More from Korea

[IllegalArgument]

Well, I'm, glad that's cleared up, anyway.
I never was a Buffy viewer...
This is exactly why you don't negotiate with tyrants. Tyrants do not negotiate in good faith. They'll come to the negotiating table when they can get concessions that way, and leave when the concessions stop. They resume whatever bad behavior they were engaging in before they came to the negotiating table (if they had, in fact ever stopped their bad behavior - viz NK's nuclear program) and the democracies then cast about for ways to get them back to the negotiating table. Invariably, this involves making more concessions and the vicious cycle resumes.

Can you point to any instance where any tyranny ever stopped being tyrannical as the result of negotiating and diplomacy?

What do you think of applying the Sharansky solution to NK?

Problem is that the US can apply it, but with China proping NK up, not sure what effect it would have.

 

[BPSCG]

Well, since you asked ME...

(...snip...)

IMHO, of course.

Have you geven any consideration to the Sharansky approach?

 

[BPSCG]

To me, it is the aggressive approach that improperly assumes that North Korea will negotiate sensibly.

No, NK will not negotiate sensibly, period, no matter what our approach. See my reply to Bikewer above.

It is precisely because the leadership is NOT particularly rational that we need good diplomacy... that is part of the job of a diplomat, to handle an unstable person on the other end of the table.

When the unstable person at the other end of the table has nuclear weapons and a means to deliver them and makes plausible threats to his neighbors about using them, it is not the job of the diplomat to handle the unstable person; it is the job of the guy with a tranquilizer gun.

Have you ever tried to reason with a drunk, a religious fanatic, or a lunatic? Why do you think sweet reason would work with NK? Has sweet reason ever worked for any other tyrant, even the sane ones? If not, what kind of wishful thinking posesses you to think it would work with NK?

The purpose is to maneuver them into a path that is acceptable to us by being aware of their tendencies and what they value, and using that information in negotiation.

Have you considered the Sharansky approach to maneuver them into the path that is acceptable to us?

 

[BPSCG]

Pardon my intrusion into the question that was not directed to me, but can you describe what Sharansky's solution is to us who are not in the know?

Here's a good start.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by BPSCG:
Have you ever tried to reason with a drunk, a religious fanatic, or a lunatic?

I have. Regularly, though it's been a while.

You are correct that it's not generally possible to reason with them, but it does not follow that it is therefore impossible to affect their behavior without either force or the threat of force. In most cases it is quite possible.

 

[headscratcher4]

Kim is a nasty, dangerous and badly educated man...but why do you assume that he is irrational? From the perspective of someone who has total power in a country and wants to keep it for himself (knowing that the Romanian solution will be bad for his already pock=-marked complexsion) much of what Kim does is completely rational.

He has got global attention.

He has got the U.S. befuddled as to what to do.

He has played China sillfully off against the US (and its own self interest in NOT having another nuclear power in Asia).

He has played the S. Koreans and the Japanese (who officially want to downplay the whole missle incident over the weekend).

He has played the Russians.

He has played the UN which won't/hasn't acted in any coherent way.

N. Korea is a very troubled place that survives by brutality and opression...but it does survive.

The scary part for me is that I don't think Kim is crazy or irrational...just steadfast in holding onto ideas that are verifiably wrong...not so different (save for causing the death of millions) from any number of politicitians anywhere in the world.

This is not to suggest that we can deal with him (ignoring N. Korea is one possible solution). He can not be trusted because he believes that it is a victory just to force us to talk -- from his standpoint, small starving country forcing the global superpower to deal with him, he is correct and quite rational. He knows that unlike the situation with Iraq, our abilty to move in Asia is more limited...China isn't interested in a huge U.S. buildup. It will allow kim to tweak us, keep Kim in Check, and struggle with how to deal with the disater unfolding just south of its border.

Kim isn't a genious by any means, he is also not you average mass murderer (Saddam could only hope to build a totalitarian state along these lines!), but, again, I would argue, that while we may not see it all, there isn't anything to suggest that he is irrational...stupid maybe, wreckless certainly, but he is calling the tune and that was his goal....

 

[gnome]

No, NK will not negotiate sensibly, period, no matter what our approach. See my reply to Bikewer above.
When the unstable person at the other end of the table has nuclear weapons and a means to deliver them and makes plausible threats to his neighbors about using them, it is not the job of the diplomat to handle the unstable person; it is the job of the guy with a tranquilizer gun.

Have you ever tried to reason with a drunk, a religious fanatic, or a lunatic? Why do you think sweet reason would work with NK? Has sweet reason ever worked for any other tyrant, even the sane ones? If not, what kind of wishful thinking posesses you to think it would work with NK?
Have you considered the Sharansky approach to maneuver them into the path that is acceptable to us?

Who says that reason is the only tool available to a diplomat? The way I see it, it's either fight them, or manipulate them without fighting. For the latter, you need negotiating skills. That doesn't always just mean giving concessions and asking for things in return. It just means a more complicated approach than just "do what we say or we'll bomb you."

