@FBM,
It astounds and frightens me that anyone might have seriously thought otherwise.
The notion that open engagement and continuous dialogue will somehow divert or mitigate the intentions of regimes like North Korea is not only incredibly naive, it is dangerous.
It would make far more sense if the people promoting this policy secretly favored the realization of the regime's intentions, but, with extremely rare exception, they, of course, do not. Instead, despite clear evidence to the contrary, they actually believe the approach will work.
I'm not sure if this belief is predicated upon a near religious faith in the power of communication, or an equally powerful bias against any use of force.
I am certain that it flows, at least in part, from the post-modernist way of thinking that insists that everyone's point of view is valid, and therefore no single one can be determinant.
We should never be so arrogant as to think that our point of view is anything but that, an opinion or position taken based upon our own narrow and limited perception, and therefore should never be the basis for our taking action. Instead, we need to fully understand our opponent's point of view and in that way we can fashion a course of action that will meet the needs and desires of all parties.
Seems reasonable, and it might be if an additional, related tenet of post-modernist thinking wasn't demanded as well:
Moral relativism.
It's foolish and counterproductive to consider the North Korean and Iranian regimes as evil. Foolish because the concept of evil is a product of primitive tribalism and superstition that originates in our reptilian brain. Counter-productive, because how can we achieve a solution based on the synthesis of the various parties' points of view if we automatically invalidate one with the crude, blanketing label of evil?
Whether or not we want to label as Evil, a regime that denies its citizens the most basic of human rights, accepts as unavoidable mass starvation within its populace (or worse uses it as a means to control the population), strove unceasingly to secure nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of insuring its ongoing existence, is willing to sell weapons of any kind to clients of any kind, and is more than willing to engage in deadly military stunts as a component of it extortionist strategy, it is delusional to assert any ambiguity about the moral position of the North Korean regime.
It is so hard to imagine that anyone in power within the US or South Korean governments not only believed the approach would work, but that the North Koreans wouldn’t take full advantage of it, that it is difficult to believe that their decisions were not based on purely self-serving, personal or partisan, political interests and motivations. The alternative is that these two nations were led, during the years in which the North Koreans worked to secure their nukes, by morons whose source of guiding principles is Sesame Street.
And yet if you listen to, at least, former players from the American side (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Madeline Albright, Robert Galluci, William Perry and others) you will conclude that they either believed all of their fanciful efforts would work or that they are very good liars.
Madeline Albright in an interview with Frontline several years ago spoke of North Korea's point of view in terms of its desire to secure nuclear weapons in much the same terms as her colleagues from the Clinton Adminsitration:
They are concerned about the security of their regime. Not a hint of judgment concerning the legitimacy of that concern, just a statement of fact.
Clearly it was logical for the regime to be concerned over its security and it is important in these matters to understand the enemy's point of view; their motivations, but not, necessarily, in order to fashion a compromise solution that will, to one extent or another, accomodate their desires. This is particularly true when the motivational source is, in and of itself, unfavorable to our interests and the interests of our allies.
The fact that the security of the North Korean regime guaranteed the ongoing suffering and oppression of millions of fellow human beings was clearly beside the point, and not permitted to enter into consideration. This from the same group of people who were all quick to criticize the Bush government for what they believed was the suffering of the Iraqi people; caused by his interventist war.
Now we have an Administration who believes the same approach that failed with North Korea will work with Iran. When it fails, and it will, and the Iranians have nukes, the Kims and North Korea will become mere petty annoyances by comparison.
