[IMC-Editorial] Op-Ed: North Korea's Secret Weapon

[The Ayn Rand Institute]

Dear Editor, 

Please consider this Op-Ed submission from the Ayn Rand Institute.

Baby Kim's Secret Weapon

By John Dawson
 
North Korea just announced it is using plutonium extracted from spent nuclear fuel rods 
to make nuclear weapons. How could the United States let this happen?

In 1994, when North Korea was on the brink of economic collapse, its new leader Kim Jong 
Il, following in his father's footsteps, demanded the help of his reviled enemy, the 
United States of America. Then-President Bill Clinton agreed to supply food, oil and two 
light-water nuclear power reactors. 

What did America receive in return? The withdrawal of a threat of nuclear war that North 
Korea had no capacity to wage, but which it might be able to wage some day, if it could 
keep itself fed, fuelled and powered long enough to develop its nuclear capacity.

How could an aging dictator nicknamed "Baby Kim" extort protection money from a 
superpower, for no more than a promise to suspend development of nuclear weapons? Did 
he, like some fictional super-villain, hold some ace card? A special hostage?

Whatever Baby Kim's ace was, it worked so well that he decided to use it again.

In October 2002 Kim revealed that he had broken his promise and had resumed uranium 
enrichment. He demanded that America negotiate a new deal. George W. Bush refused. Kim 
threatened "merciless punishment" for the United States and a "sea of flames" for South 
Korea. Bush declared this was a "diplomatic" not a "military" issue. Kim withdrew from 
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and fast-tracked his development of nuclear 
weapons. Bush responded by offering to consider Baby Kim's new demands, provided North 
Korea's neighbours were included in the talks.

How can Kim be getting away with this again? Why doesn't Bush give an ultimatum to the 
regime he called evil, then work out the safest way to destroy its military capacity? 
Whatever the risks of an attack, the risks of continued appeasement are much greater, as 
the result of the 1994 deal, and history, prove. So, how is it that Baby Kim is the one 
who makes the threats, and Uncle Sam the one who does the conceding? What does the 
tyrant have up his sleeve?

Baby Kim does hold a couple of ace cards. They were slipped up his sleeve by Western 
moralists. 
        
Most Western moralists agree on one premise--that there is no premise that can provide 
an objective standard for moral judgement. Every culture, they insist, is sacrosanct and 
can be judged only according to its own subjective standards. Accordingly, foreign 
regimes are immune from moral condemnation--a brutal communist dictatorship such as 
North Korea must be considered morally equivalent to the United States of America. 
Despite his "axis of evil" rhetoric, Bush is incapable of challenging this moral 
relativism. Consequently, he lacks the moral certainty that would give him the courage 
to take decisive action. He is reduced to issuing empty threats, followed by appeasing 
proposals, followed by more empty threats.    
        	
But despite their explicit premise that there is no universal standard of morality, the 
moral relativists implicitly take one moral precept for granted, as if it were 
unquestionable: altruism. According to altruism, the ethics of self-sacrifice, the rich 
and powerful are guilty by the mere fact of their success and are duty-bound to 
sacrifice their wealth to those who have less. Thus, rich and powerful America must 
assume moral responsibility for the impoverished North Koreans.
        
According to this moral trap, America must not only respect the sovereignty of North 
Korea, regardless of Baby Kim's policies of domestic enslavement and foreign 
belligerence; it must also feed and empower it. If North Koreans die as human shields or 
when the collective crops fail or when the food aid stops, Kim knows that it won't be he 
who will be denounced as morally culpable--it will be Bush who will be denounced, for 
attacking North Korea, or for not providing enough aid. Kim can use his people as 
hostages, can threaten any atrocity and demand any ransom, knowing that Bush will want 
to appease him rather than face the denunciation of critics wielding a morality he dare 
not reject.

The indecision and paralysis engendered by moral relativism, coupled with the 
appeasement and self-sacrifice engendered by altruism, is suicidal. If America does not 
throw off these moral chains, it will continue to be the prey of the Baby Kims, 
Ayatollahs, Arafats and bin Ladens of the world. Just as an individual must act 
unapologetically to preserve his life, so must America. 

America must proudly proclaim its right and intention to protect its citizens, their 
liberty and their property. It must meet any threat with retaliation that pre-empts loss 
of American lives.
______________________________________________________________________________
John Dawson is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine,
Calif. The Institute (www.aynrand.org)
promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The
Fountainhead.

Copyright © 2003 Ayn Rand® Institute

If you plan to use this Op-Ed, please send an email to
media at aynrand.org with your publication's name and the expected date
of publication.
 
Thank you,

David Holcberg
Media Department, Ayn Rand Institute 
2121 Alton Parkway Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92606
Phone: (949) 222-6550 ext. 226
E-mail: davidh at aynrand.org

If you wish to have your email REMOVED from this list, please hit
reply and type REMOVE in the subject line. Thank you.