"Tolerate."
While not condoning or approving North Korea's behavior, the United States could adopt a hands-off approach, refusing to engage the North unless and until it visibly and verifiably dismantles its HEU program and maintains the freeze at Yongbyon. The United States would deal with North Korea indirectly through proxies (China, Japan, South Korea), signaling calmness and patience and avoiding explicit military threats while holding out the prospect of directly engaging in the future in return for North Korea's "doing the right thing" with its nuclear programs.

Underlying this hands-off approach is the belief that North Korea is in such desperate need of outside assistance that, unlike in 1994, it is vulnerable to US leverage. Ultimately, however, if this approach does not produce the desired result, the United States could live with North Korea's acquisition of more nuclear weapons on the assumption that there is no significant strategic difference between an arsenal of one or two nuclear weapons and an arsenal of six or seven; in either case the United States could deter and contain North Korea until the current regime collapses.

Advantages. This approach would enable the administration to take a principled stand not to "reward" North Korean bad behavior. In addition, it would give the administration more time to concentrate on Iraq, and allow the new president of South Korea, who will take office in late February 2003, to settle in. A sequenced approach (HEU first, engagement second), blunts North Korea's extortionist negotiating tactics, avoids an immediate military confrontation, and keeps open the option of Washington's engaging the North Korean regime in the future.

Disadvantages. A policy of toleration would make it harder to roll back North Korea's programs in the future, especially its more easily concealed HEU program. North Korea may choose to heighten the crisis by taking further escalatory steps at Yongbyon, substantially expanding its nuclear arsenal. And, in the absence of Washington's addressing its concerns with security and sovereignty, North Korea will be even more reluctant to give up its nuclear programs. Finally, there is an increased risk of North Korea's selling nuclear weapons if it has a larger inventory and an active production line.

"Negotiate."
There are two variants of a negotiation policy -- limited and comprehensive. Limited negotiations would focus solely on the nuclear threat, with the goal of keeping North Korea from acquiring any additional weapons material. The United States would resist any temptation to be diverted to other, less immediate goals, such as conventional force reductions or regime change. Washington would signal its willingness to live with the current regime as long as it returns to the status quo ante (i.e. dismantling of the HEU program, "refreezing" Yongbyon and abiding by the Agreed Framework), thereby re-establishing stable mutual deterrence.

Advantages. Engagement limited to the nuclear issue would allow US policymakers to concentrate solely on that which is of greatest importance to Washington ? the threat a nuclear-armed North Korea poses to vital US interests. Progress on this front would open the possibility of constructive engagement on other aspects of the North Korean threat writ large ? its chemical and biological weapons, missiles, and conventional forces. Engagement limited to nuclear weapons could have a calming effect on the North's leadership by communicating that the United States was not seeking regime change or system transformation.

Disadvantages. Negotiating with North Korea, even on an agenda limited solely to the nuclear issue, would open the administration up to charges of having a double standard, certainly with regard to Iraq. It would also require the administration to abandon its pre-condition that Pyongyang visibly and verifiably dismantle its HEU program (and keep the Yongbyon complex "frozen" under IAEA supervision) before any negotiations take place, a change the administration does not feel is warranted in light of the united front presented by Washington, Seoul Tokyo, Beijing and Moscow.

Comprehensive negotiations would, like limited negotiations, seek to prevent North Korea from acquiring additional nuclear weapons capability; it would also seek the elimination of the North's long-range missile programs. Comprehensive negotiations would be premised on the assumptions that a piecemeal approach will not work with North Korea, that the United States cannot cause the collapse of the regime (and should not try), and that the security and respect a comprehensive approach would lend to North Korea are costs the United States could bear in exchange for preventing strategic breakout. A comprehensive approach would also be designed to steer North Korea down the path of political and economic reform and eventual acceptance into the community of nations.

Advantages. Given the fundamental insecurity of the North Korean regime, comprehensive negotiations leading to a transformation in US-DPRK relations may be the only approach with a realistic prospect of eliminating the North's strategic systems. It is an approach likely to be favored by US allies, and it strengthens global nonproliferation, facilitates South-North dialogue, and opens the North to greater contact with the international community.

