Give a kid a hammer and everything looks like a nail.
The political version of this pearl of wisdom is, "Give politicians the most powerful military in the world, and every foreign policy issue looks to have a military solution."
It doesn't, particularly the tension between North and South Korea that involves the U.S. Tough-talking rhetoric between American and North Korean leaders is counterproductive, increasing the possibility of a disastrous war.
Far too long, political and media discussion of this issue has centered on the role of the U.S., China and Japan, while diminishing the role of South Korea. It's as if the real reason for tension between North Korea and the U.S. is forgotten.
There is hope for optimism with the recent negotiations between South and North Korea and the latter's participation in the Winter Olympics. If North and South Korea can reduce tension between themselves, the ultimate reason for conflict between North Korea and the U.S. is greatly diminished, if not has actually gone away.
Let's review some history. Franklin Roosevelt took over the American presidency in 1932. Democrats controlled the presidency and the Congress from 1932 through the 1940s, except for brief Republican control of Congress from 1945 to 1947. After nearly two decades of Democratic domination, the long-frustrated Republicans found their issue, portraying Democrats as "soft on communism." It was Democrats, they claimed, that "lost China."
This was a phony issue from the beginning. China never was "ours" to lose. The vast amounts of military gear we sent to Chiang Kai Shek and his ineffective Nationalist army after World War II was lost to Mao's Red Army as fast as it was delivered. Chiang lacked support of his people, and there was no way for America to change that sweep of history. Chiang fled to Formosa (now Taiwan) in 1949.
On June 25, 1950, North Korea attacked South Korea, rolling over the ineffective South Korean army with total victory in sight. With President Truman and the Democrats under vicious attack by Republicans for being "soft on communism," the die was cast - Truman was not going to "lose" South Korea to the communists. With the approval of the United Nations, American military forces, augmented by military forces of other non-communist nations, intervened in what has become billed as "the forgotten war."
A truce was signed in July 1953, ending the fighting, but not the war that is officially not over. The reason for continued U.S. presence along the "demilitarized zone" that still divides North and South Korea is to prevent recurrence of another North Korean attack of South Korea.
American presence and alliance with South Korea is the basic reason for antagonism between North Korea and the United States. During past decades, there have been inklings of negotiations between North Korea and South Korea that have not gone very far. All too often, these talks have been discouraged by hardline American politicians - exactly the opposite of what should be the American position. If relations between the "two Koreas" improve, the likelihood of armed conflict diminishes.
North Korean development of nuclear capability has made the issue more complex, not to mention hazardous.
Communist Chinese forces fought the United Nations, mainly American, forces in Korea from 1950 to 1953. Pressuring China to pressure North Korea requires caution and a nuanced approach. Preferring a stable North Korea, China is still North Korea's ally. What Americans tend to ignore is that China would not tolerate American forces south of the Yalu River any more than the U.S. would tolerate Chinese forces south of the Rio Grande. China, no doubt, doesn't want war in that neck of the woods, but neither does it want American forces in North Korea.
Sometimes the best way to avoid a war that would be disastrous for all concerned is to delay it long enough that the reason for it goes away. That is why we should encourage further dialogue between North and South Korea.
Is North Korean Kim's offer to negotiate with South Korea, and participation in the Winter Olympics, self-serving? So what if it is. If North Korean participation in the Olympics offers even the chance of broader negotiations and reduced tension between North and South Korea, it's a win/win for all concerned.
The more that hostile relations between the two Koreas can be dialed down, the less the odds of a North Korean attack on South Korea. The less the odds of an attack on South Korea, the less the rationale for an American attack on North Korea. The less the odds of an American attack on North Korea, the less the rationale for a suicidal North Korean attack on the U.S. - and vice versa.
President Trump should refrain from in-kind posturing to threats and name-calling by the North Korean president. American threats to destroy North Korea only increase the danger of war.
There is a glimmer of hope that President Trump may act rationally. He is crediting himself for North Korea's overtures to negotiations with South Korea. While his "tough talk" had absolutely nothing to do with those negotiations, we can take solace in that Trump, at least so far, does not seem to be slapping down these negotiations. That's a refreshing change from his earlier repudiation of Secretary of State Tillerson that "talking is a waste of time."
Success has a thousand fathers. If Trump wants to claim success for talks between North and South Korea, and avoidance of war, we can give him that - it's a small price to pay for avoiding war that would kill millions of innocent people.
The recent nuclear false alarm fiasco in Hawaii is a grim reminder of the weak thread by which civilization is held hostage to flawless, rational behavior with nuclear weapons.
If North and South Korea want to negotiate, let's encourage that, and get out of the way.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in the Monroe Times.
