Gates Wandering In Bizarro World

“Far more than a single, isolated incident.”

“Part of a larger pattern of provocative and reckless behavior."

“International pariah.”

"For nothing to happen would be a very bad precedent.”

A parallel dimension is the only way to describe US Defense Secretary Robert Gate’s reality. Silently activated by Jerusalem, Gates fittingly bridged the Yellow and Mediterranean Seas in Singapore, a city of intermingling cultures. But Gates hadn’t intended to build anything - he intended to destroy the bridge.

In doing he so couldn’t be closer or further from the truth at the same time.

A situation can always become worse; time has tested this political law. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and company are busy denying a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, hypocrisy that’s hard to top. But if anyone could it would be Gates, who believes all the above statements apply to North Korea.

And not Israel.

Gates wasn’t speaking randomly so much as seizing an opportunity, the bizarro opportunity for peace that President Barack Obama spoke of. Earlier Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu of China's National Defense University was quoted as saying, “There is a wide gap in the U.S. attitude and policy to the two instances.”

Gates replied, “the attack on Cheonan was a surprise operation conducted ‘without any warning’ whereas Israel had issued several warnings to the flotilla not to enter its territorial waters,” according to the AP.

"I won't make judgment on responsibility or fault,” Gates said, adding that he supports an international investigation. "But I think there is no comparison whatsoever between what happened in the eastern Mediterranean and what happened to the Cheonan.”

None? Because Gates triggers images of Israel with every threat he lobs at North Korea. His levels of hypocrisy are stunning, a deep with no bottom.

For starters China has supported UN resolutions to end the Gaza blockade, and is again raising the issue on the world stage. Is it taking advantage of it? Certainly, just like America and North Korea. Gates nullified Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent imploring for China to assume global responsibility, even as he too urged Beijing to become a world leader. Just in Taiwan, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Africa.

Not Palestine.

As for North Korea, Gates says it, “must cease its belligerent behavior and demonstrate clearly and decisively that it wants to pursue a different path.” Apparently this doesn’t apply to Israel either. Keeping his focus solely on the two ships, he extends North Korea to its past behavior and treats Israel in isolation.

As if the Freedom Flotilla was an isolated incident.

To Gates the blockade doesn’t register in spite of the White House crumbling on Gaza. Though he supports an investigation, Gates claims the purpose is to discover who’s responsible. If the protesters are faulted then case closed. To him the waters belong to Israel, not the Palestinians. To him Israel is defending its rightful borders rather than maintaining an illegal blockade by force.

Gaza is irrelevant, but North Korea’s actions have everything to do with what’s happening on land.

The ultimate conclusion too is expressed via hypocrisy. The AP reports, “Gates' harsh assessment reflects the Obama administration's pessimism about persuading the North to end its nuclear weapons program.” Conversely, the White House and Pentagon maintain optimism towards a two-state solution despite Israel’s behavior. At least publicly.

An unflinching supporter of Israel, Gates rarely speaks on Palestine except to insist Israel doesn’t pose a threat to US troops in the Middle East. He seems strangely unconcerned despite his willingness to send troops to the region.

Presiding over a failing strategy in Afghanistan, initiating futile operations in Yemen and Somalia, blaming China for poor relations, preparing war with Iran, finding no fault with Israel’s behavior. Gates is considered one of Obama’s best cabinet picks because of his rumored bureaucratic prowess, but he’s got nothing going across the world. This strategy emanates from a muddled mind, not an intelligent one.

What world is Gates is living in? Because it isn’t Earth.

North Korea Key to China's Heart

North Korea warned South Korea and America not to conduct their joint exercises, but the wolf’s cry is no longer heard. Military drills are in full effect and scheduled to run until March 18th, and since no one listened to Kim Jong II, being unavoidable necessitates a visit to China himself.

But rather than what Kim and China want from each other, the better question is what China wants from America.

In anticipation of Kim’s first trip to Beijing in four years, North Korea has intimated a willingness to return to six-party denuclearization talks. Bipolar behavior is typical of Pyongyang, which regularly alternates between threats and peace overtures. The North said it will only return to six-party talks with America, South Korea, China, Russia and Japan after UN sanctions are lifted.

It also wants bilateral peace talks with America in order to formally end the Korean War.