Disadvantages. The United States would be seen as giving in to nuclear blackmail, entailing a substantial loss of face. Comprehensive negotiations are unlikely to achieve the immediate and complete elimination of nuclear and missile programs. In addition, even if the US succeeded on the nuclear question, a sequenced approach would allow North Korea to "retail" its weapons of mass destruction threat, potentially bogging the US down in a repeat of the 1990s process- (as opposed to a progress-) oriented approach.

"Retaliate."
The United States could adopt a policy of pure coercion designed to further isolate North Korea and force it to abandon its nuclear programs. The United States, either in partnership with allies and friends, or alone if necessary, initially would use non-military instruments (economic sanctions, international isolation), while holding in reserve military means to prevent strategic breakout.

Advantages. A policy of pure coercion in retaliation against North Korea's cheating on its nonproliferation commitments would put maximum pressure on North Korea and, if successful, would force resolution of the issue on US terms.

Disadvantages. Retaliation runs the risk of fracturing the coalition currently arrayed against North Korea, with Seoul, Tokyo, Beijing and Moscow unlikely to back a policy of pure coercion. Moreover, should coercion not produce the desired results, Washington would be left with a choice of either backing down, or attacking.

Monday, February 10, 2003

Opposition to the war on Iraq must be thoroughly considered.

In "A dove's guide: How to be an honest critic of the war", Matthew Parris does the antiwar movement a great service by pointing out how a visceral opposition to war can undermine the logical consistency of the particular opposition to war with Iraq. Parris also introduces an interesting concept, namely, "Rumsfeld's Fork", which states that Saddam must show what he has or be indicted for hiding it. If it follows that he has WMD and we know this, than relying on him to show them to us is naive and ridiculous. On the other hand, if we don't have proof of Saddam's WMD and we declare war on Iraq precisely because Saddam fails to provide us with such proof, then politics as usual takes a twist towards the absurd.

Parris' caution for those who are backing the UN is aptly declared-- if the UN backs this war, will you suddenly decide to support it? The lesson to be learned is, of course, eternal vigilance not only towards the activities of governments but also towards the foundation of your own arguments.

Monday, February 10, 2003

Personality cult, anyone?

A team of Russian lawyers is preparing to sue the makers of the Harry Potter film franchise because, according to the lawyers, the character Dobby-- a small, green trollish house elf with large ears-- is a caricature of Russian President Valdimir Putin. The lawyers claim that the producers of Harry Potter used Putin's face to create the computer-generated character. Apparently, the lawsuit intends to protect Putin's reputation and honor.

Monday, February 10, 2003

Will boys be boys?

A chilling audio transcript chronicling the behavior of civilized Western troops in Kosovo. It seems that civilization drops it discontents in the Balkans, and returns home in time for the honors. Perhaps tribalism has its subtle attractions...

Monday, February 10, 2003

The plague of anti-intellectualism on American campuses.

Once upon a time, in a van down by the river, one chose to attend grad school in the hopes of entering a realm in which the seeking of knowledge, for its own sake, would be a goal you shared and developed with your colleagues. Ah, but that was before careerism reared its ugly and very popular head in the ranks of academia. When I tell friends or "adults" (i.e. those older than me who consider themselves miserable enough to make age an identifying issue) that I love learning, and that nothing is more rewarding than discovering a new idea and testing its influence on other ideas, they tell me to get practical-- "You're never going to make money that way".

When I inform them that I am quite aware of this fact, and that making money is not the reason for which I pursue higher education, then most "adults" or otherwise-"wise" people look at me as if my nose just fell off. So it is with great relief that I follow Mark Clayton's concern over the anti-intellectual fervor.

"You can party a lot, ski a lot, and still do well and not be that intellectual," says Michael Newton, a junior majoring in government at Dartmouth college. "At Dartmouth, it's not that cool to be intellectual. It's much cooler to be outdoorsy. At Yale, my friends say its cooler to be urban trendy."

