U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that North Korea's leadership situation is uncertain and the United States is worried the Stalinist country may soon face a succession crisis to replace ailing dictator Kim Jong Il.
Clinton said the Obama administration is deeply concerned that a potential change in Pyongyang's ruling structure could raise already heightened tensions between North Korea and its neighbors as potential successors to Kim jockey for position and power.
The implication is that we'd prefer stability to freeing the North Koreans? The implication is that we don't want the Pyongyang regime to collapse because we worry what might happen to North Korea's neighbors? Because tensions could be raised?
This is insane. We should want North Korea's regime to collapse. We should be actively working to cause that collapse.
If this outcome causes South Korea problems, so what? I don't see the South Koreans overly worried that the existing Pyongyang regime could become a threat to our cities if the Kim regime lives long enough to develop long-range nuclear missiles. No, the South Koreans seem content to let North Korea develop nuclear missiles as long as the North Koreans neither attack nor collapse.
Why should we be frozen into inaction because ending the nuclear threat potential to us might mean South Korea will have to face a North Korea that either strikes at them (futilely) or collapses and inflicts massive financial costs on Seoul? Is the existence of one of our cities really less important than South Korea's budget for the next generation?
Look, I don't blame South Korea for pursuing their interests. They are our ally but their interests don't necessarily fully match ours. That is normal. But why should we let their interests trump ours?
I swear to God, we need to start an American Desk at "our" Department of State. Secretary Clinton is fitting in very nicely over there.
