ShareThis Page
George Will

Does North Korea wish to become Upper Volta without rockets — or vodka?

| Saturday, June 9, 2018, 6:23 p.m.


Back when the Soviet Union had a first-rate nuclear arsenal but a ramshackle Third World economy that produced no consumer goods other than vodka and caviar that anyone elsewhere would buy, the nation was disparaged as “Upper Volta with rockets.”

Today the question is: Would North Korea like to become Upper Volta without rockets and without exportable vodka or caviar?

This question is central as the president undertakes to bring about the “complete, verifiable and irreversible” dismantling of the nuclear weapons program that has been the North Korean regime's obsession for more than 60 years. This regime has been run exclusively by and for the Kim family since 1948, during which time it has demonstrated an unswerving willingness to impoverish its people to ensure the regime's survival.

The regime has bet that nuclear weapons would guarantee the loyalty of its only possible internal threat — its army — and would immunize the nation from external threats. It also has bet that the weapons, when wedded as they soon might be to intercontinental ballistic missiles, extort from other nations, especially the U.S., attention and economic benefits intended to wean North Korea from the nuclear weapons that are the only reason anyone pays attention to it.

North Korea has repeatedly won this wager. To wager is to put something at risk, but it's strange to say that North Korea's regime takes risks recklessly. Although vicious, it has been methodical and more or less predictable.

Much has been made of the relevance, as North Korea might see it, of the fact that after America toppled Iraq's Saddam Hussein (which would not have happened if he had had nuclear weapons), Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, responding to U.S. pressure, dismantled his pursuit of nuclear weapons — and later was toppled by U.S.-backed insurgents.

Not enough is made of this: In 1994, after the Soviet Union's disintegration left Ukraine in possession of the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal, it gave this up in exchange for U.S., British — and Russian — security guarantees. Crimea was then part of Ukraine.

Speaking in Prague in 2009 at the dawn of his presidency — six months before he harvested the first purely anticipatory Nobel Peace Prize — Barack Obama embraced the goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Six years later, he was seeking $348 billion for a 10-year modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Today, there are fewer nuclear weapons in the world than there were during the Cold War.

This, however, adds less to global security than is subtracted from it by the fact that there are two more nuclear powers (Pakistan, North Korea); there will be a third if Iran is determined to be one.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has listed 12 “basic requirements” Iran must fulfill in order to avoid “the strongest sanctions in history” — assuming, perhaps fancifully, that Russia, China and other nations will comply with Trump administration decrees.

Pompeo's demands include halting all uranium enrichment and development of ballistic missiles, openness to unfettered inspectors, ending aid to terrorists and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, withdrawing Iran's troops from Syria and behaving neighborly toward its neighbors. It would have been fun if he had included a 13th: Iranians must become Methodists.

Pompeo presented his demands as “shifts in Tehran's policies.” Actually, they are more akin to asking a leopard not merely to change its spots, but to become a vegetarian. Perhaps Pompeo is mimicking his master.

The “art of the deal,” according to the supposed Rembrandt of this art (a six-time bankrupt), seems to be this: Ask for the universe, settle for one of Jupiter's minor moons, claim that the moon is actually the center of the universe and was the real goal all along, and that only he could have plucked this flower, safety, from the nettle, danger.

However, the common denominator in most governing mishaps — in both domestic (Prohibition, 1930s protectionism, the Great Society, 1970s wage and price controls, etc.) and foreign policies (Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, etc.) — is the belief that the world is more malleable than it is, that inertia is less powerful than it is, that social variables can be made to vary as we wish them to.

George Will is a columnist for The Washington Post.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me