Come again? And all this time I've been living my life by the cool-rules only to find I was choosing a passe type of cool! I live my life according to trend and fashion-- it's what makes me such a great consumer. So if intellectualism is out, then I'm going to change my catalogue subscriptions immediato. What can I say here? It feels like a sorry B film script. Dr. Epstein, I hear you.

Sunday, February 9, 2003

Picasso Porn by Kolin Smith.

Sunday, February 9, 2003

Auroral by H.L. Mencken.

Another day comes journeying with the sun;
The east grows ghastly with the dawning's gleam,
And e'er the dark has flown and night is done
The city's pavements with the many teem.


Another Day of toil and grief and pain;
Life surely seems not sweet to such as these;
Yet they live toiling that they may but gain
the right to life and all life's miseries.

From the New England Magazine New Series Volume 22, Issue 3: pp 255-382 May 1900.

Sunday, February 9, 2003

Ernest Gellner on insider trading.

In Ernest Gellner's seminal work assessing modern civil society, Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and Its Rivals, his description of modern business practices under governments committed to economic pluralism should inform current controversy over the unethical practice of insider trading. Gellner points out that the modern entrepreneur mediates between a politically-controlled environment, configured by the regulatory and administrative state, and society, as opposed to mediating between nature and society. Often, the assumptions of free market economics leans towards characterization of the entrepreneur as a mediator between nature, or a natural market, and society. Gellner writes:

Formally, modern societies try to legislate against "insider trading", the economic use of information concerning the political creation or determination of an environment which has ceased to be natural, and has become socially, politically created. But in fact, it is of the very essence of the modern economy that ii is based on insider trading. There is no other kind. There is simply no "outside" with which to trade.

When the methods of production need to adjust themselves for optional effectiveness, not to nature, but to a socially created and politically variable manipulated environment, information about and contact with that crucial political milieu is what makes the difference between success and failure.

This becomes increasingly true as the government begins to contract out functions to private firms, who refocus their energies on competing for government favor rather than market efficiency. As Gellner points out, such government interference in the market destroys any notion of government neutrality in economic policy formulation.

The nightwatchman who controls more than half the environment cannot be a neutral servant. Modern corporations snap up senior civil servants and politicians who opt for early retirement, not because they are genuinely impressed by their intellectual equipment-- they are not-- but because their inside knowledge, their ability to know just who it is in the state machine who needs to be rung up for any given end, is invaluable.

As the defense budget grows, and war with Iraq nears, we must evaluate the extent to which such government corporate sponsorship will undermine attempts at economic recovery by severely distorting price signals and competition. Indeed, most Pentagon employees opt for early retirement because the private sector pays so well for their insider info. In order to really punish insider trading, lawyers should focus less on coincidental dimwits like Martha Stewart and more on the perverse relationship between the US Dept. of Defense and private military or tech contracting companies.

Sunday, February 9, 2003

Ah, the poetry of being "Alina".

Scouring the web for a song with my name in it, slowly seething as my misfortune to not be named Melissa or Sarah or Jessica, I finally stumbled upon a tune named "Alina". Unfortunately, my lack of a sense of immediate connection to this song increased my tendency to seek an immediate connection with the leftover Blackstone Merlot from last night. If anyone knows of a more comforting song with my name in it, I figure I might still be sober for the next hour, so email quickly.

Sunday, February 9, 2003

How I spent last night (i.e. how you should spend tonight).

13 Conversations About One Thing, produced by Michael Stipe and starring a bucketful of strong actors, centers on how very different individuals refine their view of happiness as various events change the background of their lives. There is a six-degrees-of-separation element, as all of their lives intersect at certain points. A intense, sometimes depressing, yet incredibly revealing movie about human hubris and the role of luck or chance in our lives. The only thing missing is a nude scene with Catherine Keener.

Saturday, February 8, 2003

My fleeting fancies.

Randall Kennedy answers questions about his new book, Interracial Intimacies. Erica Dirksen dicusses the significance of the straight-edge movement. Also, check your emotional IQ. My reasoning for this is as follows: If you do well, tell parents and other nosy folk that your emotional IQ is stupendous. If you do badly, no one has to know, except, of course, for that man or woman you are desperately trying to lose. The odds are good either way.

Saturday, February 8, 2003

The tumor in the heart of American education.

An exceptional article by A.O. Scott for the New York Times! A tiny taste..

The systemic failure of American education is, by now, a very old story. (There is an equally old, but less frequently told, story about the amazingly various local ways our schools have succeeded.) Twenty years ago, when I was finishing high school, we were "A Nation at Risk" menaced by "a rising tide of mediocrity." A generation before that, there was "Why Johnny Can't Read." And every crisis has provoked grand and global solutions, which in turn engender the next crisis. Every self-evident problem in the New York schools today -- from the gerrymandered districts to the hulking buildings -- was once an equally self-evident cure.

The endless crisis has been driven, to some extent, by adult self-interest, and there is no shortage of scapegoats: stubborn unions, greedy corporations, crackpot theorists, pandering politicos. But while those responsible for the failure of American education -- a list that surely includes parents like me -- are divided by interests and ideologies, they (we) are united by sincere good intentions. We want what's best for our children.

Which is the root of the problem. Our schools are political battlefields to an extent that those in other countries are not because they operate under such diverse and contradictory demands -- most deeply, the desire to nurture each child's talent and potential with the imperative to reproduce a competitive, and often unfair, social order. We expect the schools to resolve social problems, the existence of which we otherwise barely acknowledge. Education is imagined to be the great equalizer, the engine of social mobility and the solvent of class division -- even as the schools, public as well as private, maintain and engineer enormous inequities. Schools are meant to bind local communities and foster a vibrant national economy. Even in microcosm, when we think about what we want them to do for our children (and what do we mean, exactly, by ''our children''?), the schools are mired in paradox. Debates over the structure and content of schooling present a series of choices: should children learn important information, useful skills or ennobling values? Should they be given the tools of liberation or the habits of obedience to authority? Should schools foster individual growth or responsible membership in society?

But these are not choices at all. We want -- we expect -- all of these things. Never mind that, for these myriad results, we depend on overworked parents and underfinanced institutions. It never seems to occur to us that the demands are fundamentally at cross-purposes -- are, in a word, utopian. The urge to reform the schools goes beyond the necessary, difficult desire to improve the way they function. It is, rather, the last, strongest redoubt of an American tradition of moral perfectionism: the schools are miniature, prototype cities on a hill, models of the enlightened, egalitarian, excellent society we have not yet managed to create. The buzzword among reformers of whatever coloration is success; but with such a goal, failure is guaranteed, as are the future waves of reform. But we wouldn't have it any other way. Our children deserve no less.

Saturday, February 8, 2003

Vocabulary word of the day.

HASBIAN: a woman who used to date women but now dates men. The most prominent example is Anne Heche.

Saturday, February 8, 2003

Get ready for the revolution.

The US State Department has decided to raise the terrorist warning to orange-- a high risk color. I advise all God-and-terrorist-fearing Americans to put on their aluminum foil deflector cones, since we are not quite sure in what form the terrorists might infiltrate our country. In fact, we aren't even sure what terrorism is exactly, so best to be prepared. If you lack the proper equipment, the instructions for creating an aluminum foil deflector beanie will give you the cutting-edge in terrorist prevention fashion. As you can see, the beanie is truly hot.

And don't forget the family beast, as terrorists might target pets too! Remember what happened to the animals in Signs?

Words of wisdom from Tupac-- keep your head up, legs closed, eyes open. And don't forget the beanie.

Saturday, February 8, 2003

Errors that matter.

Writing for the Financial Times, Stephen Fidler writes about errors uncovered in the UK document on Iraq. Brendan On'Neill describes it best when he says-- "America's evidence against Iraq is so last year".

Saturday, February 8, 2003

A word from the wise G. K. Chesterton.

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types--the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution. [1924]

"GIVE BACK MY BOOK AND TAKE MY KISS INSTEAD.
WAS IT MY ENEMY OR MY FRIEND I HEARD,
"WHAT A BIG BOOK FOR SUCH A LITTLE HEAD!"
-Edna Saint Vincent Millay

Search this weblog Search www