Well, here we are. North Korea says it has conducted a nuclear test. The moment is nigh for the United Nations to follow through on its threat to retaliate with “unspecified action.”
In the UN arsenal of inanities, that could of course mean anything from the Security Council expressing “deep concern” to the World Food Progam doubling its 2006 allocation of $102 million worth of aid – on Kim Jong Il’s terms — for “transitional assistance.”
But seriously, if the UN has any interest whatsoever in addressing the clear and present danger of a nuclear-bomb-brandishing North Korea, there is something the UN could do, pronto. It could expel North Korea. That might not solve the long-festering problem of a totalitarian state that to this day runs a Stalin-style gulag, peddles missiles, narcotics and counterfeit currency, and has starved to death at least one million of its own people and staked its fortunes on a nuclear arsenal. But kicking North Korea out of the UN would at least provide the sort of minimal diplomatic gesture of which the UN is presumably capable. And for those inside North Korea who harbor well-founded doubts about the wisdom of their sociopathic “Dear Leader” and his murderous retinue, such a move would almost certainly come as valuable encouragement.
The UN charter, Chapter II, on membership, spells out in Article 4 that seats are open to “peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present charter,” and adds in Article 6 that “A member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”
Recall that North Korea was admitted to the UN only relatively recently, on the same day as South Korea — Sept. 17, 1991 – in one of those politically-morally-idiotically neutral gestures that have become a trademark of UN policy. Since then, North Korea’s regime has cheated on its nuclear freeze deals, sopped up free fuel and food from the Free World, and set the pace for nuclear-extortion rackets which rogue nations are eyeing with glee, and Iran has clearly embraced.
What has the UN contributed to all this? Money and prestige for Kim Jong-Il; a seat as a member of — I’m not kidding –the UN Conference on Disarmament; and a General Assembly stage upon which Kim’s reprentative, Choe Su Hon, had a chance just last month to strut, fret, and luxuriate in UN membership, along with such notables as Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. By now, as North Korea’s regime celebrates its first declared nuclear test, the very least the UN could do is yank the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea placard from its place in the General Assembly hall, revoke all DPRK passes for the UN grounds, and tell Kim and his representative “excellencies” to get out.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
18 Comments
1. Alex Reed:If Kofi Annan can muster even the faint memory of the ideals he must have once held dear that led him to sign on with the U.N. in the first place (yes, even I give him the benefit of this doubt), I hope he will gather the courage, as a last act of his stewardship of the UN, and as a first act of its redemption, to carry out your suggestion, cleave to the articles of the Charter, and personally see to it that North Korea is struck from the rolls of membership.
Oct 9, 2006 - 6:21 am 2. John A. Brodie:If not, heave ho with the whole sorry lot, and revert to menu items B, B+, & C below.
Right-on Claudia,but I think I have a better idea and that would be to expel the United Nations from the United States and and withdraw our membership from this worthless institution. The assets it consumes in New York City as well as nationwide can and should be used much more effectively. This action in and of itself just might wake up the rest of the world as to the importance of the United States in world affairs.
Oct 9, 2006 - 8:21 pm 3. pilsener:This is, by far, the most intelligent suggestion I have read or heard anywhere.
Sanctions will not work, unless China imposes them. Military action is not in the cards. At least expulsion from the UN would display a significant diplomatic rebuke.
The only real solution to NoKO belongs to China. But there is no sign that they plan to use it.
Oct 9, 2006 - 10:05 pm 4. Douglas-from-NYC:Bill Frist quote from today …and I think he believes what he said:
“Last night’s claimed nuclear test by North Korea is a dangerous provocation that demands a strong response by the United States and by all nations. If Kim Jong Il believes that his claim will intimidate our allies or blunt our determination to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, he is gravely mistaken”
Message to Frist and his Republican colleagues in the Senate and House:
North Korea and Iran have proved beyond any doubt that you are intimidated by them!
The fault lies with this Republican Congress –
More than 1/2 of America voted for Bush in 2004 (including me) because we saw a gathering threat in N. Korea and Iran, and we knew we had to fight hard to win the peace in Iraq!
Yet the Dems constant hounding and to be expected volatility in Iraq have caused the Republican Congress to cower in the face of possibly loosing a mid term election.
Since Abu Ghraib, Frist & Co. have been more concerned with re-election than protecting the U.S, Now, sadly, neither the Republicans, or Dems, can save us from the fate we await. And our fate was just foreshadowed to us in the subterranean earth under the Korean Peninsula.
