Who's next, or why unenforceable agreements don't quite work
Today's headlines announcing that in spite of explicit agreements signed in '94, North Korea has been developing nuclear weapons capabilities remind me of a Tom Lehrer song, composed and performed over 30 years ago. So for this morning, I have an observation and an open ended question:
Observation: International agreements that are not backed by force and immediate threat of painful punishment don't work. After all, agreements are usually made because one (or both) of the parties is forced into a situation where an agreement is necessary. If you can, why not violate it? So, to some degree the North Korean news underlies the fact that weapons inspection, especially the toothless, impotent variety are a waste of time and money, so...
Open-ended question: What is going to happen with North Korea vis-à-vis Iraq? We've been rattling our sabers so loudly and melodiously that at this point the administration can release a saber rattling single, to be played on conservative modern music stations, if such exist. Will we apply the same pressure on North Korea as we have been applying on Iraq?
9:56:23 AM 
|
