We should "talk" to Iran because "It's working" with North Korea?!

I can't believe that anyone is so naive, but Ted Carpenter is. You'd think someone smart enough to be at Cato wouldn't have such foolish trust, but we can now rank Carpenter with Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Jimmy Carter.

Washington made little progress with the North Koreans until the United States ended its refusal to enter negotiations before they ceased all violations of the 1994 agreement, which was supposed to freeze their nuclear program. Eventually, the U.S. succumbed to pressure from China and East Asian allies and agreed to multilateral negotiations in the form of the six-party talks. But it has only been in the past six months or so that the United States has engaged in direct negotiations with North Korea.

North Korea made it perfectly clear last year: after the U.S. alone gave it millions of tons of food "aid" and countless joules of fuel, it was lying to us for 11 years while it pursued a nuclear weapons program. Why should we believe for a second that it's being straight with us now?

If we have the same success "talking" with Iran as we've had with North Korea, then God help us.

These talks were crucial to the breakthrough that has taken place, and they have involved far more than a narrow focus on the nuclear issue. Washington and Pyongyang are now considering such matters as the normalization of diplomatic and economic relations, the removal of North Korea from the State Department's list of states that sponsor terrorism, and a treaty to formally end the Korean War.

There's no breakthrough. Time and time again, U.S. diplomats have been suckered into "negotiations" that are merely the other side's way of stalling.

A U.S. diplomatic initiative involving Iran would require similar characteristics. Direct, high-level negotiations between Washington and Tehran — far more rigorous than the sporadic U.S.-Iranian talks on Iraq — would be imperative. A useful step would be for President Bush to appoint a prominent special envoy, perhaps former secretary of state James Baker, to represent the United States.

Iran loves this: it will buy them more time to build more centrifuges and acquire more technology.

Moreover, those negotiations would have to concern more than Iran's nuclear program or the future of Iraq. Indeed, they would need to encompass the entire range of U.S.-Iranian relations. Topics would have to include removal of U.S. and U.N. economic sanctions and the restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries, as well as the explicit end of Tehran's quest to build nuclear weapons.

Oh, and Iran will gladly renounce terrorism, including disarming and pulling funds from Hezbollah and other groups? I'm sure it will also offer to pay reparations to Western victims and their families.

I won't hold my breath for any results. Here's what will happen: o. Once sanctions are lifted, Iran will only appear to play nice. The red carpet will be rolled out in Tehran for any U.S. ambassador, and tokens of "friendship" will be exchanged. But behind the scenes, nothing will have changed.

One should have no illusions about such an initiative. The obstacles to success would be even greater than they have been with North Korea. Whereas North Korea is a small, impoverished state, Iran is a midsize power with considerable political and economic clout. And although Russia helps Iran with its nuclear program, it lacks the patronage power that China has exerted on its client North Korea.

Carpenter harbors his own illusion, namely this foolish trust that Iran will somehow play nice. He in fact debunks himself here, admitting that Iran has considerably greater means than North Korea to get what it wants. Why, then, should it bother "negotiating" when it can continue the status quo?

The nature of a resolution of the nuclear issue would also likely be different. North Korea has (at least in principle) agreed to give up its entire nuclear program in exchange for concessions from the United States, Japan and South Korea. It is unlikely that Tehran would agree to such a comprehensive de-nuclearization. Washington may have to accept that reality and focus on achieving sufficient international safeguards to ensure that material from a nuclear power program was not diverted to weapons production.

This is what you get when a libertarian tries to be "pragmatic" and accept "compromise." Compromise is great for the other side, and bad for you.

All of these obstacles are daunting, but if Washington does not adopt a strategy similar to its recent approach toward North Korea, it will soon face highly unpleasant options: accepting Iran as a nuclear-weapons state or launching military strikes to prevent that result.

It's worth trying diplomacy before we reach that point.

Or perhaps there are more choices than such stark ones, did Carpenter ever consider that?

What we do know is that if a neighbor once kidnapped your children, and this neighbor still funds groups that have killed some of your other children, and this neighbor has been perpetually hell-bent on acquiring an armory of assault rifles, then no matter how "reformed" he becomes, you should never trust him with so much as a Derringer. Maybe he can't blow your house to smithereens as he'd like, but one day you'll find yourself shot in the ass.

North Korean lies -- and I again repeat myself

Talks had stalled because of North Korea's "aid" demands (I personally suspect because we offered only VSOP cognac at best, but Kimmy Kook demanded Louis XIII). And now there's hope...supposedly:

N. Korea agrees to nuclear disarmament

BEIJING, China (AP) -- North Korea agreed Tuesday to take first steps toward nuclear disarmament and shut down its main reactor within 60 days before eventually dismantling its atomic weapons program.