If all the non-fighting methods at our disposal fail and we must go to war, by all means call in the generals. But should that be anything but a last resort?

 

[BPSCG]

I have. Regularly, though it's been a while.

You are correct that it's not generally possible to reason with them, but it does not follow that it is therefore impossible to affect their behavior without either force or the threat of force. In most cases it is quite possible.

Really? How do you affect a lunatic's behavior without force or a threat of it? How do you affect a religious fanatic's behavior without force or the threat of it? NK's cult-of-personality ruler-as-demigod resembles religious fanaticism more than anything.

This would be useful information, especially in dealing with religious fanatics in other parts of the world. Please share.

 

[Garrette]

By finding out what it is they will respond to.

My specialty is security and safety in hospital settings. As such I have regularly interacted with (and trained my employees to interact with) psychiatric patients, drunk patients, patients with brain injuries, distraight family members, drugged patients.

Usually, force or it's threat isn't necessary. Sometimes it is.

 

[BPSCG]

Kim is a nasty, dangerous and badly educated man...but why do you assume that he is irrational?

Frankly, I don't think "irrational" works as well as "unstable" or "unpredictable", though his pattern seems very predictable. See my earlier post making the religious fanatic comparison. Whether or not he actually believes he is a demigod, that's what his people are being sold, at the point of a bayonet, where necessary.

He has got global attention.

He has got the U.S. befuddled as to what to do.

He has played China sillfully off against the US (and its own self interest in NOT having another nuclear power in Asia).

He has played the S. Koreans and the Japanese (who officially want to downplay the whole missle incident over the weekend).

He has played the Russians.

He has played the UN which won't/hasn't acted in any coherent way.

True, he's shown what you can do when confronted by a disjointed world community that won't stand united against him. A little bluster, a little apparent irrationality, and a little nuclear device can go a long way towards getting the world to do what you want, especially when that world hasn't learned, after the horrors of the 20th century, that you don't negotiate with tyrants.

The scary part for me is that I don't think Kim is crazy or irrational...just steadfast in holding onto ideas that are verifiably wrong...not so different (save for causing the death of millions) from any number of politicitians anywhere in the world.

...or so different from your run-of-the-mill religious fanatic.

I'm waiting for someone beside me to suggest the Sharansky solution...

 

[BPSCG]

By finding out what it is they will respond to.

My specialty is security and safety in hospital settings. As such I have regularly interacted with (and trained my employees to interact with) psychiatric patients, drunk patients, patients with brain injuries, distraight family members, drugged patients.

Usually, force or it's threat isn't necessary. Sometimes it is.

You're getting warm. What do you think NK will respond to?

 

[Garrette]

Don't know.

I understand that you are implying that NK will respond only to force or the threat of it.

You may be right.

You are not right, however, in suggesting that as a rule irrational people cannot be dealt with in the absence of force or the threat of it.

 

[BPSCG]

Don't know.

I understand that you are implying that NK will respond only to force or the threat of it.

You may be right.

You are not right, however, in suggesting that as a rule irrational people cannot be dealt with in the absence of force or the threat of it.

Okay here it is:

NK needs everything; it's an economic wreck. Their juche philosophy of self-reliance is the blackest kind of joke, because it ranks with Haiti as being dependent on the outside world to survive. In particular, they need food and they need oil.

Our - the rest of the world's - mistake has been to provide them with those necessities whenever they come back to the negotiating table. "Oh, look, they're being good again, now we can send them food and oil." Truth is, they're probably not being good again, they're probably still working furiously on their nukes, but we clap our hands because we're making "progress" by getting them to negotiate.

But we already know - they've proven it - that they don't negotiate in good faith. So what do we do?

Here's what: We tell them, "Fine, we'll send you food and oil. And you don't even have to talk to us about your nukes. You can build as many as you want, for all we care. All you have to do is allow human rights for your people. The more human rights you allow, the more food and oil you'll be able to get. Allow a free press, freedom of assembly, free elections, and you'll find you have more food and oil than you can possibly consume. Stay the way you are and you won't get a single box of Uncle Ben's rice, not a single quart of light sweet crude."

 

[gnome]

Here's what: We tell them, "Fine, we'll send you food and oil. And you don't even have to talk to us about your nukes. You can build as many as you want, for all we care. All you have to do is allow human rights for your people. The more human rights you allow, the more food and oil you'll be able to get. Allow a free press, freedom of assembly, free elections, and you'll find you have more food and oil than you can possibly consume. Stay the way you are and you won't get a single box of Uncle Ben's rice, not a single quart of light sweet crude."

I love it, myself... and I'm not kidding, this is exactly how I wish we were in our foreign policy. THAT's exactly the kind of manipulation I'm talking about. Could it be that we agree, and are only fighting over semantics?