Washington responded that North Korea must first return to the six party talks and begin the denuclearization process before bilateral talks can proceed. South Korea's JoongAng Ilbo newspaper reported that a North Korean delegation will return to the six-party talks in early April and "present its idea to move forward denuclearization.”

Thus the situation progresses from one game to the next. North Korea and the international community are two chickens caught in a staring contest. While both sides’ egos are on the line, it behooves America to forgo pride and do what it can to restore a sense of reality to the region. The rest of the world would follow.

To this end it was optimistic to hear US ambassador to South Korea, Kathleen Stephens, deaden the North’s threats.

“The United States has neither hostile intent toward the people of North Korea nor are we threatening to change the North Korean regime through force," she said at a forum in Seoul, hosted by the Korean Council for Reconciliation and Cooperation. "Our aim is to find diplomatic solutions with North Korea.”

“The language has become more positive,” she conceded. Too bad she still hit the wall: “We need to see actions.”

North Korea, impoverished and constantly flirting with disaster, has nothing to offer. Having been burned by America’s empty promises, creating deep insecurities, the North cannot be expected to blink first, to put up the money before America. If the North was a drunk driver, it is America’s responsibility to yield.

And treating it as a pariah won’t solve the problem.

This is why former U.N. nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei cautioned, "The issue involves North Korea's insecurity and need for economic development, and in order for headway to be made, the world should address both these issues.”

How America actually addresses the North’s demands can go several ways, but they all involve a gesture of good faith that, if executed properly, could have little downside.

Non-weapons related sanctions can be lightened. Economic and humanitarian aid can be shipped in quantities small enough to not be wasted but large enough to demonstrate goodwill. President Obama can stop boasting of isolating North Korea since no tangible gain comes from issuing threats.

Engaging in direct peace talks would be excessive without any return, but the option should be explored and tied into the six-party talks. Naturally engaging North Korea is risky and subject to loss. Diplomacy can be a gamble (as Obama should know from Palestine), yet it must be pursued if the conflict is to be permanently resolved.

The idea of officially ending the Korean War should be treated as a good thing.

But the reality is that America cannot afford inaction on North Korea if it expects Chinese cooperation on Iran. Beijing's envoy to North Korea, former Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei, recently told the China Daily, "China's goal is to start the six-party talks in the first half of this year. That's our expectation, but it is difficult to say if this will be realized."

Dawei’s expectation, projected to 2011, is not so different from America and Israel’s call for UN sanctions or military action on Iran.

Just as a line can be drawn from Palestine to Iraq to Pakistan, from Kashmir to Afghanistan, Naxalites, and Sri Lanka, a direct line exists between America, China, Iran, and North Korea. America must positively engage North Korea if Obama is to reasonably expect China’s support on Iran.

The two conflicts have become inseparable.

We can bet that while China bends Kim-Jong II back into six-party talks, it’s also working the private lines with Washington to reach a compromise. With Israel’s actions destroying its international image by the day, Iranian sanctions don’t have the strength they once did. Brazil and China are out, with Beijing rejecting Israel. Sincerely re-engaging North Korea might be the only way America can move China on Iran.

Obtaining China’s influence would be a less violent strategy than open confrontation. Beijing is waiting for Obama’s actions.

Droppin' Bombs

Resting an injury does the body good. After leaving India, an energized Hillary Clinton logged double duty by heading America’s delegation at the Association of Southeast Asian Nation’s (ASEAN) regional forum in Phuket, Thailand. The Secretary of State’s mission is to sign ASEAN’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, a pledge to peacefully resolve conflicts.

Clinton declared, “I want to send a very clear message that the United States is back, that we are fully engaged and committed to our relationships in Southeast Asia.”

Immediately an implication was drawn to the lack of attention devoted to Asia by the Bush administration, but political distractions have little value. Clinton listed poverty, refugees, disaster relief, human trafficking, and counter-narcotics as areas America should rightfully continue supporting in Thailand. Asia, minus China, still looks to America for leadership and President Obama must make good use of the opportunity.

But Clinton soon shifted into war mode after dispensing with pleasantries, revealing her ulterior motives.

“We know there are also growing concerns about military cooperation between North Korea and Burma which we take very seriously,” she said at a news conference in Bangkok. “It would be destabilizing for the region, it would pose a direct threat to Burma's neighbors.”

