Friday, November 27, 2009

Opinion

Sam Dealey

North Korea and the Farce of the State Department Terror List

October 20, 2008 05:45 PM ET | Sam Dealey | Permanent Link | Print

What will be the fate of the Bush administration's deal with North Korea? One victim will be the false notion of paper containment when the hermit kingdom surely cheats on the arrangement. Another more satisfying victim will be the "pragmatists" who, despite common sense and history, championed the deal. More immediately, however, there is State's "terror list" itself, which by North Korea's removal is revealed as a joke.

About the only thing the U.S. gained was North Korea's word to behave and a promise to permit snap inspections of a reactor site that holds few secrets. Meanwhile, the North's peddling of conventional weapons systems and nuclear know-how across South Asia and the Middle East and demands that international inspectors have unfettered access to suspected nuclear worksites were taken off the table. Indeed, the deal itself was born of terrorism: North Korea pledged to continue down the road of nuclear development unless the U.S. government removed it from the list.

In an op-ed in today's L.A. Times, Lionel Beehner picks up on this with his aptly titled "America's Useless Terrorism List."

Beehner gives several reasons for his distaste for the list, chief among them that it is a unilateral "with us or against us" designation that fails to tackle the "socioeconomic causes of why terrorism takes root in the first place."

None of these particularly bother me. The "socioeconomic causes" for North Korea's terror peddling, for example, are that its Dear Leader is a wily nutcase who needs money. And I've no problem, either, with a U.S. blacklist for terror-sponsoring countries—when it comes to serious issues like this, there's no room for terrorist-versus-freedom fighter vacillation. What bothers me is that, if we are to have a terrorism list, then let's at least give it some integrity.

Playing politics with the list is hardly new. As Beehner points out in the case of Iraq:

Washington, for example, only removed Iraq from the terrorism sponsor list in 1982 so the U.S. could supply military technology to Saddam Hussein in the early days of Iraq's war with Iran. Iraq was put back on the list after it invaded Kuwait in 1990—which was an act of aggression, to be sure, but a move that had nothing to do with its support of terrorism.

More recently, there is Sudan. As bullying and distasteful as that government is, it poses no threat to America or her security interests. Although the country played host to Osama bin Laden in the mid-1990s, it has fully repented for doing so, and these days its intelligence community readily cooperates with the United States on a host of antiterrorism activities in the region.

And now, of course, there is North Korea. I hardly sleep better at night knowing that North Korea is off our list because we cut a deal that has nothing to do with terrorist proliferation.

Tags: Iraq | North Korea | State Department | terrorism | foreign policy

Tools: Share | | Comments (5) | Print

Reader Comments

Unknown truth about korea

Google "the unknown truth about korea" by Brian Wilson. U.S. sponsored death squads and war crimes between 1945 to 1953 causing between 200,000 to 800,000 civilian deaths in order that the U.S. could control korea after defeat of Japan in 1945. Again the American people have been lied to, but thanks to the internet and world knowledge all truth is coming to light.

Get some information, Sammy

Sam,

Get some information before popping off. The NORKs were taken off the list and now, guess what, we're off to verification of the NORKs nuclear facilities.

All your gloom and doom is nothing new but the same old liberal, left-of-center journalism that's been going on for decades.

North K bailed on the US's double dealing with India

The Terror List is a joke, there's no real priority to prevent nuclear proliferation. It became obvious to North Korea after the US Govt moved to sell nuke technology to India who has not and will not sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Bush has run his foreign policy with a bunch of gimmicks, just like McCain runs his campaign (and what we can expect from a third term of McCain/Bush). No strategy for the long run, just dirty tactics to get the upperhand in the short-term.

Add your thoughts

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

advertisement

Sam Dealey is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report and Reader's Digest. He has written for many publications, including Time, GQ, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Sign up today for the latest headlines from U.S. News & World Report delivered to you free.

RSS FEEDS

Personalize your U.S. News with our feeds of blogs and breaking news headlines.

U.S. NEWS MOBILE

U.S. News daily briefings are also available on your mobile device.

Thomas Jefferson St.

GOP Can Be Thankful for Strong Polls

But they cannot get complacent.

5 Reasons for a Democratic Thanksgiving

Michael Steele and healthcare reform top the list.

Women Have Say on Health Reform

If it's the year of the women, why are there so few of them?

Turkey Tax

Uncle Sam is joining in on your Thanksgiving dinner.

Ideological Labels Just Don't Fit

Hard-liners don't understand that some of us don't toe an ideological line.

A Decade in Biased Review

How well does the video sum up the last decade?

GOPers Push European-Style Litmus Tests

Some RNC members want strict party platforms. Why do they hate America?

advertisement

People who read this also read ...

Public Opinion

Should the GOP Have a Litmus Test?

Should the RNC exclude politicians who don't match the party's platform?

Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
Make USNews.com your home page.