The email sent will contain a link to this article, the article title, and an article excerpt (if available). For security reasons, your IP address will also be included in the sent email.
■"What to Do About a Country That Has a Nuclear Threat and No Use for Rules," book review by William Grimes, New York Times, 18 May 2005, p. B8.
Yet another book out about Kim Jong Il's amazingly cruel rule, but one that's sloppily written according to this reviewer, who twice gave the "late 1980s" as the timeframe of the massive famine that killed so many in North Korea (actually, it was the late 1990s, so it's a case of the reviewer [kettle] calling the author [pot] black!). Book is called "Rogue Regime" and it's by journalist Jasper Becker.
Two interesting things from the review: First, the factoid that North Koreans are, on average, 8 inches shorter than their South Korean twins and roughly one-half their weight. Amazing huh? Considering they were simply separated "at birth" a mere half century or so ago.
Second point is the bit that ends the review: "Mr. Becker also argues for giving up on the United Nations as a means of bringing North Korea back within the international fold and instead creating, along lines proposed by Tony Blair, "a new framework in international law" to deal with rogue states and "a method to enforce these laws through the legitimate use of military force."
That's basically what I have called the "A to Z rule set for processing politically bankrupt states" in past writings, including the conclusion to PNM. This concept is a cornerstone of my second book, Blueprint for Action, constituting a big piece of the first chapter. I guess I should not be surprised to read that someone who worries about Kim and our inability to do anything about him with the current rule set describing something similar, nor that Tony Blair has argued for the same basic concept. I have long considered Blair to be, in many ways, the perfect political expression of leadership for the current ageóthe great debater and storyteller who can describe both the rationales for action in the short term and the happy ending that defines the long haul's positive outcome.
Yes, yes, I know. Blair is now "discredited" in the UK over the lack of WMD in Iraq, but that alleged ignominy only highlights the very need for what he describes. With the A-to-Z rule set, the Core's political leaders aren't forced into overselling the "imminent threat."
Return to Article
