Flood the North Korean Zone

     We all woke up today (at least on the East coast of the US) to the story that North Korea is saying that it will step back from its nuclear program in exchange for security guarantees from the US and more aid, especially a light-water reactor.  This is good and it is not surprising.  The elements of a deal with North Korea have been evident for a long time; what has been missing is the political will on the part of the Bush administration.  At this point, I think that we should give them what they want - in return for what we want, which is a process to reduce nuclear armaments and a rigorous inspections regime.  Indeed, we should jump on it.  Or, to use an American football term (which might also apply to basketball): flood the zone; that is, give them so much of what they want that it undermines their political defenses, which are based on complaints that we are not giving them enough. 

     The US is a much more powerful country than North Korea, even with the debacle in Iraq and the fumbling over hurricane Katrina.  There are few ways in which North Korea can really harm US interests.  Developing and trading nukes is one such way.  We cannot militarily attack them (which Rumsfeld and Co. have gradually come to realize); so, a political deal that recognizes their existence (which is the thing Bush has been unable to do), however repressive a regime it is, and distracts them from building nuclear arms is clearly the best way forward.

    And there is a point to be made here about power.  If Iraq has shown us anything it is the seemingly paradoxical notion that exercising power can be a sign of weakness.  When you have to actually invade, and use coercive force, it  means that the political influence that flows from the possession of power has waned.  Using power is a mark of lost influence.  For the past four years, the Bush administration seems to have been caught up in a desire to use power against North Korea (military action; more sanctions; etc.), and failed to find ways to influence it in the desired direction.  All that has collapsed now - laying bear the limits of American power in the region - and the US government has returned to deal-making.  If it had made a deal three or four years ago we would be in exactly the same spot we are now, sans the drawn-out demonstration of what could not be accomplished through threats. 

    Yes, there is a Chinese philosophy angle here, like passage 69 from the Tao Te Ching (I'm sure there will be plenty of people who will disagree with the last line; I don't completely agree with it myself, but the larger message of the passage seems right for the North Korea situation):

There was once a saying among those
    who wielded armies:
"I'd rather be a guest than a host,
much rather retreat a foot than advance an inch."

This is called "marching without marching,
rolling up sleeves without baring arms,
raising swords without brandishing weapons,
entering battle without facing an enemy."

There's no greater calamity than dishonoring an enemy.
Dishonor an enemy and you'll lose those treasures of mine.

When armies face on another in battle.
It's always the tender-hearted one that prevails.

Comments

[Steve]

What you have as 'much rather retreat a foot than advance an inch' doesn't make military sense as such. An army that always prefers to retreat rather than advance, regardless of circumstances, can never win. I think the saying is a rule of thumb for the battlefield: 'If you dare not advance an inch, then retreat a foot.' If advance is too dangerous, then staying where you are poses a hidden danger, since advance by the other side by just a small amount will make you completely vulnerable, and it is this I think the saying addresses. Drawing back a foot is the only sensible option when you dare not advance an inch.

That last line you felt people may not agree with, well isn't it that the army that wins is the one that grieves for what it does, that is reluctant and is pained by the loss of life, that isn't, in other words, gung-ho. 'Tender-hearted' doesn't seem to convey the sense so well as 'grieve' or 'sorrowful'.

[Sam]

Yes, alternate translations are always worth considering when talking about classical Chinese. I looked at Henricks's work (the Te Tao Ching!) and he has something very similar for the inch/foot line; his rendering: "I don't advance an inch, but rather retreat a foot." The general idea, I think, is that yielding to circumstance may well be the best thing. In this case, it could suggest that the US should yield to circumstance and give NK what they want. This could give the US a victory (i.e. denuked Korean pennisula) without battle. On the other point, he agrees with your choice; here's his translation: "Therefore, when weapons are raised and the opponents are fairly well matched, Then it's the one who feels grief that will win."

[sun bin]

This is a great quote. It applies to the Taiwan situation as well.

If Taiwan does nothing, after a few decades, its threat may disappears and the problem resolved (as mianland China changes)

For the mainland, if it does nothing and let go of its persistence about one china. maybe the popular vote will not turn out to be independence. and even if it will, perhaps after another century taiwan would return into the confederate.

This is what Sun Zi said, "the supreme excellency is winning without waging a war"

[sun bin]

p.s. maybe there is application to Cuba as well? I know US is not under any threat from Cuba, but isn't it nicer to make one more friend than a foe? maybe took Castro's offer of medical team? then lift the embargo and flood them with capitalist consumer goods?