The political version of this pearl of wisdom is, "Give politicians the most powerful military in the world, and every foreign policy issue looks to have a military solution."
It doesn't, particularly the tension between North and South Korea that involves the U.S. Tough-talking rhetoric between American and North Korean leaders is counterproductive, increasing the possibility of a disastrous war.
Far too long, political and media discussion of this issue has centered on the role of the U.S., China and Japan, while diminishing the role of South Korea. It's as if the real reason for tension between North Korea and the U.S. is forgotten.
There is hope for optimism with the recent negotiations between South and North Korea and the latter's participation in the Winter Olympics. If North and South Korea can reduce tension between themselves, the ultimate reason for conflict between North Korea and the U.S. is greatly diminished, if not has actually gone away.
Let's review some history. Franklin Roosevelt took over the American presidency in 1932. Democrats controlled the presidency and the Congress from 1932 through the 1940s, except for brief Republican control of Congress from 1945 to 1947. After nearly two decades of Democratic domination, the long-frustrated Republicans found their issue, portraying Democrats as "soft on communism." It was Democrats, they claimed, that "lost China."
This was a phony issue from the beginning. China never was "ours" to lose. The vast amounts of military gear we sent to Chiang Kai Shek and his ineffective Nationalist army after World War II was lost to Mao's Red Army as fast as it was delivered. Chiang lacked support of his people, and there was no way for America to change that sweep of history. Chiang fled to Formosa (now Taiwan) in 1949.
On June 25, 1950, North Korea attacked South Korea, rolling over the ineffective South Korean army with total victory in sight. With President Truman and the Democrats under vicious attack by Republicans for being "soft on communism," the die was cast - Truman was not going to "lose" South Korea to the communists. With the approval of the United Nations, American military forces, augmented by military forces of other non-communist nations, intervened in what has become billed as "the forgotten war."
A truce was signed in July 1953, ending the fighting, but not the war that is officially not over. The reason for continued U.S. presence along the "demilitarized zone" that still divides North and South Korea is to prevent recurrence of another North Korean attack of South Korea.
American presence and alliance with South Korea is the basic reason for antagonism between North Korea and the United States. During past decades, there have been inklings of negotiations between North Korea and South Korea that have not gone very far. All too often, these talks have been discouraged by hardline American politicians - exactly the opposite of what should be the American position. If relations between the "two Koreas" improve, the likelihood of armed conflict diminishes.
North Korean development of nuclear capability has made the issue more complex, not to mention hazardous.
Communist Chinese forces fought the United Nations, mainly American, forces in Korea from 1950 to 1953. Pressuring China to pressure North Korea requires caution and a nuanced approach. Preferring a stable North Korea, China is still North Korea's ally. What Americans tend to ignore is that China would not tolerate American forces south of the Yalu River any more than the U.S. would tolerate Chinese forces south of the Rio Grande. China, no doubt, doesn't want war in that neck of the woods, but neither does it want American forces in North Korea.
Sometimes the best way to avoid a war that would be disastrous for all concerned is to delay it long enough that the reason for it goes away. That is why we should encourage further dialogue between North and South Korea.
Is North Korean Kim's offer to negotiate with South Korea, and participation in the Winter Olympics, self-serving? So what if it is. If North Korean participation in the Olympics offers even the chance of broader negotiations and reduced tension between North and South Korea, it's a win/win for all concerned.
The more that hostile relations between the two Koreas can be dialed down, the less the odds of a North Korean attack on South Korea. The less the odds of an attack on South Korea, the less the rationale for an American attack on North Korea. The less the odds of an American attack on North Korea, the less the rationale for a suicidal North Korean attack on the U.S. - and vice versa.
President Trump should refrain from in-kind posturing to threats and name-calling by the North Korean president. American threats to destroy North Korea only increase the danger of war.
There is a glimmer of hope that President Trump may act rationally. He is crediting himself for North Korea's overtures to negotiations with South Korea. While his "tough talk" had absolutely nothing to do with those negotiations, we can take solace in that Trump, at least so far, does not seem to be slapping down these negotiations. That's a refreshing change from his earlier repudiation of Secretary of State Tillerson that "talking is a waste of time."
Success has a thousand fathers. If Trump wants to claim success for talks between North and South Korea, and avoidance of war, we can give him that - it's a small price to pay for avoiding war that would kill millions of innocent people.
The recent nuclear false alarm fiasco in Hawaii is a grim reminder of the weak thread by which civilization is held hostage to flawless, rational behavior with nuclear weapons.
If North and South Korea want to negotiate, let's encourage that, and get out of the way.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in the Monroe Times.