 

[Garrette]

To join the bandwagon, that fits within my experience (albeit not at an international level).

Within the context of finding out what the person/nation will respond to, you do two things:

1. Set limits on their behavior
2. Specify consequences

That's what you're doing here and it's without violence or its threat.

 

[Bikewer]

I too have more than a little experience dealing with the demented. Of course, in my case, force is always an implied threat. I am the police, after all....
Still, aside from that, I've had far better luck, as my colleague says above, with not "setting them off" and entering into the delusion.
Mollify, set limits, and let em' ramble.

I never advocated any particular negotiation, just noted that we seemed to be working through proxies for the most part. Pundits have observed that N. Korea wants one-on-one negotiations to gain "face" as an equal power, whereas we would of course loose this commodity in such a situation.
Thus the insistance on the "six-party" talks.

 

[Hutch]

But we already know - they've proven it - that they don't negotiate in good faith. So what do we do?

Here's what: We tell them, "Fine, we'll send you food and oil. And you don't even have to talk to us about your nukes. You can build as many as you want, for all we care. All you have to do is allow human rights for your people. The more human rights you allow, the more food and oil you'll be able to get. Allow a free press, freedom of assembly, free elections, and you'll find you have more food and oil than you can possibly consume. Stay the way you are and you won't get a single box of Uncle Ben's rice, not a single quart of light sweet crude."

Like the doctor said to woman who put the Lime in the Coconut, "Now let me get this straight".

You have stated in previous posts that Kim is "unstable", "unpredictable", and "will not negotiate senssibly."

So the solution is to give him the choice of human rights for his people or cut him off completely, if I read you right.

Which means he has the choice of (1) leaving power, probably in a wood box (2) have the country become unstable due to lack of power and food, again threatening him with an outcome that may leave him like Il Duce, or (3) Risk it all in one military throw of the dice.

You and Sharansky may see other options open to him.....I wonder if Kim would. Option 3 is a sure loser in the end, after all, it would be the act of an unpredictable or unstable amn...oops.

I may be missing something. There may be more that I do not see. But I can't see the above improving the situation. How would you see it played out? What does Sharansky see that I don't?

 

[BPSCG]

Thus the insistance on the "six-party" talks.

No "talks."

You want rice?
Allow free speech.
Do that, and the only thing we'll need to "talk" about is, "How much do you want and where do you want it delivered?"

You want oil?
Hold free elections.
Do that and the only thing we'll need to "talk" about is, "How much do you want and where do you want it delivered?"

 

[BPSCG]

So the solution is to give him the choice of human rights for his people or cut him off completely, if I read you right.

Yup.

Which means he has the choice of (1) leaving power, probably in a wood box (2) have the country become unstable due to lack of power and food, again threatening him with an outcome that may leave him like Il Duce, or (3) Risk it all in one military throw of the dice.

You forget (4) allow human rights and get all the food and oil they want.

BTW, what is it with some of you people that makes you apologize that a tyrant is okay, as long as his country is "stable"? Tyrannies are by their nature stable because they've eliminated the opposition; in fact, the better a tyranny is at slaughtering the opposition, the more stable it is. Cuba and NK are both "stable"; at the opposite extreme is Italy, which seems to have a new government every six months or so. Is "stable" Cuba or "stable" NK preferable to "unstable" Italy? Democratic governments are inherently unstable because they have to take into account the will of their people or risk being thrown out of power. Tyrranical governments are stable because they don't give a pinch of owl droppings what their people think - they just murder the ones who think wrong.

So why is "stability" so freakin' important to you guys?

You and Sharansky may see other options open to him.....I wonder if Kim would.

Sure he would. if the option is stated to him explicitly. As headscratcher4 (BTW, what happened to headscratcher1, 2, and 3...?) points out, Kim may be unpredictable, may appear irrational, but he's not stupid.

I may be missing something. There may be more that I do not see. But I can't see the above improving the situation. How would you see it played out? What does Sharansky see that I don't?

He sees that tyrannies often need democracies more than democracies need tyrannies, and that making them pay an exorbitant price for what they need from democracies is the way to turn them into democracies themselves. That exorbitant price is human freedom. Human freedom is like a highly-addictive drug; people love it, and once they've had a taste, won't ever be truly happy unless they can get a lot of it. It's a poison pill for a tyranny, but if NK wants food and oil, we should make them swalow it.

 

[Ed]

By finding out what it is they will respond to.

My specialty is security and safety in hospital settings. As such I have regularly interacted with (and trained my employees to interact with) psychiatric patients, drunk patients, patients with brain injuries, distraight family members, drugged patients.

Usually, force or it's threat isn't necessary. Sometimes it is.

The essential difference is that the persons that you are dealing with have had force applied, ie. they are under your control. How do you think your observations would apply if said people had an army behind them that would do their bidding? Suppose they had the option of disobeying and beating you up to boot? Would reason work then?