The only ones who have been stalwart are GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi, and FREEPERS. Yet the Frist Congress went soft on this War time President with regard to Iraq and fell victim to 24/7 MSM hounding, and ultimately this manifested in showing weakness to our enemies.
Now we have N Korea with a nuclear weapon… and Bill Frist is talking trash on his Blog?
It’s so 21st Century America!
Sure, the Republicans attacked the Democrats on the airwaves – but the problem has been that this Congress could not muster more support for the Iraq effort after Abu Ghraib.
Now nothing the Republicans say will stop our enemies from coming at us – and we have given them their victory – which is a paralyzed Congress that will not be able to react to this recent military provocation.
Congress should have taken the mandate that the American voters gave it in 2004!!!
Today, in response to N Korea’s action, Joe Biden and Hilary bashed Bush for not talking directly with N. Korea? Obliviously they know the history of the Clinton Presidency, but they trust the stupidly of the American Voter!
It’s too terrible to think that the Democrats are soon going to take control of Congress, but it’s a reality – thanks to feckless leadership in the Senate (and House).
Since 2004 this Congress has not been willing to underwrite the necessary financially commitment to win the peace in Iraq!
It has been painfully clear that the last thing any Republican incumbent would want to do is support more troops in Iraq, coupled with a militaristic foreign policy towards Iran and N. Korea. We all know the President, and his astute advisors, had wanted more money from the start for Iraq, and were talking tough on Iran and N Korea.
Thus our wonderful system of checks and balances will (in my opinion) manifest in 30 million dead American civilians when the WMD attack on our soil hits us sometime in 2007 or 2008. It seems only then will this nation come together to defeat Militant Arab Extremism.
How sad.
Ponder these two comparisons:
WW2 – a universally acknowledged war against evil that had to be won at all costs -
1. More than 40% of our GDP was expended 2. We lost 100,000 lives per year
Iraq – 1/2 the country honestly does not recognize that Iraq was the only logical starting point to defeating Militant Arab Extremism, and today’s political rants on the left about the cost of the war in Iraq, in terms of money and lives are as insane as Cotton Mather’s views on witches and fears against inoculation to prevent disease.
1. We are spending LESS than 4% of our GDP 2. Less than 1000 lives per year are lost
We CAN afford more dollars for more troops (but the political will is not there)
Meanwhile – innocent Iraqis keep dying because we have been doing just enough to keep that country INCHING toward free markets – BUT – while Frist & Co. thought the bit by bit approach would protect America AND allow Republicans to retain control of Congress the cost of doing nothing was that Iran and N Korea saw our political weakness, and fast forwarded their WMD programs!
Now the horse is out of the barn and it’s heading on a slow boat across the Atlantic or Pacific to our major cities – and anyone who thinks otherwise is in for a terrible emotional shock when we are attacked and its 1000X worse than 9/11 – and 10 cities are hit simultaneously!
Oct 10, 2006 - 3:04 am 5. richard willman:Douglas
Oct 10, 2006 - 8:36 am 6. Ritchie Emmons:Ordinarily the thoughts you just posted would be considered “alarmist” and not worth a second glance. However, world events have eliminated the luxury we once had of brushing such warnings aside and settling back into our cocoon of invulnerability. Sadly, there are way too few Americans who view our world in the stark light that you do, and thus your prediction will probably come true. May God save America!
I have a proposal for a possible solution to the DPRK nuclear issue. Have the USA loan Japan enough nukes that could cause considerable damage to China if ever used for that purpose. The ostensible reason being that Japan needs nukes to protect itself from North Korea.
Japan and the USA then stipulate that America will take back every one of the nukes once North Korea’s nuclear capabilities are completely and verifiably dismantled.
If one is intellectually honest, they will admit that China is the only country that can do anyhing of substance in order to get NK to stand down in regards to its nuclear program (short of a military attack from the USA). Since China is deathly afraid of a militarized Japan – especially if Japan has its finger on the button – they will be compelled to do whatever is necessary in order to get the nukes out of Japan’s hands. Logically, this would hopefully mean that China would compel NK dismantle its nuke program forever.
America would surely hear shrillness from much of the rest of the world who would be claiming that the US is only against nuclear proliferation in certain circumstances and not others. However, the fact that we’d take back the nukes after the NK threat is over might be enough political cover to weather these accusations.
