Sagepaper

It occurs to me I might have been offensive in my post, "How to Make a Nuclear Target." In it, I used a master and his bulldog as an analogy for the relationship between the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), North Korea. I certainly do not wish to characterize Koreans, in the North or the South, as bulldogs, or any other sub-human species.

In our law, there is a responsibility you bear for your "agents," and their actions. People often don't realize how many "agents" they have, when they have not signed any legal papers. An obvious example of an agent is an employee. If that employee is your representative, and is under your control to some degree, you bear responsibility for the employee's actions. For example, if the employee promises a refund to an unhappy customer, you are bound by your "agent's" action. You must honor the promise your employee made.

There are less obvious agents in your life. In olden times, a wife was the agent of her husband, since she was under his control. If she signed an agreement, the husband was bound by it. This agency still exists in many of our states, but is now a two-way agency. A wife might be responsible for the gambling debts of her husband, he being her agent. This part of the law is to protect businesses from collusion between husband and wife to defraud others.

Then we get to more troublesome types of agency. Your children, whom you are presumed to be able to control are your agents. Like other agents, they can get you into legal, as well as financial, hot water. If your child steals from someone, you yourself are on the hook. It is presumed that you have it in your power to prevent your child from breaking the law. As we all know, this is not always the case. The only way to protect yourself from liability for a child's criminal conduct is to go to juvenile court, and have your child declared an unruly child. The state then takes responsibility for the child's conduct. You might or might not retain custody.

Next, we get to pets. All pets are legally considered your agents. Your goldfish are unlikely to misbehave in such a way as to get you into trouble. Other pets can. The most common type of agency problem with a pet involves a dog. Dogs can be trained, muzzled, leashed, confined and otherwise controlled. If your dog bites someone, you are personally responsible for its conduct. This is true even if you do not have an attack-trained pet.

This agency protects people from vicious dogs. If your animal is dangerous, you must bring it under control, or confine it, or give it to someone else, or destroy it, or face the consequences. Of course, if an attack by your animal is in your presence, it is customary for you to try to intervene, although some animals are too vicious to be safely handled by their owners.

Regarding dogs, there are a variety of customs. Some are the same as for other agents, such as children. Generally, you do not discipline someone else's child or dog. That is the responsibility of the parent or owner, and it can be a real breach of etiquette to meddle. There's a Texan phrase that's relevant: "It's your dog. You kick it."

In comparing the relationship between the PRC and the DPRK to that of a master and his dog, I am suggesting agency. This is a Cold War view of things. Those allied with the Western powers were considered to be, to a significant degree, the agents of Western nations. Similarly, those allied with the Soviets were considered to be, to a significant degree, the agents of the Soviet Union. This was for everyone's protection, and to everyone's danger. If a Warsaw Pact country committed an act of war against a NATO country, the Soviets were on the hook. Likewise, if a NATO member committed an act of war against a Warsaw Pact Country, the US was on the hook.

There were too additional components to my analogy: bulldog as a specific breed, and rabid as a specific condition. A bulldog, by nature, is a potentially vicious animal. A given bulldog might be a wonderful family pet, and live a long life without ever biting anyone. You cannot count on that, though. You must take extra precautions if a bulldog is to be your agent. North Korea, because of it's constant poverty, personality cult, tyranny, and enormous standing army, must be considered a potential aggressor.

A dog which is rabid is a danger to the community. It is no longer a matter of potential or possibility. The dog can no longer control its actions, and its very presence can infect humans with disease, even if they are not attacked. It is not necessary, legally, for the owner to be the one to destroy a rabid dog, but it has long been a decision owners prefer to handle themselves. That is changing with urban and suburban growth, but most Americans have seen "Old Yeller."

In the paragraph where I make my analogy, I admit the possibility that North Korea is not acting as the PRC's agent. If it is not the PRC's agent, then it is rogue, but not in the direction of deciding to open markets faster, or reunify with South Korea, or some other thing like that which the PRC might not intend for North Korea to do. Specifically, North Korea has announced that they have the deadliest weapon on earth. The government seems reckless, I cannot figure out a specific strategic need, nor doctrine of use, that the DPRK might have for nuclear weapons. They have much to gain and little to lose from resuming the six-party talks, yet they stay away. Dangerous and beyond reason, I don't think 'rabid' a bad analogy for the DPRK's current foreign policy.