Under the deal, the North will receive initial aid equal to 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil for shutting down and sealing its main nuclear reactor and related facilities at Yongbyon, north of the capital, to be confirmed by international inspectors.

For irreversibly disabling the reactor and declaring all nuclear programs, the North will eventually receive another 950,000 tons in aid.

The agreement was read to all delegates in a conference room at a Chinese state guesthouse and Chinese envoy Wu Dawei asked if there were any objections. When none were made, the officials all stood and applauded.

North Korea and United States also will embark on talks aimed at resolving disputes and restarting diplomatic relations, Wu said. The Korean peninsula has technically remained in a state of war for more than a half-century since the Korean War ended in a 1953 cease-fire.

Good lord, are our American negotiators that naive? What do they think happened in 1994? Never forget: that's another thing for which we can thank Jimmy Carter.

Some might argue that this time is different, that at least we're only giving "aid," not helping North Korea build light-water reactors. However, John McCain noted in his blogging debut,

I would remind Senator Hillary Clinton and other Democrats critical of Bush Administration policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure. The Koreans received millions in energy assistance. They diverted millions in food assistance to their military. And what did they do? They secretly enriched uranium.

I added,

There's an old term "guns and butter," illustrating the concept of tradeoffs. In North Korea's case, until now they haven't had to worry about spending any national income on butter: they've been able to spend most of it on guns, because the U.S., Japan, China and others have been stupid enough to supply the butter.

And our stupidity continues, borne of and perpetuated by government. Each of us individually, had we a crazed neighbor who starved his family in order to build up his arsenal, would never give a thing to him.

When the Bush Administration's negotiators are themselves exhibiting Neville Chamberlain Syndrome, what more could North Korea want? How about Hillary winning two full presidential terms and continuing her husband's legacy, and Obama starting on his own first term?

For further reading: John McCain's blogging debut

John McCain's blogging debut

Congratulations to Captain Ed, whose blog featured a terrific guest entry by John McCain. (Thanks to our friends at QandO for the link.) Yes, that John McCain. McCain is far from my first choice for 2008, because he believes (as does Russell Feingold) in sacrificing the First Amendment to have "clean government." All their "campaign finance reform" has done is kill the former with no hope to produce the latter. McCain also doesn't believe in the Second Amendment, and while he's voted for tax cuts, I want a real supply-sider to vote for.

However, McCain nailed the North Korea issue:

We have talked and talked about punishing their bad behavior. They don't believe we have the resolve to do it. We must prove them wrong....

Eventually they will have the technology to put warheads on missiles. That is a grave threat to South Korea, Japan and the United States that we cannot under any circumstances accept. North Korea also has a record of transferring weapons technology to other rogue nations, such as Iran and Syria.

The worst thing we could do is accede to North Korea’s demand for bilateral talks. When has rewarding North Korea's bad behavior ever gotten us anything more than worse behavior?

I would remind Senator Hillary Clinton and other Democrats critical of Bush Administration policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure. The Koreans received millions in energy assistance. They diverted millions in food assistance to their military. And what did they do? They secretly enriched uranium.

Prior to the agreement, every single time the Clinton Administration warned the Koreans not to do something -- not to kick out the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor -- they did it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton Administration with further talks. We had a carrots and no sticks policy that only encouraged bad behavior. When one carrot didn't work, we offered another.

Do you hear that, Bill? Jimmy? Madeleine?

Just like 9/11, the Clinton administration's attempts to appease and ignore our enemies (all the while taking credit for a domestic economy whose success they had little to do with) did nothing but prolong the inevitable, forcing the successor to implement a tough foreign policy and fix the mistakes. Hillary can rewrite history by blaming Bush, but the reality is that Bush is trying to clean up the mess her husband left. It was Jimmy Carter and Madeleine Albright who naively relied on diplomacy, when it was obvious to us cynics that North Korea was pursuing nuclear weaponry anyway.

Did North Korea withdraw from Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and kick out the IAEA inspectors because Bush included North Korea in the "Axis of Evil," as Carter claimed? No: this is another confusion of cause and effect, also known as the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy ("After this, therefore because of this"). North Korea withdrew after Bush's accusation, but for years it had been pursuing nuclear technology anyway, in spite of its two-faced committment to any treaties or agreements. What really happened was that Bush and his foreign policy advisors grew tired of pretending: they were going to call a spade a spade, and North Korea realized it had to do something. By protesting the accusation, by pulling an Iran and claiming it's the United States' fault for making them do it, it could dupe the gullible Carter-esque diplomats and stall things for a few more years. Had Bush agreed to bilateral talks, Kimmy would have found a new excuse.

The problem with liberals is that they demand "a chance for diplomacy to work," never learning from history that it's letting diplomacy run for years that exacerbates conflicts in the enemy's favor: Nazi Germany (Chamberlain was a Conservative Party member but a credit to modern U.S. Democrats), Saddam's Iraq and now North Korea.

