Ahem, Korea? The Nuke Thing? Unacceptable.

Ahem, Korea? The Nuke Thing? Unacceptable.
By Lynne Duke
Copyright by The Washington Post
Tuesday, October 10, 2006; Page C01

The war of words exploded across the planet yesterday as condemnations and veiled threats rained down on newly nuclear North Korea. The Chinese: "Brazen." The Finns: "Provocative"; ditto President Bush.

To this turn of events, he also applied the word "unacceptable," which is a close semantic cousin to the more forceful term "intolerable," which Bush referenced three years ago: "We will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea."

Tuesday, Oct. 10, at noon ET
U.N. Security Council Condemns North Korea's Test Claims
Washington Post staff writer Column Lynch discusses the U.N.'s response to North Korea's claim that it has tested a nuclear weapon.

North Korea declared Monday, Oct. 9, that it had conducted its first nuclear test, asserting a claim to be the world's newest nuclear power and drawing strong international condemnation.

But how does one unaccept a nuclear test?

From the intolerable to the unacceptable: What are the hidden meanings in these words? Is this a form of diplo-speak that requires a decoder to comprehend? Is a new war in the offing? Or, as some fear, are these just words that must be uttered, in public, when one finds oneself in a big jam -- like, having a nation considered a bizarro rogue regime suddenly nuking its way to a higher degree of bellicosity?

"Where are we going next? 'Deplorable'?"

That was Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

"If you say these things too many times and nothing happens or, in fact, your policy begins to head in the opposite direction, of accommodating that which you have previously described as unacceptable," she said, "you do make a bit of a mockery of yourself."

So today's rhetoric is a dilution from 2003? Pletka had a different take.

"I see it as an acceptance of reality," she said. "I suppose it's good that we're able to accept reality, but of course the reality is a very bad one."

Some diplo-speak is renowned -- and easily decoded. After all, diplomats and world leaders are storied for saying one thing when they really mean another.

"When we 'had frank and honest discussions,' it means we were yelling at each other," says Herman Cohen, a former assistant secretary of state under President Reagan. " 'Constructive' usually means, 'Well, we didn't agree but at least we're not angry.' You never want to say, 'We broke up slamming the door.' "

But this word, this "unacceptable," is a "very, very powerful word," says Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President Clinton.

"So when you say you won't accept it, then you're putting yourself in a bind," he said. And he recalled an old foreign policy metaphor from Reagan's secretary of state, George Shultz.

"And I can quote him almost verbatim, because I heard him do it recently," says Holbrooke. "Shultz was famously a Marine, and when they handed him a rifle, they said to him, 'This is your best friend. But do not pick it up unless you are prepared to use it.' "

Of the word "unacceptable," he said: "This isn't jargon. This is a simple English word. . . . Words that specific, used imprecisely, can lead to massive misunderstanding. They can even lead to war."

Hypothetically speaking.

And anyway, says Cohen, Bush also made it clear that the days of hubris and unilateralism are over -- at least that's what Cohen thought was the message when Bush said, "The international community will respond."

"Then, if nothing happens, it's the U.N.'s fault" -- that's how Cohen decoded the Bush calculation.

And what, one wonders, did the North Koreans think of all this? Pletka is convinced that the North Koreans "care hugely" about what the U.S. president thinks.

That doesn't necessarily mean they'll change.

Pak Gil Yon, the country's ambassador to the United Nations, said he was proud of the nuclear tests, according to the Associated Press. The world, he said, should be congratulating North Korea. He also called U.N. resolutions and statements "useless."

Though the North Koreans are known for wildly odd statements, Cohen took a shot at decoding them:

"Their message is: We know you think we're a rogue state and out of line with democratization that's going on in the world. But don't think you can engage in regime change. . . . We cannot be budged from the type of regime we have."

And what type is that? Now, it's Nu-cu-ler.