Kerry: No flip, just flop

One debate down, two to go.\nWe all know President George W. Bush isn't eloquent -- and now we know Sen. John Kerry, (D-Mass.), can be. But if a man's message was less important than how well he said it, then Jesse Jackson would have been president by now. \nWhat is important is what was said ... and Kerry said plenty. \nBoth of the candidates' strategies to get out of Iraq are nearly indistinguishable from each other -- more training, more security, Iraqi self-governance, etc. The compelling differences in their respective policies concern the rest of the world.\nOne of the largest points of contention in last Thursday's debate on foreign policy was how to deal with Kim Jong Il's Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea (DPRK) and its nuclear program. Kerry pushed for bilateral talks with the despotic regime, while Bush reiterated his conviction that the ongoing multilateral diplomacy involving the Japanese, Russians, South Koreans and -- most importantly -- the Chinese, was the best method to deal with them. \nSo why is China so vital?\nAs the President mentioned, China has certain "leverage" with North Korea -- something we do not have. For simplification, think of China as North Korea's big brother in the global family. \nThe most prominent example of this fraternal bond is China's involvement in the Korean War. In that conflict, according to "Facts on File World Political Almanac: 1945-Present," the Chinese suffered 900,000 casualties in 32 months of fighting to protect the North Korean regime. Although the two nations may not always agree, the DPRK must respect the Chinese and listen to them when they have something to say. \nChina does not wish to tamper with the often tenuous Sino-American relationship if they do not have to. The risks of doing so -- e.g., a second Cold War or WWIII -- are outweighed considerably by the trade benefits of cooperation with the U.S. and diplomatic standing in the rest of the world. For these reasons and more, having China's influence and support at the table with North Korea is absolutely vital to American and global interests. \nOn the other hand, if we deal with North Korea one-on-one as Kerry plans to do, we are likely to end up with another broken anti-proliferation treaty like we had under the Clinton Administration -- or worse. (President Clinton gave the DPRK $1 billion in aid in return for a pledge to halt their nuclear weapons program. In 2002, North Korea announced they had, in fact, made great strides in their attempts to become a nuclear power.) \nBut apparently, Kerry has a "plan" for everything. He plans to plan "summits" to set out plans and useless documents that we plan to abide by while we can only hope others do. \nPlans are important, mind you, but they should lead to something other than more plans.\nHowever, what troubled me personally about the debate was Kerry's deference to the rest of the world (i.e., Western Europe). \nAll too convenient was Kerry's dodge of the President's claim that the senator supports U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is a transnational tribunal that answers to no authority but its own. If we would join, we would then forfeit our sovereign right as Americans to supervise our military and political leaders as we see fit. Such a venture is absolutely unacceptable.\nAlso, Kerry mentioned a "global test" for use of preemptive military action by the U.S.\nThe President and government of the U.S. are answerable first, last, and only to the people of the U.S. ... period. There is no test or superceding global interest that comes before our own people, ever. \nWhile our leaders should be respectful of the rest of the world, they should never defer our safety or sovereignty to it.