At least, though, Britain didn't give money, energy and food to Hitler, unlkike the massive American aid that indirectly financed North Korea's nuclear ambitions. There's an old term "guns and butter," illustrating the concept of tradeoffs. In North Korea's case, until now they haven't had to worry about spending any national income on butter: they've been able to spend most of it on guns, because the U.S., Japan, China and others have been stupid enough to supply the butter. That has to end, but it will take more than a mere embargo -- that would have the same success as ours has had on Cuba.

It will take a full-scale blockade to cripple North Korea to where it will beg for terms, including freezing any assets we can that belong to nations that continue doing business with North Korea. Anything less, such as Japan's new punitive sanctions, will cripple North Korea but also push it toward selling nuclear weapons for cash -- and I say North Korea would be pushed sooner, not just pushed. Kim is a madman, and I'm convinced he's had the idea from the start to sell a bomb or two to Iran, Syria or other terrorist states. What's to stop him, especially when harming a common enemy can yield a few dinars profit?

That, of course, would mean war. But instead of wringing our hands and asking how much worse we're making things, let's stop deluding ourselves into thinking North Korea really wants peace. You cannot remonstrate, placate, appease or use "please" with this type of enemy: the time is nigh to cast off our Neville Chamberlain Syndrome.

In Star Trek, North Korea would be the Pakleds

Remember the end of "Samaritan Snare" where the rather unintelligent Pakled shouted, "We will destroy them!"? That's what I thought of when I read this:

In Pyongyang, "hundreds of thousands" of North Koreans marked the anniversary of the 1950 start of the Korean War by "denouncing the U.S. imperialists, the sworn enemy of the Korean people," according to the North's official Korean Central News Agency.

The protesters "reiterated the firm stand of the army and people of (the North) that should the U.S. imperialists ignite another war of aggression on this land, they will mobilize all the political and ideological might and military potentials built up generation after generation ... and mercilessly wipe out the enemies and victoriously conclude their standoff with the U.S.," KCNA reported.

Let's be perfectly clear. North Korea may have a missile capable of reaching the United States (so far, Alaska and possibly Hawaii), but if they dared to fire upon American territory, we would respond in kind and then some. North Korea would see "Game over!" in the smoke signals from a mushroom cloud.

So what are Kimmy & Ko. up to? There is the danger that they might give nuclear bomb technology to terrorists, but we'd turn Pyongyang into rubble if we could trace it back to them. No, I don't think Kimmy really wants to start a war he knows he couldn't win, but he can bluff. Making noise has created quite the Pavlovian reaction in the West, because every time he threatens, Western politicians want to placate him with more food and money. But our continued aid shipments are more "Oh just take this and shut up!" than "Please don't start anything." Think Riker sending Geordi to fix the Pakleds' engines not because they're an actual threat, or out of compassion, but so they'll stop saying that annoying "We look for things...it is broken."

The United States is trying to get North Korea into multilateral talks, but I've decided we should do the reverse. (North Korea supposedly wants to deal directly with the United States, but I personally believe that's just an excuse. The moment we agreed to direct talks, they'd come up with something else.) The U.S. and our allies should not deal with North Korea at all: cut off all aid of any form, and let 'em sweat. Yes, it would generate a humanitarian crisis as millions of North Koreans faced starvation, but it would force them into actual discussions. For years we've played their ridiculous game of giving more aid so they'll consider talks, lather, rinse, repeat.

If North Korea just "tests" the missile, I like our friend Billy Beck's proposal: "Let that North Korean punk take his missile shot. And then we'll see if the United States can show him how stolen money can be put to work with American ingenuity. I say: shoot the goddamned thing down instantly as a bead can be laid on it."

Ah, he remembers it well

Charlie sent me this about Kim Jong Il:

Eleven holes-in-one in a single round

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea's Dear Leader Kim Jong-il never forgets a phone number, a cadre's career or a line of computer code.

According to an article posted Tuesday on a Web site run by North Korea, Kim wakes up early every day for intensive memory training where he sits down and commits to his keen mind items such as the phone numbers of workers in his Stalinist state.

"I remember all computer codes and telephones that workers are using now," Kim was quoted as saying on the Web Site "Uri-Min-jok-kiri" (www.uriminzokkiri.dprkorea.com), or "Among our People."

Kim surprised a group of North Korean officials attending a meeting in 2002 by recalling all their phone numbers "with lightning speed," the site said.

On a day Kim visited a cemetery, he looked around at the tombs and he remembered the achievements, characteristics, tastes and bereaved family members for hundreds of the dead by a quick glance at the names on tombstones, it said.

"All the attendants were surprised at his incredible memory," the site says.

