Op-Ed
Or Else...
Email: 
Share: 
It’s my favorite scene in Team America: World Police … No, not the puppet sex scene, and, no, not the puppet throw-up scene (priceless, though they were). I’m talking about the one in which chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix chastises North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il for obstructing weapons inspections.
Take it away, boys …
Hans Blix: Mr. Il, I was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today, and your guards won’t let me into certain areas.
Kim Jong Il: Hans, Hans, Hans. We’ve been through this a dozen times. I don’t have any weapons of mass destruction, okay, Hans?
Hans Blix: Then let me look around so I can ease the U.N.’s collective mind.
Kim Jong Il: Hans, you’re breaking my barrs here. Hans, you’re breaking my barrs.
Hans Blix: I’m sorry, but the U.N. must be firm with you. Let me see your whole palace — or else ...
Kim Jong Il: Or erse what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very, very angry with you. And we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are.
I love this dialogue because it perfectly captures most standoffs between the U.N. and rogue states, nearly all of which end in abysmal failure. For me to dump on the U.N. for those failures, however, it’s only fair that I acknowledge the organization’s successes. And the U.N. racked up a big one two weeks ago, when North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear program under a comprehensive deal with the U.S. and other regional powers.
The announcement took many by surprise, as it was only months ago that North Korea had tested both a nuclear device and the missiles that could deliver one. What led Kim Jong Il to change course? Hint: It wasn’t an angry letter.
After North Korea took these provocative steps, the U.N. Security Council passed twin resolutions slapping North Korean with sanctions and threatening further action. Kim Jong Il apparently saw that he had overplayed his hand, decided to stop raising the ante and folded.
The North Korean deal is imperfect, to be sure. (There’s no guarantee, for one, that Kim Jong Il won’t renege on his commitments as he did after a similar 1994 agreement with the Clinton administration.) Still, it’s the best shot the world is likely to get at keeping the Korean peninsula nuclear-free and ensuring that Tokyo or Seoul doesn’t get incinerated five years hence after Kim Jong Il throws a temper tantrum.
Unfortunately, the man most responsible for the strong U.N. resolutions that made this deal possible — former U.N. ambassador John Bolton — lost his job when Senate Democrats refused to allow an up-or-down vote on his reappointment. Bolton was accused of lots of things, most of which fell under the “He’s mean” category. Granted, he was as hawkish as diplomats come — something that didn’t exactly endear him to the U.N. bureaucrats who live in that box on Turtle Bay. During her recent campus visit, former assistant secretary-general Gillian Sorensen took aim at Bolton: “Making threats is no way to make friends,” she chided.
Sorensen is right. Making threats is a lousy way to make friends. But it’s a great way to get your enemies to do what you want. And right now — have you noticed? — we have quite a few enemies.
Unfortunately, North Korea was never the gravest of them. While Kim Jong Il agreed to suspend his nuclear program, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs of Iran vowed to continue theirs. Last week marked the second time in six months that the Islamic republic has defied a Security Council deadline to cease uranium enrichment.
A proper U.N. response should include tightened sanctions. This, of course, will prove difficult because Russia and China, both of whom have business interests in Iran, wield vetoes in the Security Council. Even if the U.S. and Europe can cow them into compromising, however, it’s likely the Iranians will try to ride out the sanctions and push ahead with their program. That would leave only one course of action to prevent them from going nuclear.
Recently, the Bush Administration has ramped up its rhetoric against Iran not just for the country’s nuclear pursuits, but for its meddling in Iraq. That’s not a coincidence. Another U.S. aircraft carrier has already been dispatched to the region, and plans for an aerial bombing campaign to take out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure have been leaked (perhaps intentionally).
As we’re preparing for the contingency of military action, so is the country most threatened by an Iranian nuclear weapon. A few days ago, twin reports indicated that Israel has already secured fly-over permission from Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates for a potential attack — the Arab states fear a nuclear Iran almost as much as Israel does — and is negotiating with the U.S. for an air corridor over Iraq.
Many argue that the risks of an attack on Iran outweigh those of it acquiring a nuclear weapon. Yet even these skeptics should hope that both the U.S. and Israel keep the military option on the table. If Bush and Olmert are just bluffing after all, why should they tip their hands and let Iran know that they’re unwilling to play their best cards? Letting the Iranians know that they’re prepared for a war, ironically, makes one less likely.
I hope it doesn’t come to that. I hope that sanctions put enough pressure on Ahmadinejad that he stops issuing apocalyptic threats and comes to the negotiating table in good faith. That will depend, though, on the U.N. Security Council and whether it demonstrates a willingness to back up its words with action. I don’t know if it will, but it better — or else … Or else what? ... Or else I will be very, very angry with them. And I will write them a letter telling them how angry I am.
Ben Birnbaum is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at bhb9@cornell.edu. Infomaniacs Anonymous appears Tuesdays.
I hope that sanctions put
I hope that sanctions put enough pressure on Ahmadinejad that he stops issuing apocalyptic threats and comes to the negotiating table in good faith.
what negotiating table? the US has refused to engage in any sort of diplomacy with Iran. The US has reduced itself to threats and rhetoric, it is time for engagement!