[wordup] Games Nations Play

[Adam Shand]

Via: Herr Nagengast <todd at gnosh.net>
From: ip <ip at v2.listbox.com>

From: Shannon McElyea <Shannon at swisscreek.com>

Not really IP related, but certainly related to humans. you've probably
read:

  http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/03/opinion/03KRUG.html?todaysheadlines

Games Nations Play
By PAUL KRUGMAN

What game does the Bush administration think it's playing in Korea?

That's not a rhetorical question. During the cold war, the U.S. 
government employed experts in game theory to analyze strategies of 
nuclear deterrence. Men with Ph.D.'s in economics, like Daniel Ellsberg, 
wrote background papers with titles like "The Theory and Practice of 
Blackmail." The intellectual quality of these analyses was impressive, 
but their main conclusion was simple: Deterrence requires a credible 
commitment to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior.

I know, it sounds obvious. Yet the Bush administration's Korea policy 
has systematically violated that simple principle.

Let's be clear: North Korea's rulers are as nasty as they come. But 
unless we have a plan to overthrow those rulers, we should ask ourselves 
what incentives we're giving them.

So put yourself in Kim Jong Il's shoes. The Bush administration has
denounced you. It broke off negotiations as soon as it came into office.
Last year, though you were no nastier than you had been the year before,
George W. Bush declared you part of the "axis of evil." A few months 
later Mr. Bush called you a "pygmy," saying: "I loathe Kim Jong Il — 
I've got a visceral reaction to this guy. . . . They tell me, well we 
may not need to move too fast, because the financial burdens on people 
will be so immense if this guy were to topple — I just don't buy that."

Moreover, there's every reason to take Mr. Bush's viscera seriously. 
Under his doctrine of pre-emption, the U.S. can attack countries it 
thinks might support terrorism, whether or not they have actually done 
so. And who decides whether we attack? Here's what Mr. Bush says: "You 
said we're headed to war in Iraq. I don't know why you say that. I'm the 
person who gets to decide, not you." L'état, c'est moi.

So Mr. Bush thinks you're a bad guy — and that makes you a potential 
target, no matter what you do.

On the other hand, Mr. Bush hasn't gone after you yet, though you are 
much closer to developing weapons of mass destruction than Iraq. (You 
probably already have a couple.) And you ask yourself, why is Saddam 
Hussein first in line? He's no more a supporter of terrorism than you 
are: the Bush administration hasn't produced any evidence of a Saddam-Al 
Qaeda connection. Maybe the administration covets Iraq's oil reserves; 
but it's also notable that of the three members of the axis of evil, 
Iraq has by far the weakest military.

So you might be tempted to conclude that the Bush administration is big 
on denouncing evildoers, but that it can be deterred from actually 
attacking countries it denounces if it expects them to put up a serious 
fight. What was it Teddy Roosevelt said? Talk trash but carry a small stick?

Your own experience seems to confirm that conclusion. Last summer you 
were caught enriching uranium, which violates the spirit of your 1994 
agreement with the Clinton administration. But the Bush administration, 
though ready to invade Iraq at the slightest hint of a nuclear weapons 
program, tried to play down the story, and its response — cutting off 
shipments of fuel oil — was no more than a rap on the knuckles. In fact, 
even now the Bush administration hasn't done what its predecessor did in 
1994: send troops to the region and prepare for a military confrontation.

So here's how it probably looks from Pyongyang:

The Bush administration says you're evil. It won't offer you aid, even 
if you cancel your nuclear program, because that would be rewarding 
evil. It won't even promise not to attack you, because it believes it 
has a mission to destroy evil regimes, whether or not they actually pose 
any threat to the U.S. But for all its belligerence, the Bush 
administration seems willing to confront only regimes that are 
militarily weak.

The incentives for North Korea are clear. There's no point in playing 
nice — it will bring neither aid nor security. It needn't worry about 
American efforts to isolate it economically — North Korea hardly has any 
trade except with China, and China isn't cooperating. The best 
self-preservation strategy for Mr. Kim is to be dangerous. So while 
America is busy with Iraq, the North Koreans should cook up some 
plutonium and build themselves some bombs.

Again: What game does the Bush administration think it's playing?

[note from shannon: Additionally what's really frightening -
  "... "We will be facing considerable skepticism on the question of how 
we can justify confrontation with Saddam when he is letting inspectors 
into the country, and a diplomatic solution with Kim when he's just 
thrown them out," one senior diplomat acknowledged today. "And we're 
working on the answer." ..."

This is what is so frightening "they are working on the answer" - they 
are looking for the marketing spin to blast out to the american masses 
(sheep, lemmings) who believe everything they read.  the Shrub 
administration gains support not by facts, but by marketing spin and 
gaining journalistic support. frightening.