Then Clinton opened the bomb bay doors - “We worry about the transfer of nuclear technology.”

Intelligence agencies have spent years monitoring North Korea and Myanmar’s military alliance. Someone uninterested in politics might be able to make the nuclear connection, it’s a 1+1 equation. Think Myanmar is building an underground, reinforced military city for fun? The way it treats its people suggests their safety wouldn’t be a deterrent.

Nonetheless Clinton made a bold move by dropping the nuclear card because it stinks like Iraq. An American intelligence official quickly clarified that no positive link has been established, but a strong case can be built against North Korea, already nuclear, and Myanmar’s friendship. They’re freaks, outcasts, rebels, and those types join forces. The question remains unanswered: what if peaceful means fail to prevent proliferation between North Korea and Myanmar?

Diplomacy can’t even save one woman. “We expect fair treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi,” Clinton somehow said straight-faced, knowing the odds aren’t high.

Nothing short of a military blockade has the long-term potential to limit military transfers between the rogue states. Unfortunately such a tactic would only escalate tensions instead of foster a neutral environment to resolve disagreements. Thus if all else fails, would an international coalition led by America launch a land assault into North Korea or Myanmar? Doubtful, but Clinton is laying the foundation.

Nuclear weapons must also be considered as bait for regime change. Nuclear accusations trigger fear and vigilance, but also suspicion. Iraq’s story is known, North Korea is the next bad boy, and Myanmar continues a theme that only Iran could end.

"We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment,” Clinton warned, “that if the United States extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to develop the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it is unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer because they won't be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have a nuclear weapon."

Clinton's ultimate purpose in Asia disclosed itself as she laid the hammer down - America’s plan B for Iran is global isolation. There is more to President Obama's praise and encouragement of Europe, Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and the rest of Asia. He wants them to grow stronger so he can form a “defense umbrella,” a concept partially designed by the Israeli lobby.

So what if the umbrella collapses from a downpour? Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan maintain positive diplomatic relations with Iran. Russia and China are reluctant to isolate Iran into oblivion. Israel denounced the idea and only has faith in the military option, which will jeopardize European support. Continental isolation will take near superhuman unanimity on strategy and tactics; the four estimated years before Iran builds a bomb may not be enough time.

Such a strategy, long considered but seldom discussed publicly, has no promise of success even if the world does unite. Iran’s leadership is already feeling the pressure as evident in its last election. Suffocating Tehran won't prevent nuclear weapons, only drive it further to them. Ostracizing Iran could lead to a North Korea in the Persian Gulf and spark an arms race in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and Turkey.

All future details though. Clinton dropped her own bombs and successfully completed her mission. She's earn her day at the resort.

High Seas Poker

The American media has a new game to play - follow that North Korean ship. The Kang Nam, flying the North Korean flag, recently left port with cargo suspected of violating the freshly stamped UN resolution 1874. Bound for Singapore, its final destination is unknown.

President Obama better put on his poker face because he’s entering a game of no-limit Texas hold 'em.

The die has been cast, there's no folding. American officials have vowed to uphold the UN resolution, which calls for boarding or escorting suspected ships to port. If Obama has actionable intelligence he must do something, anything, or pay the price of weakness.

The Kang Nam could be free of weapons, illegal ones anyway, and so one game could be void. Therein lies the first bluff, because another game would continue. The ship itself, with a history of transporting questionable material, suggests North Korea is strategically testing America and the UN.

"We intend to vigorously enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874 to include options, to include, certainly, hail and query,” Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen said. “If a vessel like this is queried and doesn't allow a permissive search, it can be directed into port.”

North Korea has violated countless UN resolutions and superpowers without sustaining too much punishment; its people suffer most. Since UN resolution 1874 is supposed to be the toughest yet and America has pledged to implement it, North Korea is testing Obama's reaction. He can't bluff. Letting a guilty Kang Nam pass unchallenged would be a victory for Kim Jong-il.

And to test, North Korea must provoke. Kim Jong-il might not believe the American Navy will stop the Kang Nam, board it, or direct it to port for inspection, but he must consider that outcome. Militaries prepare for the most contingencies they can think of, so what is the North Korean Navy thinking?

