Games Nations Play

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Shannon McElyea <Shannon () swisscreek com>
Reply-To: shannon () swisscreek com
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:36:36 -0800
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Games Nations Play

 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.



------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To unsubscribe or update your address, click
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

Attachment: Games Nations Play.url
Description: