The fruits of appeasement
So now we can see once again the fruits of appeasement. North Korea has tested a second set of nuclear bombs and the west throws up its hands in horror. What did it expect? Once the Bush administration cravenly decided to give up on North Korea (following the similarly short-sighted approach taken by Bill Clinton), Kim Jong-il duly took the opportunity to press full steam ahead with his nuclear programme. Now the same ‘new realists’ who came to power at the tail-end of the Bush presidency and decided to ‘live with’ a North Korean bomb – just as they have apparently decided the US could ‘live with’ an Iranian bomb – are serving in the Obama administration, which of course has taken such imbecility to unprecedented depths. Obama has been abasing himself to every despot on the planet, proclaiming America’s weakness through his ‘hand of friendship’ and infantile belief that talking to tyrants is the route to peace.
The result of such epic cringing is two fingers from North Korea, with yet further threats today. Iran in particular will now be watching intently to see whether America will once again display weakness and impotence; if the US won’t even act to stop North Korea from going nuclear, Iran will be reinforced in its belief that it can develop its own nuclear weapons with impunity. So far, Obama has ‘rushed out a special statement’ in which he said ‘I strongly condemn [North Korea’s] reckless action’ and promised to ‘redouble’ America’s efforts to stop Pyongyang from acquiring nuclear weapons. Well, that will have them quaking in their boots, for sure. Redoubling weakness simply results in twice as much weakness.
As John Bolton commented a week ago -- correctly predicting the second North Korean test – following remarks by Stephen Bosworth, the US special envoy to the region:
Despite Pyongyang’s aggression, Mr. Bosworth has reiterated that the U.S. is ‘committed to dialogue’ and is ‘obviously interested in returning to a negotiating table as soon as we can.’ This is precisely what the North wants: America in a conciliatory mode, eager to bargain, just as Mr. Bush was after the 2006 test. If the next nuclear explosion doesn't derail the six-party talks, Kim will rightly conclude that he faces no real danger of ever having to dismantle his weapons program. North Korea is a mysterious place, but there is no mystery about its foreign-policy tactics: They work.
Not only is America now paying the price of its past defeatism over North Korea, but Obama is now ensuring that the US is weakened even more actively and catastrophically. The insanity of his overall strategy is set out here by James Lewis, who rightly suggests that Obama is simply the very worst person to be sitting in the White House right now. And as John Bolton again wrote in the New York Times:
... the Obama administration is seriously weakening both our strategic offensive and defensive capacity. The Defense Department budget proposes major cuts in missile defense programs, returning to an emphasis both in operational and diplomatic terms on ‘theater’ missile defense (mainly for defending deployed military forces), rather than ‘national’ missile defense (for shielding America’s population from missile attack).
... The Pentagon also proposes ending financing for the Reliable Replacement Warhead, a key to substituting safe, dependable warheads for the ones now aging... The administration is also putting new emphasis on negotiating conventions against the ‘arms race’ in outer space, which would undercut America's current substantial advantage above the earth...
Unhappily, the administration is pushing Israel to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a ‘non-nuclear-weapons state,’ meaning Israel would have to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. Iran and others will welcome this, given their repeated demands for the same result. Today’s real proliferation threat, however, is not Israel, but states like Iran and North Korea that become parties to the alphabet soup of arms control treaties and then violate them with abandon. Without robust American reactions to these violations--not apparent in administration thinking--more will follow.
But does Obama care about any of that? As Con Coughlin wrote in the Telegraph:
The naivety of the West’s approach to North Korea was best summed up by Stephen Bosworth, Mr Obama’s special envoy to the region, who declared he was ‘relatively relaxed’ that the American-led six-nation talks aimed at bringing Pyongyang to heel have achieved virtually nothing... If the Obama administration is relaxed about this failure, then I suppose it will take an equally sanguine view of North Korea’s attempts to export its bomb-making expertise to other rogue states, such as Iran and Syria.
Indeed, after Israel bombed the Syrian nuclear facility there was evidence of North Korean involvement in that forbidden programme. North Korea is also selling nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan as well as Iran. Yet Obama appears ‘relaxed’ about everyone’s nukes except Israel's– the one country that will never use them except to prevent itself from being annihilated by the countries Obama is appeasing.
Naivety – or the profound idiocy of malice?
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (29)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
1 There is only one question that frightens Brussels - Fraser Nelson
2 Printing money is not the solution - Humphrey Carpenter
3 Labour and the KGB - Fraser Nelson
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'Londonistan', published by Encounter and Gibson Square.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
GASCONY
GASCONY, SW France, near Condom-en-Armagnac 13th Century stone house, 21st Century luxury for 12 in 5 en-suites. 50 acres +
BIG SAND STEEL BAND
IF YOU ARE PLANNING A CHAMPAGNE RECEPTION and looking for some light entertainment, you can now hire London's busiest steel
BOSC LEBAT, Tarn et Garonne.
BOSC LEBAT, SW France. Only 45 minutes from Toulouse Airport with daily flights from most provincial airports avoiding the horrors
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2009 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Lee Jakeman
May 27th, 2009 9:34amIsrael has had nukes for years. Am I worried? No. Why not? Because the Israelis are - er - civilised ...
phil
May 27th, 2009 10:25amMelanie ,of course I agree with your criticism ,but what is your solution -Obama is dealing with a lunatic in NK as well as Iran -words will not deter either ,action is needed and a reaction from the population of these two unfortunate countries ,perhaps Obama is learning on the job -hope so
MD
May 27th, 2009 10:36amYes, Israel is civilised. And, unlike Obama, Netanyahu isn't blind to the need to maintain credible force as a deterrent. He draws the logical conclusion from Iran's continual threats and the presence that it maintains at N. Korea's nuclear and missile facilities.
Sheila
May 27th, 2009 11:48amYes, Lee Jakeman, the Israelis are civilised. Unlike the the Palestinian jihadists who can't wait to get us licking their boots. Perhaps you'll tell us what's civilised about this Palestinian dream as spelt out by Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astral (aired on Al-Aqsa TV on April 11, 2008):
"Allah has chosen you for Himself and for His religion, so that you will serve as the engine pulling this nation to the phase of succession, security, and consolidation of power, and even to conquests thorough da'wa and military conquests of the capitals of the entire world.
"Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesised by our Prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital, which has declared its hostility to Islam, and has planted the brothers of apes and pigs in Palestine in order to prevent the reawakening of Islam – this capital of theirs will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe.
"I believe that our children or our grandchildren will inherit our jihad and our sacrifices, and Allah willing, the commanders of the conquest will come from among them. Today, we instil these good tidings in their souls, and by means of the mosques and The Koran books, and the history of our prophets, his companions, and the great leaders, we prepare them for the mission of saving humanity from the hellfire on the brink of which they stand."
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=x_qbKrOF64w
Jonathan Gold
May 27th, 2009 12:35pmWouldn't be ironic, if the situation escalated to the point that Obama had to order a nuclear strike on North Korea. This may seem far fetched, but if he stays in denial too long, and the situstion escalates this may be the only option left.
Kiwi
May 27th, 2009 12:39pmAll of this has come about because the American leadership has now succumbed to the notion that it's their foreign policies which are at the root of all the world's ills - in their naivety they've been conned by those seeking her downfall – that also includes those from within.
Original Tony
May 27th, 2009 12:56pmIt wont be long before Obama will be forced to act on either N.Korea or Iran.
Let's hope the provocation isn't a nuke going off in Washington, smuggled in as rice crispies from Korea.
I simply despair with the Big 'O' - appeasement has not worked anywhere - ever!!
Obama should sanction any country that trades with N.korea (read China) and maybe then something will happen. Ditto Iran.
Ian G
May 27th, 2009 12:58pmThere is a point where the consequences of incompetence are indistinguishable from the consequences of malice and should, therefore, be treated as originating from malice. (Goodson's Law)
The agendum of the seemingly incompetent is often achieved. (Hallam's Observation)
In the light of which, it behooves the rest of us to treat Obama, and those of similar ilk, as intending to destroy Israel and the Judeo-Christian ethic of Western society. The profound idiocy, that Melanie refers to, is the belief that they can manage without that ethic and the Jews and Christians that go along with it.
George
May 27th, 2009 1:48pmAppeasement has never worked - the evil amongst us don't "do nice". The latest example we had of that was Hitler and Chamberlain. Despite this, the world insists every time that "this time" it will be different. Evil only understands one answer - total decimation.
Bill M
May 27th, 2009 2:35pmThere is a tremendous arrogance in appeasement. The idea that Obama will succeed where others throughout history have failed, and this at the cost of millions of lives, reveals his true narcissistic nature.
Terry
May 27th, 2009 2:41pmAppeasement is preparing the way for a nuclear war - as the number of rogue states armed with nuclear weapons increases, so the risk of their use by unstable lunatics increases.
Appeasement caused WWII & led to 50 million dead & untold suffering. Sadly, we are repeating history.
Nick
May 27th, 2009 3:32pmPerhaps Iran wouldn't feel the need for nukes if its Israeli friends weren't armed to the teeth an itching for trouble.
The presence of nukes in North Korea should ensure good behaviour from the US- and Chinese governments. Would Bush have invaded Iraq if Saddam had the bomb? I think it highly unlikely.
Bill Corr
May 27th, 2009 5:04pmBritish bookies are unwilling to take bets which involve loss of of life.
That said, I woder if any are willing to take a bet that atomic weapons will be used operationally in the next twenty years.
Augustus
May 27th, 2009 5:21pmDoes nobody remember the Obama campaign speeches where he promised to follow a softer line on foreign policy? Or where he promised to make grovelling apologies to any rogue state he could wrangle an audience with? And a lot of empty rhetoric about having a 'smarter foreign policy'. The US President prefers to deploy his weapon of choice; the politics of distraction, rather than building up a viable US missile defense strategy, and prefers instead to pursue a senseless disarmament programme
that would debilitate the United States, in the hope that beneficient tyrants like Kim Jong-Il and Ahmedinejad will be so bedazzled by his goodwill that they'll abandon all their nefarious deeds. So, when the North Koreans celebrated US Memorial Day by detonating a large nuclear bomb, Obama responded swiftly. He gave a stern warning to Pyongyang that further such explosions could result in a tersely worded letter from the UN. Wow! Gosh!
Dear Mr President, I am sitting in the smallest room of my palace, and have this letter from the UN before me. In a couple of minutes it will be...
N
May 27th, 2009 5:56pmThank you! I took a class on the Korean War and as part of the class we talked about the current situation on the Korean Peninsula. I was the only person in the class who thought that the US is responsible for the current international relations regarding North Korea. The US "deals" with North Korea by trying to isolate them, which so far hasn't worked. All Kim Jong Il has to do is threatened nuclear action and the US gives him what he wants, which is usually aid. Thank you Mel for being wise enough to see that the the US as well as the UN are in fact enablers of North Korea.
Bob from Virginia
May 27th, 2009 8:57pmIt's odd and tragic, so many see and understand the situation yet so many more could care less. Obama has easily (and predictably)proven himself within a tiny span of time to be the worst president in US history yet he still has a 60% approval rating.
It reminds me of what I read of the period before WWII where everyone pretended that there options to violent force and disparaged anyone who warned otherwise.
I recommend the book "Beyond Belief" about the naive and not so naive views of Hitler before WW2 should one wish to be further depressed about the natural end result of the current "dialogs".
elixelx
May 27th, 2009 10:25pmI wonder if the Iranians will give up their national pride, their inalienable right, their economic future--i.e. their nuclear programme--if Israel destroys all it's nukes!
Sorry, gotta go! Just saw a pig flying by my window!
John Birch
May 27th, 2009 10:46pmAugustus wrote: "Or where [Obama] promised to make grovelling apologies to any rogue state he could wrangle an audience with?" Could you reference the speech where he said this, please. Thanks.
Suki
May 27th, 2009 11:14pmMel, thanks for pointing up this fantastic James Lewis essay is this post. Wonderful.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/defeating_a_hitler_with_nukes.html
gary
May 28th, 2009 2:44amIf Israel had agressive intentions of nuking Iran or any other country they could have done it years ago. They didn't. That's the simple proof that their nukes are reserved for last ditch defense.
Israel is the only country which has taken on the responsibility of making sure a nuclear war doesn't erupt in the Middle East. Diplomacy and agreements didn't stop Iraq and Syria from gaining nuclear weapons. Israel alone stopped that.
They should be thanked by the anti-nuclear mob, not cursed.
Neil Craig
May 28th, 2009 3:50pmThe picture shows Madeleine Albright (formerly Jewish now Episcopalian). She was the US secretary who told journalists that the US were deliberately trying to make sure the Ranboullet talks broke down because "the Serbs need a little bombing" & "what's the point of having the world's best military if you don't use it" & asked the western world's journalists to lie & say it was Milosevic's fault. Naturally they did.
The Yugoslavs had decided, in the 1970s, not to develop a Bomb. The lesson to Kim & to everybody else in the world is clear & has made the world a much more dangerous place.
gary ashton
May 29th, 2009 12:46amisrael is not an aggressive nation and harbors no ill feeling towards its neighbors, what it does desire is peace with reasonable parties who accept israels right to exist. if you tink this is untrue then you actually need to visit israel and find out for yourself rather than digest the media.
Ronnie
May 30th, 2009 7:21pmI'm a little confused here.
Has Obama, in the short time he has been in office, asked the North Korean government to build nuclear weapons and test delivery systems?
No.
Has Obama insisted that North Korea threaten its neighbours and all other countries within range of its missiles?
No.
Has Obama instructed the North Korean government to tear up the armnistice that ended the Korean war?
No.
Is Obama responsible for the policies and actions of the government of North Korea?
No.
Has Obama recently stationed a squadron of F22 fighter jets, the most advanced in the world, on Okinawa to reassure Japan that the USA will honour all its committments in the face of North Korea's aggression?
Yes he has.
Is Obama responsible for the raising of tensions by North Korea?
No he isn't.
Is it likely that the governments of the USA, China and all the other countries in the region, threatened by North Korea, will be working together to reduce tensions?
Yes, I would think so.
Does Melanie think Obama should lead the world in an invasion of North Korea as soon as possible?
Who knows, she never says. Too busy throwing her hands in the air, as usual.
An American
May 31st, 2009 2:00amRonnie,
No, Obama hasn't asked for any of these things.
He's just shown how incredibly weak and naive he is by always expecting the UN to take care of his and the world's problems.
Ronnie
May 31st, 2009 9:32amSo, An American, are we off to invade North Korea now?
Graeme Scott
June 1st, 2009 5:57amChurchill during WWII stated that because of appeasement that the country and he where in a period of consequence..... these words i hope do not come and haunt us....
Ronnie
June 1st, 2009 1:14pmGraeme Scott, would you like to try that again? What you've written doesn't make any sense.
Adam B.
June 1st, 2009 8:33pmRonnie
Obama annoys his friends and cozies up to the US' enemies.
Working well so far, isn't it?
Ronnie
June 2nd, 2009 7:25amAdam B
Very cryptic. Would you like to take the time to explain yourself more fully? I don't think we are all 'in the know'.