Last week North Korea’s Navy chief warned that his soldiers would cut the hand off those who touch their ships. North Korea’s leadership claimed any attempt, not just to board a suspected ship, but to stop it in any way would be considered an act of war. North Korean officials have promised to retaliate a thousand fold.

This is a more obvious bluff. No one is certain of North Korea’s logic, but starting a large scale war because of one shipping incident is suicidal. Hawaii isn’t likely to see any long range missiles. Bluffs have range though, and North Korea looks like it wants to fight. A sea battle between North Korean and American soldiers could become reality if the Kang Nam is confronted.

How likely that battle becomes a war is the pot of this game. What are the odds and limits, how far can America go? These aren’t Somali pirates. Can the Navy even engage a North Korean ship without drawing fire? Can it halt a suspected ship and direct its course to a port for inspection? Can American soldiers board and confiscate cargo? Could a gunfight be contained to an isolated incident, or will any interaction be an act of war?

No-limit hold ‘em breaks many people for good reason.

President Obama must expect North Korea won’t comply with his orders, leaving him few options. The best case scenario is that the ship is a decoy designed to test the American Navy. Underneath sweet bait lies poison. The ship must be avoided if possible, giving Obama more time to develop his countermeasures.

But North Korea will keep launching ships and eventually transport nuclear material as tensions escalate. Obama must halt suspected ships if he wants to prove America won’t completely back down. This action alone may lead to nothing. However, attempting to divert the ship’s course will likely trigger legitimate threats. Boarding is asking for battle and possibly war.

While nuclear war is unlikely to erupt in the event of confrontation, the odds of real hostilities between America and North Korea are increasing over time. Assuming Obama and his officials uphold their pledge, the Navy will confront the Kang Nam or another ship if it has solid evidence of wrongdoing. Both sides go all in, which means defeat for someone.

Texas hold ‘em is a dangerous game that shows incomplete information until the last moment. Information isn’t everything either. Gambling and risk are inherent to poker, and only Obama knows how much risk he can stomach.

Mission Failure

Cries of condemnation once again burst from world leaders competing to outdo each other. The halls of the UN fill with disgust, outrage, confusion. No one can understand this rogue, this scum of international society that’s playing with our minds.

Poor, incompetent, stubborn North Korea continues to defy the world - and it drives the world crazy.

“North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs pose a grave threat to the peace and security of the world and I strongly condemn their reckless action,” President Obama said at the White House. “The United States and the international community must take action in response.”

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, one upped President Obama by telling CBS that North Korea’s nuclear weapons program “poses a grave threat to the United States.”

North Korea’s “reckless action” is certainly part of the problem, but President Obama’s statement conveniently left out an equal truth - the world has failed with North Korea. The UN, working through the IAEA, has discouraged many nuclear programs from developing, but if a state really wants nuclear weapons, chances are it will get them.

India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have proved this and Iran may soon.

North Korea’s actions run deeper than nuclear weapons though, to the core of humanity. A certain pride is violated when North Korea defies the world, hubris that’s shattered when the controlled ignores the controller. Ego bubbles up and consumes the mind in self-righteousness.

Another type of pride is attacked by the failure of one’s ideas. No one enjoys when their ideas fail, especially when things go wrong despite the best intentions, and few sights hurt worse than your ideas, time, and labor crumbling before you. This feeling is welling up inside the UN and EU, in America and across Asia.

Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, declared in unison with President Obama, “These irresponsible acts by North Korea warrant a firm response by the international community. The European Union will be in contact with its partners to discuss appropriate measures.”

Solana left out that a “firm response” didn’t deter North Korea from testing a satellite disguised as a missile. American Ambassador Susan Rice said from the UN, “What we heard today was swift, clear, unequivocal condemnation and opposition to what occurred.” The same condemnation when North Korea, only a month ago, expelled IAEA observers and restarted its nuclear program.

The same condemnation that failed to prevent the first nuclear test.

No statement was as utopian, and hence none more pitiable, than Ban Ki-Moon’s. The UN secretary general said he was “deeply disturbed” by North Korea’s actions and lamented, “They should have come to the dialogue table and resolved all the issues through peaceful means.”

Ban makes two errors. First, nuclear weapons used as deterrent are peaceful means, a fact that seems lost on the UN and America. North Korea is developing nuclear weapons because of a perceived American threat. It believes America is as much a threat as Admiral Mullen thinks North Korea is and it’s trying to ensure that America doesn’t pull another Iraq.

