The world’s reaction to North Korea’s a-bomb test strongly resembles Israel’s response to Katyusha and Kassam rocket attacks and to terrorist attacks against us in general. The more high-falluting the rhetoric, the more helplessness it signifies. South Korea announced a “strong response”, and the US “will not tolerate a situation in which North Korea has nukes”, a mood reflected by other Asian countries.
Very nice. To the point. But North Korea still has the bomb. How did this happen? After all, nothing was done behind anyone’s back. On the contrary, everything was known, and there were constant severe, rhetorical responses. There were sanctions, too.
What was the result? The North Koreans simply laughed all the way as they developed the bomb. What did the so-called international community do? It issued warnings, mostly to itself. No “hasty actions” should be taken; all options for negotiations should be exploited to the full; confrontation must be avoided. And that is what the international community did. The international community held “talks” and “contacts”, spending its energy in diplomacy, while its interlocutor went ahead with its nuclear option.
Could the world have countries acted otherwise? There is the rub. It’s not easy dealing with nukes. The wrong action, an unwise decision, and the consequences can be catastrophic. That is why there is no point in criticizing the world’s governments. They hoped that the application of talks and sanctions would prevent a dangerous confrontation.
But the hope was in vain. The question now is what that means. First and foremost, an old truth has been proven right again: there are countries with which diplomacy does not work; it cannot work because of the nature of their rulers. These are countries whose leaders comprise the terrible combination of tyranny and recklessness, not to say insanity. Nothing will work with leaders like these, at least nothing rational. Sanctions? OK, the people will suffer; who cares? The leaders don’t have to stand for elections. These leaders have an almost limitless capacity to absorb blows. Their capacity for rational thought, however, is quite limited.
Does this mean that diplomacy has run its course? No; it only means that diplomacy never works in the case of mad dictators. Just ask British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who tried to avoid World War II by negotiating with German Chancellor Adolf Hitler. We are now faced with insane regimes in North Korea and Iran. Will the lesson of North Korea be learned for the case of Iran? Or will the world one day find itself vis-a-vis Iran as it today finds itself vis-a-vis North Korea?
The man who best understands the limits of diplomacy is US President George W. Bush. He understands the limits far better than the intellectuals and goodwill ambassadors of one kind and another who love to ridicule Bush’s intellect.
Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes.co.il - on October 9, 2006
© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd. 2006