Lego my ammo - the arms trade, North Korea and the brink of war

North Korea 2006: A nuclear nation that "wants" peace but is not afraid of war.

People...we may actually be on the brink of a more traditional war -- a war between nations; a war between leaders; a war between long-range and long-term weapons of mass destruction.

The rhetoric has already started: the North Koreans are saying that the recently announced UN sanctions are merely a smoke screen for the desires of the United States. This subtefuge is necessary, say the North Koreans, because the States don't want anyone to know that their real motivation is to rid the world of Jong's specific style of socialism.

The United States (through the mouthpiece of Condoleezza Rice) keeps pushing the point that this tiny Asian nation has defied the internationally community, not once but twice in last two months (by setting announcing and then following through on the testing of nuclear weapons). She argues that the actions of Jong II antagonizes the international community, particularly when this once-media-shy-dictator suggests the possibility of more tests in the near future, despite the recent threat of economic sanctions.

At present, the current sanctions, announced by the United Nations, prohibits trade with North Korea in illicit materials, weapons and luxury items. However, Rice is on a mission to extend those sanctions into all economic facats of life.

However, her comments a few days ago, suggest that despite the unified front (at the UN), the international community is not aligned in how to deal with North Korea's actions -- or, for that matter, whether or not to deal with North Korea's actions.

"Every country in the region must share the burdens as well as the benefits of our common security," Rice said in comments aimed at China and South Korea, the two largest trading partners with North Korea. Rice continued by calling on nations to "collectively isolate" North Korea, adding that it "cannot destabilize the international system and then expect to exploit elaborate financial networks built for peaceful commerce."

There is truth to this. A lot of truth. North Korea is attempting to take the quick and dirty route to becoming a major player on the international stage. Consequences be damned. But what consequences? As long as South Korea and China continue to financially support and interact with this isolated nation, we, the leader's and citizens in other nation's around the world, have little recourse. Or do we?

A recent story comes to mind regarding China's decision to create labour unions. At the time multi-national corporations were up-in-arms (no pun intended) about the possibility of lost revenue. Here is where major trade nations (namely, those in the first world) can step in. By providing financial incentives to corporations that choose to support China's burgeoning Human Rights initiatives, we can also provide alternative economic resources to this large Asian trade partner -- this, then, enables us to make legitimate demands on China to halt all trade with Jong's rogue nation. (As Greg commented yesterday, while sanctions FEEL ineffectual, an economic action is really the only legitimate action a sovereign nation can take against another sovereign nation. Anything more and we begin to entice the angst and ire of other nation's over motives and desires).

Another aspect of this entire situation (as aptly pointed out in a comment yesterday by K-Dough) is China's closed-lipped refusal to limit the economic flow across it's large border with North Korea. While we can chastize the Chinese for directly impacting the war machine of the rogue nation (since this economic flow does not restrict the trade of weapons), we must take into consideration the reality of the weapons trade.

According to the World Policy Institute, there is "no single policy more at odds with President Bush’s pledge to "end tyranny in our world" than the United States’ role as the world’s leading arms exporting nation."

Yes, China engages in this trade. Yes, they have companies and factories and an economic benefit from this trade that is separate from the trade conducted by the United States -- however it is the hypocrisy of the US that set this dynamic up.

As the World Policy Institute report continues to state: "Although arms sales are often justified on the basis of their purported benefits, from securing access to overseas military facilities to rewarding coalition allies in conflicts such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, these alleged benefits often come at a high price. All too often, U.S. arms transfers end up fueling conflict, arming human rights abusers, or falling into the hands of U.S. adversaries."

The fact is human rights activists, peace advocates and sustainable business practitioners have called on the US to ammend, correct and restrict the trade of weapons. However, the ability to make massive amounts of money in an internationally liberal market is too tempting -- and as such, other countries, like China, eager to emerge as a powerful international player are also jumping on board this quick and easy money maker. This is one of the major reasons why China has not explicitly agreed to monitor and restrict the trade to North Korea -- if it did, it would have to give up a lucrative cash cow.

Unfortunately, the result always plays out to the lowest level of power. The common man in all nations are the ones that bear this brunt of hypocrisy. Whether it is the soldier that dies defending the rhetoric of any nation, the shopkeeper whose business fails because of lack of supplies; a skilled/unskilled labourer who was once employed in these suspect industries; a stock owner who loses their shirt in a reformed industry -- the final damage to any decision falls on the common man.

So, where do we go from here? Again, the activists have led the way. We need to actively monitor and control the arms trade -- place restrictive limits, rules and conditions that ALL nations and ALL mult-national corporations must follow. We must tighten our belts, as our wallets shrink, due to these restrictions -- because unless you are a socially responsible investor, YOUR retirement savings IS wrapped up in the arms trade. We must, as citizens, demand that OUR leaders practice sustainable trade practices. If we demand a new set of policies from China in how they economically deal with a rogue nation, like North Korea, we cannot, then, demand that they NOT move forward with economic, political and social decisions to better their employment and trade policies.

In otherwords, we need to decide if our safety as a person, a nation and as a world is more important than whether or not we can make more money in an under-regulated, under-reported industry of arms trade.

As for North Korea -- the ball is rolling. There is a new Japanese leader; there is a US administration content on trite reasons and conditions for international exchanges; and we have close to six billion people worldwide that can stand up and make a demand for peace. The North Korean situation is not going to go away -- but our reactions to the situation do not have to escalate into full-blown war. We can avoid retalitory actions, but we need to be cognisant of how other factors (other decisions) play into this exchange. As scientists pointed out at the turn of the last century: when a butterfly flaps its wings in one corner of the world, a tsunami is created in another. None of us live in isolation -- not even Jong II.

For more information on the World Policy Institute arms report go to:
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html