But the ultimate failure of the UN is the word should. Yes, North Korea should have resolved the nuclear issue at the dialogue table, but it didn’t. The UN isn’t supposed to be a think tank spouting ideological wishes; it’s supposed to be a real organization dealing in real solutions. At least it should be.

The UN’s headline on its website is A stronger UN for a better world, but it displays weakness to North Korea.

Perhaps the UN is inherently weak; if so then add one more vote for UN reform. The UN must decide whether to grow strong because empty threats are only emboldening North Korea. Don’t go back to the drawing board because the board is broken. A completely new approach to North Korea is needed. The currant strategy has failed.

North Korea is taking on the appearance of a bored, spoiled girl seeking attention. It knows how to get under the world’s skin and its nuclear program has become a game which the UN and the world are eagerly playing. North Korea has, in its own twisted way, learned how to control its controllers.

N.K. State of Mind

After watching North Korea break off negotiations with the world, restart its nuclear program and expel UN monitors, everyone is wondering what comes next. Cameras and microscopes will minutely analyze every option available to America, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea.

As a result, North Korea’s mental state has gone relatively unexamined.

The North Korea leadership is easy to write off as irrational or delusional. The plight of the people, who have suffered multiple famines and live in the dark, has been ignored in pursuit of rigid ideology and nuclear weapons. Paradoxically, the state is being sacrificed for military dominance.

However, as insane as North Korea’s behavior appears, it has logical roots that stretch back 100 years. North Korea cannot be viewed strictly in an American context. North Korea was the battleground of many states and countless events influence its relationship with America.

Japanese occupation of the Korean peninusla, which had been united for 1500 years, began in 1910 and ended after World War 2. During Japanese rule, Korean culture was suppressed at all levels. Koreans were forbidden to speak Korean, forced to learn Japanese and the Shinto religion, barred from voting and conscripted into the Japanese army. Korean history was deleted by burning records and books, while temples were destroyed.

Korean nationalism was born from this occupation.

As soon as World War 2 ended the Korean peninsula was divided against itself. Korea was in shock but given no time to recover, instead thrown into the vast ideological struggle between East and West. Dominated by the Soviet Union and China, America offered no diplomatic recognition when North Korean Prime Minister Kim Il-sung declared the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in 1948.

The Korean war began soon after and was carried out with devastating effects. Besides the long-term political, economic, social and psychological consequences, the war resulted in America deploying nuclear missiles at North Korea for the next 40 years.

Perceiving multiple threats, Kim II-sung began his own nuclear program in the late 1950’s. The Soviet Union became equal to the American specter when, in the eyes of North Korean officials, it abandoned Cuba after the missile crisis. Beginning to trust no one, Kim II-sung delivered a speech in 1965 outlining the fundamentals of Juche, the new state ideology centered on self-sufficiency - particularly “self-defense in national defense.”

Kim II-sung wanted his own nukes at any cost, and the fall of the Soviet Union intensified his nuclear quest. Fear is both irrational and rational.

Distrust was pounded into North Korea over the next two decades. Having lost its Soviet aid, it approached America bilaterally to ease economic sanctions and normalize relations. North Korea signed an agreed framework in 1994 to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for light-water thermal reactors built by 2003. A Republican congress, sworn in months later, opposed the agreement. Construction started late and never finished.

Kim II-sung eventually gave way to his son, Kim Jong-II, who reverently continued chasing his father’s dream of deterrent. Their fear of America was confirmed in 2002 when President Bush included the “outpost of tyranny” in the “axis of evil,” and Vice President Cheney stated, “We don’t negotiate with evil, we defeat evil.”

North Korea may have never halted its nuclear program and America has other valid reasons for distrusting it: nuclear proliferation, arms exportation, drug running, counterfeiting and hostile threats. But Kim Jong II distrusts America for some of the same reasons.

In a way North Korea is like a drug addict in need of rehab - desperate but rational. Initially innocent, a hard life led to escape. Nuclear weapons became the answer to every problem. Family members failed to understand him and couldn’t agree on what to do. Some wanted hard punishment, others thought that would push him away.

Conflicting messages confused him and drove him over the edge.