North Korean propaganda is ripe with the amazing achievements of its Dear Leader. The highly controlled state also closely monitors its citizens to make sure they do not speak out against Kim or challenge his rule.

Kim pilots jet fighters, pens operas, produces movies and accomplished a feat unmatched in the annals of professional golf by shooting 11 holes-in-one on the first round he ever played.

The Web Site said Kim told all workers they should develop their ability to memorize. "The memory of a person gets better when a person uses their brain often," he was quoted as saying.

I believe Kim's incredible memory as much as Iran claiming they want nuclear technology only for peaceful energy. Piloting jet fighters? Writing operas?

I suppose his "11 holes-in-one" are possible if communist golf is akin to miniature golf. Only someone with superhuman golfing ability, like Tiger Woods or John Daly, could reach a standard par 4 (~400 yards) in the drive. Holes-in-one happen on par 3s, whose par would total 33 strokes. Minimum par for 18 holes is 70 strokes, meaning 37 strokes remaining to distribute among the remaining 7 holes -- about 5.3 strokes per hole.

Good heavens, the communists can't even come up with plausible lies. Unless after every swing, Kim's caddie -- who might bear a striking resemblance to Oddjob from "Goldfinger" -- finds that the ball miraculously flew through the woods (or dipped in and out of the rough) and into the cup, and so quickly that no one saw it?

The wonderful musical "Gigi" had a wonderful song "I Remember It Well", sung by Maurice Chevalier and Hermione Gingold. Here's my rewrite. Kim is talking to the son of someone Kim "remembers" as a loyal subject:

Kim: I remember your father. He flew a Mig --
Choi: So scared of heights, he couldn't fly.
Kim: His vision so sharp --
Choi: He was legally blind.
Kim: Ah, I remember him well. He was six-foot-three --
Choi: He was five-foot-one.
Kim: Survived by three daughters.
Choi: Just me, a son.
Kim: He gave his life to save me.
Choi: Oh for heaven's sake. He never even met you, you senile commie!
Kim: You shut up. Guards, take him away!

If someone calls you a tyrant, call him a...philistine?

N.Korea Says Bush Comments Show He Is a Philistine

Pyongyang branded President Bush a philistine and a cowboy on Saturday after he called North Korean leader Kim Jong-il a tyrant earlier this week.

The North's official KCNA news agency reported a Foreign Ministry spokesman as saying Bush had slandered Kim in Thursday's comments, in which he also called the country's reclusive leader, Kim Jong-il, a "dangerous person."

"He (Bush) is a half-baked man in terms of morality and a philistine whom we can never deal with," KCNA cited the spokesman as saying.

That's the best they could come up with? "You're a tyrant, Kim." "Oh yeah? Well you're a, you're a...boorish barbarian!"

Do North Korea's leaders, does Kim himself really believe their rhetoric? The U.S. is the one constantly working to bring North Korea back to negotiations. Clinton, in all his naivete, thought he had succeeded. But time and time again, it's the U.S. who has to drag North Korea to the table, not the other way around.

I'm reminded of a joke I heard a few years ago.

So all the countries of the world are sitting in a bar. The US and the EU are at the bar, drinking and telling jokes. Poland is down at the end going, "Hey man, you know we got jokes about you guys in my country" and drinking cheap booze. All of a sudden, Iraq sits down at the bar and orders a Scotch and water.

The US looks over and sees that Iraq has a sawn-off shotgun stuffed under its coat. Now I don't know what you've been led to believe by TV and movies, but hiding a sawn-off under your coat without it being somewhat noticeable is rather hard. So the US jumps up and yells, "What the smurf, man, you packin'? You up in NATO's hood, packing a sawn-off!"

And Iraq replies, "I'm not packin'. I don't have to put up with this crap, and if you don't shut up, I'll fill yer ass full of buck shot so fast it'll make your head spin!"

So then America turns to the European end and says, "Yo, check this smurf out."

Germany steps away. "Oh, no. Last time I got in a fight I got my ass handed to me."

France backs up. "Yeah man, me too. Plus, this guy owes me money."

But England says, "What the smurf, man. I got your back, US."

Now UN, the bartender, sees everything and walks over. "Hey fellas, I don't want any trouble here. Iraq, just let me look under your coat and see what's going on. If you don't have anything to hide, it's all cool."

"You can look under the right side of my coat, but not the left side," says Iraq.

Then all of a sudden, North Korea jumps up on a table, cocaine smeared across its face, screaming, "DON'T [bleep] WITH NORTH KOREA MAN!!!!! YOU [bleep] BETTER NOT SMURF WITH ME OR I'LL RAIN ATOMIC DEATH DOWN ON ALL YOUR GOAT-MOLESTING ASSES!!!!!!!!!"

And Japan, who's been trying to pick up this girl by the pool tables, looks up and says, "What was that about atomic death?"