The Fellowship of the Rogue: The Two Tyrants
God knows, between the tyrants Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il there isn't much of a choice, but Washington has to make one now or else prepare to fight on two fronts while protecting its back from an Al-Qaeda stab. Not an envious position to be in.
Given this very real and dangerous scenario, it came as quite a jolt last night to hear Petra Gerster, the normally sensible presenter of the ZDF heute news broadcast, ask the station's Washington correspondent to explain why the US is marshalling its forces against one country, where no trace of nuclear weapons has been found, when another country possesses them and has reneged on so many international agreements. Eberhard Piltz tried his best to contrast the two evils, but television makes few allowances for fine detail so his explanation didn't survive the assault of the loaded question.
Along with the "it's all about oil" contention, the media regularly trots out the line that the Bush administration is being inconsistent by threatening Iraq with war rather than North Korea. This is a particularly foolish position as the reason the US is getting ready to remove Saddam is to prevent him from becoming another Kim Jong Il. A man who has used chemical and biological weapons would not shy away from using a nuclear capability to cow his neighbours, blackmail the world and encourage attacks on America. In such a situation, the US might feel compelled to initiate a nuclear war to defend itself. And this is what appeasement would make inevitable.
The days of negotiating with rogues are over. Only the credible threat of harsh consequences works now. The coming end of Saddam's regime may make Pyongyang stop and think before doing anything to further destabilize southeast Asia, but even here, a waiting strategy is risky. The two tyrants took full advantage of Washington's inattention during the 90's and still feel emboldened to play with fire. Regardless of the order in which they are dealt with, there is nothing inconsistent about moving against the Iraqi oppressor and wannabe nuclear power before focussing on the North Korean threat.
Diarist of the day: Barbara Pym, 8 January 1934"At Marks and Spencer's I bought a peach-coloured vest and trollies to match with insertions of lace. Disgraceful I know but I can't help choosing my underwear with a view to it being seen."
Comments
I do not agree, the war in Iraq is more about oil than anything else. Tom Friedman even conceded as much in his recent article in the IHT/NY times.
I just wondered why the US tacitly supported Saddam and his bombing of civilians for so long, and now they no longer support him. What has changed between now and then? Did he stop doing what the US told him to do?
Can someone please tell me what has changed?
Gavin in Cork
www.gavinsblog.com
Posted by: Gavin | January 8, 2003 8:34 PM