I know there are risks in this policy. Perhaps an odious nuclear state like Russia or China would use the same argument to give nukes to a country that is friendly with them, but unfriendly to the USA. However, the worst of such countries (read Muslim) would almost certainly not be a recipient as China and Russia have their own Muslim problems and would therefore not be compelled to give a nuke to a country that may eventually use that nuke against the county that made it in the first place.
Despite this risk, I feel that the risk of not taking what many would consider aggressive action is worse than taking minimal or no action.
Please note that in this proposed solution, the UN has no role. I think I’m preaching to the choir here when I say that the UN is totally inept and is more inclined to allow rogue states to commit rogue actions than it is to allow responsible states to prevent them.
If anyone has a few minutes, I’m certainly interested what you think about this proposal. If I’m misguided or am missing a likely ramification, I would like to hear from the informed – as the readers of this blog seem to be.
Oct 11, 2006 - 2:16 pm 7. Instapundit.com:http://instapundit.com/archives/033134.php
CLAUDIA ROSETT: Expel North Korea from the U.N….
Oct 12, 2006 - 7:51 am 8. Frank:By stating the U.S. should negotiate directly with NK, hasn’t Kofi essentially made the case that the U.N. is unwilling or unable to influence one of its own members?
And if so, there are only two logical outcomes: either North Korea goes, or the U.N. itself goes.
Oct 12, 2006 - 8:48 am 9. James:I disagree. The fundimental purpsoe of the UN is to provide a place where Nations, even bitter enemies, can come and talk. This is in the hope, however small, that conversation could avoid greater issues in the future.
Oct 12, 2006 - 9:11 am 10. Richard Cook:Of course the ‘out’ for the UN – and the DPRK – is that, according to Ms. Rosett’s quotation, a member “may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly”. I assume this means a vote of the whole. This maneuver would serve a double-bonus for the US however. Who doubts the assemblage will refuse to remove the NoKors? This, especially following Mr. Chavez’s recent appearance, would serve to alert an increasing number of Americans exactly what form the world body has assumed. [BTW: Wouldn't any such move absolutley have to happen before the new South Korean General Secretary assumes the office? Under his leadership it would appear too self-interested. Or am I wrong?]
Oct 12, 2006 - 9:23 am 11. Fred Beloit:Very interesting idea, kick them out of the UN. On the other hand, why do them any favors?
Oct 12, 2006 - 9:55 am 12. Avner:Hi Claudia,
I understand your argument re the UN. Bet seriously, if this was brought before them, wouldn’t they then turn around and expell Israel first (the “true” pariah nation)? It will be easier for the tyrants, despots, oligarchs and appeasers to rationalize that to themselves to rationalize that to themselves. Or at least as easy.
Then again, would it make a difference?
Oct 12, 2006 - 10:36 am 13. T. O'Connor in NY:Douglas, remembering JFK’s opening lines in the 1940 thesis “Why England Slept”, the history – not to mention human nature – suggests that the more things change the more they stay the same.
“But it takes time to change men’s minds, and it takes violent shocks to change an entire nation’s psychology. The experience of the United States is ample evidence of this. In spite of the events of the last few years, and in spite of the war then waging in Europe, the Congress this winter cut our Naval appropriation 500 million dollars, from $1,300,000,000 to $800,000,000. Yet in May, due to the shock of the Blitzkrieg, Congress rushed through appropriations of $5,000,000,000 which were cheerfully supported by the entire nation.”
Oct 12, 2006 - 10:44 am 14. submandave:I agree, although for reasons I point out I don’t think it will happen.
Oct 12, 2006 - 11:02 am 15. JohnAnnArbor:What’s bizarre about North Korea’s membership in the first place is that it is technically at war with the UN as represented by the United Nations Command (Korea)!
Oct 12, 2006 - 12:12 pm 16. Ming the Merciless Siamese Cat:A UN policy proposal that would be unambiguious, moral, effective and inexpensive.
It hasn’t a prayer.
Oct 12, 2006 - 12:20 pm 17. PersonFromPorlock:James:
Au contraire, the fundamental purpose of the UN is to hold conferences, dine well and stay at the best hotels.
The questions that immediately come to my mind are “when would the delegation to plead with NK to rejoin the UN arrive in Pyongyang?” and “what concessions would they be willing to make to get NK back in?” I suspect the answers are “before the vote” and “lots.”
Oct 12, 2006 - 12:48 pm 18. Scott Davison:How about this- move the UN to North Korea! -A bonfire of the inanities!
When they solve that issue they can then relocate their headquarters to Sudan.
Oct 12, 2006 - 12:52 pm