How should Western countries deal with North Korea?
North Korea has vowed to restart its nuclear facilities and is making threats against South Korea and the United States. This week on Pulse of Canada, we ask Canadians how Western countries like the United States and Canada should deal with North Korea's hostile threats. Thomas Bink: I’m not sure what to think of North Korea. From what I understand, the country’s recent threats could just be the youthful enthusiasm of the country’s leader, Kim Jong-un, convincing his own people that he’s a powerful leader. Even South Korea doesn’t appear to be taking the threats too seriously. I think the key for Western nations is to band together under the UN/NATO stripes and make it clear that any actual aggression won’t be tolerated – that any acts will be met with swift retaliation from a truly global force. Matthew Coutts: Yeah, I hear South Koreans are more focused on the next Psy concert than the threat of a North Korean strike. Still, we have to continue taking a hard line with North Korea, make them understand threats are not welcome. But all those years of empty rhetoric are actually dangerous. Kim Jong-un might take it too far in his attempt to outdo his father. If it comes to it, South Korea’s military should lead the response. They are highly trained and, quite literally, focused entirely on this one adversary. As for the West, the U.S. has a significant military presence ready in South Korea, and Canada has specialists there as well. I suspect it wouldn’t take more than that force to end a conflict. If it goes further than that, I have no problem sending our military into battle. The U.S. and South Korea are two allies I think deserve our support. [ David Kilgour: Military posturing reflects North Korea's crumbling status ] Andy Radia: I think the West needs to take a harder stand against the recent threats and actions of the young leader. Over the past couple of weeks, Kim Jong-un has threatened nuclear strikes against South Korea and the United States and today it appears they're moving missiles and telling embassy staffs to get out of Dodge. These are acts of aggression that must be responded to. I understand that the West doesn't want to escalate things but are we going to wait until the regime actually launches a missile before we do anything? Say what you want about George W. Bush, but I'm not sure he would have let things get this far. Bink: I agree, Andy. The nuclear threat is the one that’s most alarming. For all their empty threats, the nuclear issue is very real and if we’re talking nukes, the West really can’t wait until the first bomb falls before acting. There is a blatant double-standard here … the U.S. didn’t have any problems going into Iraq because oil reserves were at risk, but when it comes to Korea we hear that it’s just a young leader acting tough, nothing to worry about. It is worrisome. Like I said, I’m on the fence here – I just think whatever is done it’s got to be a global decision, not just the U.S. acting as the world’s policeman again. Coutts: I hate to agree, but you are right. For better or worse, Bush likely wouldn’t have let it get this far. He wielded a heavy hammer, whereas Obama seems more intent on taking careful, measured steps. (And wow, apparently I’m one of those folks who expects the U.S. to play World Police). The two things that stand out when I think “Obama and military” are drones and Seal Team Six. Who's to say the U.S. isn’t poised to tactfully punch Kim Jong-un in the nose when he moves to press his red button? Until then, disgustingly, there is not much we can do but wait and prepare. That said, things are a little more dire for the South Koreans on his doorstep. If they choose to make the first move, at this point, can any of us object? Radia: Tom, I don't think we can wait for the UN to intervene. That body has proven itself to be dysfunctional over the past year. Just look at what they're allowing to happen in Syria. Unfortunately, we need a 'world policeman' and Obama is failing on that front. And Matt, I hope you're right; I hope the West has some things – we're not privy to – in the works to put a stop to this madness. Bink: No easy answers on this, to be sure. Let’s hope something is done before it’s too late. What do you think? Have your say in the comments area below.
People tend to forget just how much economic investment China has in the USA. Very many US businesses are now under Chinese ownership. In addition The USA is the Nation that owes the most money to China. China is one of the largest debts the USA owes out.
It just may turn out China has more loyalty to the American dollar than it has to NK
True, and if NK goes crazy and attacks SK, China may turn on NK and invade it, "liberate the people" and extend China's borders to SK. The Chinese would just say that NK was a province of China long ago.The US and UN would bit*h and whine about it but that's all they could do.
True, and if NK goes crazy and attacks SK, China may turn on NK and invade it, "liberate the people" and extend China's borders to SK. The Chinese would just say that NK was a province of China long ago.The US and UN would bit*h and whine about it but that's all they could do.
It just may in the best interest of SK, China and the USA to let China occupy all the way down to the 38th Parallel. China might be a dictatorship. but at least the leaders are capable of logical reasoning.
It just may in the best interest of SK, China and the USA to let China occupy all the way down to the 38th Parallel. China might be a dictatorship. but at least the leaders are capable of logical reasoning.
On second thoughts I don't think China would invade NK. It would not be economically viable to get involved in occupation and it is against it's foreign policy to attack another sovereign state unless they attack China first. China may profit from a war between the Koreas (so could the West). The NK president may want a limited exchange conventional war with SK to lower the burden of his poor population (the masses) and later to negotiate terms with the US to resolve in another ceasefire agreement.
