Monday, June 8, 2009


I strongly disagree with Henry Kissinger when he writes in today's The Washington Post:

"The ultimate issue is not regional but concerns the prospects for world order, especially for a Pacific political structure along the lines put forward by the thoughtful Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd. There could scarcely be an issue more suited to cooperation among the Great Powers than nonproliferation, especially with regard to North Korea, a regime that is run by fanatics; located on the borders of China, Russia and South Korea; and within missile range of Japan. Still, the major countries have been unable to galvanize themselves into action."

I disagree with Kissinger's implications between the lines which I understand as using military power to stop North Korea.

I don't want a world order where the United States considers military action to solve what it considers "bad behavior" on the part of other nations.

First. No country other than America has ever used nuclear weapons against another. Having nuclear weapons seems to be the ultimate constraint against using them, especially when many other countries possess them. So North Korea, for all its bluster, is tied up by its own nuclear bombs. There is no need to do anything drastic for "world order."

Second. The U.S. should keep its nose out of the Far East. North Korea is no realistic imminent threat to the U.S., nor has it fired any of its missiles or weapons at the U.S. It is about as much danger to the U.S. as it is towards Norway.

Third. The "world order" in the 21st Century that Kissinger talks about is one of his own making, an order where the U.S. exercises complete hegemony over the rest of the world. This vision is outdated and should be scuttled. In other words, American war planes and tanks and drone missiles are counter-productive, dated and political destructive for the U.S.

No comments:

Post a Comment