sensible reasons from a national interest perspective" to:
1) stay non-nuclear
2) engage South Korea and China economically, culturally, and emotionally
3) promote its "system" for East Asia
4) deal with peak oil, climate change, and the food/energy crisis in a unilateral way: rather than the silly Juche ideas that DPRK pushes, as if any country (or race) is truly own their own on this planet.
Anonymous: I agree with you in a very general sense that there are certain downsides as well to the end of North Korea as we know it today. But I do not think that the authorities in Japan, South Korea, or the United States see a North Korean nuclear presence as something that is in their respective national interests.
Martin: Whatever else you’re not, you are consistent and I respect you for that. I don’t think that Japan is push any “system” of its own these days though. And I didn’t understand what you meant by “deal[ing] with peak oil, climate change, and the food/energy crisis in a unilateral way”. The official line at least seems to be the opposite, that is, the multilateral way.
Post a Comment