It looks like China is on the edge of withdrawing any support of NK.
Going "to the edge" is cheap and can be done simply to make a statement to whatever effect, and thus proves little. That China doesn't approve of the noise made by its client state doesn't imply that they're actually going to pull the plug on it, and there's little reason for them to. North Korea is just a very cost-effective way for China to cause trouble for the USA, its future superpower rival. Food and fuel still flows over the Chinese-North Korean border. Look at what countries do, not at what they say.
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
It just may in the best interest of SK, China and the USA to let China occupy all the way down to the 38th Parallel. China might be a dictatorship. but at least the leaders are capable of logical reasoning.
Do we have any rational reason to believe North Korea's leaders aren't?
Going "to the edge" is cheap and can be done simply to make a statement to whatever effect, and thus proves little. That China doesn't approve of the noise made by its client state doesn't imply that they're actually going to pull the plug on it, and there's little reason for them to. North Korea is just a very cost-effective way for China to cause trouble for the USA, its future superpower rival. Food and fuel still flows over the Chinese-North Korean border. Look at what countries do, not at what they say.
Do we have any rational reason to believe North Korea's leaders aren't?
I personally doubt Kim Jong-Un's leadership abilities. His actions seem to be quite juvenile and more like a spoiled teen than as a National Head of State.
His recent week long meeting with Dennis Rodman kind of indicates the level of leadership he shows,
Legend has it that, when the Roman Emperor Caligula led his troops to the shores of northern Gaul to invade Britain, instead of launching the attack he ordered his men to collect sea shells from the beach. Afterwards to save face he said that they had 'conquered Neptune'.
I personally doubt Kim Jong-Un's leadership abilities. His actions seem to be quite juvenile and more like a spoiled teen than as a National Head of State.
His recent week long meeting with Dennis Rodman kind of indicates the level of leadership he shows,
That spoiled teen has, during his little more than one year in power, carried out a massive shake-up of the North Korean power structure. He has managed sack top generals that are 50 years older than him, and brought to heel a military-political complex that his daddy effectively made a state within the state. While there's no way to know what really goes on among the North Korean ruling elite, it's fairly clear that there has been a power struggle that may or may not be over yet. If Kim III would be as juvenile as you say, there's no way he would have lasted this long.
That spoiled teen has, during his little more than one year in power, carried out a massive shake-up of the North Korean power structure. He has managed sack top generals that are 50 years older than him, and brought to heel a military-political complex that his daddy effectively made a state within the state. While there's no way to know what really goes on among the North Korean ruling elite, it's fairly clear that there has been a power struggle that may or may not be over yet. If Kim III would be as juvenile as you say, there's no way he would have lasted this long.
What exactly does his meeting with Rodman imply?
To me I see it as his finding pleasure more important than business.
And I suppose a mature head of state never takes time off? Even the Prophet allowed himself spare time while ruling over the Ummah.
The activities a person engages in during their time off, often reflect the priorities of the person. Wining, Dining and partying with Rodman while his people are starving does not give me a good impression of Kim.
Then perhaps I am just anti Kim because of North Korea's anti-Islam stance.
Only leaders of well-fed countries are allowed to take time off? It's not like the only thing holding up the ending of North Korean poverty is for the leader to get off his bum and just end it with his Great Leader superpowers.
The only ones starving in North Korea are convicts in forced labour camps. Beyond that, there's significant malnutrition, but there's been no significant starvation in North Korea for a decade now. Stop repeating the common nonsensical stereotype of North Korea as Communist Mordor.
I heard N.K Citizens are eating grass. Asking for food would get you killed in N.K atm. The only people getting food in N.K are Kim Yong Un's buddies. And Kim probably eats 90% of the food.
U.S isn't sending food to N.K and China/Russia aren't supporting N.K anymore.
I would urge North Koreans to vacate North Korea. But the Government won't let them leave.
Obama himself has refrained from responding personally to North Korea's threats, a strategy aimed at depriving Kim Jong-un of presidential attention.
Which is why you should not believe everything you hear, or uncritically parrot every stereotype being circulated. North Korea had a catastropic famine 1994-1998 because of natural disasters and being cut off from vital agricultural inputs due to the downfall of the Communist bloc, and then indeed as much as one fifth of the population died. Already in 2000 though the situation was under control and agricultural production about twice what it had been at its lowest point during the famine. Since then there's been a general state of malnourishment, but actual starvation to any significant extent only during years when the harvest has been exceptionally bad.
The testimony of defectors hardly gives a representative view of what North Korea is like. There's a great deal of regional difference in living conditions, including access to food. Defectors tend, naturally, to be from the most destitute areas.
North korea would not gain anything by attacking, the media propaganda is sickening, even a South korean minister know that North korea has no plan to attack. And even if they test-fire their missles, let them, USA does the same. Or is that just a pretext for NATO to come in and attack? US claims to want peace with north korea, at the same they're building a force there and make propaganda against it. And North korea falls for it.
Where are the 2 israeli dolphin submarines have gone to? Instead, we have heard propaganda about N korean submarines missing. Its all the to tame china, north korea is just the bait.
Everyone who thinks that china wants US troops on its border should do some more research and look at vietnam for example.
Last edited by Jedi_Mindset; 04-10-2013 at 05:42 PM.
http://www.youtube.com/user/robinb4life?feature=mhee
I will not calm down until I will put one cheek of a tyrant on the ground and the other under my feet, and for the poor and weak, I will put my cheek on the ground. - Umar ibn khattab(Ra)
Yet despite what you say, they have launched attacks on many, many occasions in the past. Here's a selection:
May & June 1996: North Korean vessels twice cross the Northern Limit Line and have a several-hour standoff with the South Korean navy.
April 1997: Five North Korean soldiers cross the Demilitarized Zone in Cheolwon, Gangwon-do, and fire on South Korean positions.
June 1997: Three North Korean vessels cross the Northern Limit Line and attack South Korean vessels two miles (3 km) south of the line. On land, fourteen North Korean soldiers cross 70 m south of the center of the DMZ, leading to a 23-minute exchange of fire.
June 29, 2002: Renewed naval clashed near the Northern Limit Line lead to the deaths of four South Korean sailors and the sinking of a South Korean vessel. The number of North Koreans killed is unknown.
March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. A rescue operation recovered 58 survivors but 46 sailors were killed. On May 20, 2010, a South Korean led international investigation group concluded that the sinking of the warship was in fact the result of a North Korean torpedo attack.North Korea denied involvement.
November 23, 2010: NK fired artillery at South Korea's Greater Yeonpyeong island in the Yellow Sea and South Korea returned fire. Two South Korean marines and two South Korean civilians were killed, six were seriously wounded, and ten were treated for minor injuries.
NK's view is that it's ok for them to kill a few SK citizens every now and then without retaliation, whenever the NK leader needs to make a new propaganda video.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
even if they test-fire their missles, let them, USA does the same
When a country shows on their own national TV its leader poring over a map of the US labelled "target', and this nation then launches a missile of unknown capability and unknown destination without warning, there is bound to be a high level of risk.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Or is that just a pretext for NATO to come in and attack?
It's the UN not NATO. And since the war has never been undeclared, either side could choose to attack any time they like.
Yet despite what you say, they have launched attacks on many, many occasions in the past. Here's a selection:
May & June 1996: North Korean vessels twice cross the Northern Limit Line and have a several-hour standoff with the South Korean navy.
April 1997: Five North Korean soldiers cross the Demilitarized Zone in Cheolwon, Gangwon-do, and fire on South Korean positions.
June 1997: Three North Korean vessels cross the Northern Limit Line and attack South Korean vessels two miles (3 km) south of the line. On land, fourteen North Korean soldiers cross 70 m south of the center of the DMZ, leading to a 23-minute exchange of fire.
June 29, 2002: Renewed naval clashed near the Northern Limit Line lead to the deaths of four South Korean sailors and the sinking of a South Korean vessel. The number of North Koreans killed is unknown.
March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. A rescue operation recovered 58 survivors but 46 sailors were killed. On May 20, 2010, a South Korean led international investigation group concluded that the sinking of the warship was in fact the result of a North Korean torpedo attack.North Korea denied involvement.
November 23, 2010: NK fired artillery at South Korea's Greater Yeonpyeong island in the Yellow Sea and South Korea returned fire. Two South Korean marines and two South Korean civilians were killed, six were seriously wounded, and ten were treated for minor injuries.
NK's view is that it's ok for them to kill a few SK citizens every now and then without retaliation, whenever the NK leader needs to make a new propaganda video.
When a country shows on their own national TV its leader poring over a map of the US labelled "target', and this nation then launches a missile of unknown capability and unknown destination without warning, there is bound to be a high level of risk.
It's the UN not NATO. And since the war has never been undeclared, either side could choose to attack any time they like.
North Korea and South Korea have been at war since the 1950s. No peace treaty has ever been negotiated. They have been living under a cease fire truce. Kim Jong Un has canceled that truce. Both countries are officially at war. Any act by either has to be considered an act of war.
The only concerns now will be what SK, Japan, And the US can negotiate with China to assure China will not take any action if Preemptive strikes are made against NK.
NK is officially Atheist and limits the practice of all religions including Islam. Currently there is one known Mosques in NK. That is a Shia Mosque that was permitted to be Built at the Iranian Embassy Compound
While it is true NK is an enemy of the USA, that does not mean it is a supporter of Islam.
I'm glad N.K is anti-religion. If N.K was an Islamic nation with Kim Yong Un in charge, there would be much more hating towards this nation and blaming Islam for evil. No offense or anything but I like that this nation is a lot Atheism rather than any religion.
Buddhism and Confucianism are also religions of N.K but I don't think many citizens are allowed to practise it in public.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks