Sen. John McCain has a CQ Guest Blog about the recent North Korean nuke test. In "Why North Korea is the Wrong Focus," I warned about next steps that won't be enough to make a difference - and unfortunately, McCain's suggestions are a good example of that dynamic at work.
The simple truth is that China will not implement or carry out the sanctions he envisions, for the reasons I discussed, unless faced with a downside large enough to both cancel their expected gains from enabling North Korea, and offer the reality of a fear greater than their fear of a North Korean refugee tsunami. McCain offers nothing of the kind. On the plus side, his post accurately diagnoses the failures of the previous policy, and correctly calls where this is probably headed.
Hehe,
Blame Clinton.
Funnel even more welfare to the military.
Perfect.
Hillary just won my vote over McCain in 2008.
Joe:
Yeah, I'm fairly alarmed and demoralized. We've been behind this curve all the way, and we're not catching up. Maybe it's beyond us.
Man, you guys have no effin' shame. Really. More important to score partisan points, rather than analyze the situation truthfully and honestly. Idiocy disguised as analysis.
Now for some facts
What material was North Korea producing in 1994?
Plutonium.
What did the 1994 agreement stop?
North Korea producing plutonium.
Who pulled out of the 1994 Agreed Framework?
Bush.
When?
2002.
When did the North Koreans begin production on a bomb again?
2002.
What type of nuclear bomb was this?
Plutonium.
Who is MORE responsible for this PARTICULAR fast path of North Korea to producing the bomb?
Clearly, unequivocally, Bush.
Now - I happen to agree that this is too important to be partisan about. Nations are going to be popping up with nuclear weapons, and there won't be much the U.S. can do to stop it happening. And that isn't Bush's fault,and it isn't Clinton's fault. "Progress" marches on, for every country, not just countries we like. And the United States has to deal with THAT reality, in the best possible manner.
But McCain is lying. And Joe pimping the same B.S. Clinton blame story, is deeply irresponsible and immoral.
But for the current rightwing actions, this is par for the course.
From the invasion of Iraq, to the response to Katrina, to the post-war occupation, to protecting pages in Congress, to working to limit North Korea - what is the Right-Wing response?
They first are AWOL, and then - it's Clintons fault/the Democrats would be worse!!
Has there ever been such a bunch of poseurs?
Here we go.
The Republican mindset - always.
hypocrisyrules:
A quick Google brings Wikipedia's description of the main terms of the Agreed Framework of 1994, which is probably about right:
Correct me if I'm wrong. I think what you are saying is the following:
A resonable corrolary would be that you damn Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly's visit to NK in October 2002, where he presented evidence of NK's clandestine uranium enrichment program--as that was the proximate cause of the collapse of the Agreed Framework. The formal collapse, anyway. Since things had been working well, would it follow that Kelly and his boss (Bush) are at fault for the results of the meeting?
"correct me if I'm wrong"
Okay - you are wrong.
Clearly, North Korea was not living up to its agreement. (Remember that Kim is an insane man.)
Try this article
I'll quote some as well.
On Oct. 4, 2002, officials from the U.S. State Department flew to Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea, and confronted Kim Jong-il's foreign ministry with evidence that Kim had acquired centrifuges for processing highly enriched uranium, which could be used for building nuclear weapons. To the Americans' surprise, the North Koreans conceded. It was an unsettling revelation, coming just as the Bush administration was gearing up for a confrontation with Iraq. This new threat wasn't imminent; processing uranium is a tedious task; Kim Jong-il was almost certainly years away from grinding enough of the stuff to make an atomic bomb.
Unfortunately, common sense is in short supply.
Got that right.
Also - as far as KEEPING the Agreed Framework - there were terms not kept by both sides -
Initially, North Korea kept to its side of the bargain. The same cannot be said of our side. Since the accord was not a formal treaty, Congress did not have to ratify the terms, but it did balk on the financial commitment. So did South Korea. The light-water reactors were never funded. Steps toward normalization were never taken.
So the Clinton team went back years later and bargained again:
After the Albright-Kim talks, Einhorn and his staff, working at a frantic pace with North Korean diplomats, hammered out the beginnings of a deal. But time ran out. Clinton devoted the final weeks of his second term, futilely as it happened, to a peace treaty in the Middle East. The unsettled nature of the 2000 presidential election, especially the prolonged Florida recount, suspended all other diplomatic activity. There were still disagreements between the two sides over a missile deal. However, as Clinton left the White House, the stage was set for diplomatic progress--and, in the meantime, the fuel rods remained under lock and key.
Then read the rest of the article, and hopefully, you will cringe at some of the simply STUPID acts of the Bush Administration.
hypocrisyrules,
Thanks for the clarification. Good article you cite. Kaplan, sympathetic as he is to Clinton and hostile as he is to Bush, puts a higher value on truthfulness than on crafting a wholly pleasing narrative. In that vein, let me complete the paragraph from which your second quote is drawn:
So. Your document allows that the KFR had decided, for its own reasons, to take definitive steps to cheat on the Agreed Framework within four years of its signing. At which point Clinton's second term stretched ahead; i.e. four more years of Agreed Framework success before Bush wrecked it.
I get bad vibes whenever I see Bush on TV or read a transcript of one of his speeches. Don't like or trust him. Plus, I have major policy and philosophical disagreements with his sort of politician.
But reading these sorts of insider critiques makes me feel some sympathy for the guy. "Clinton had to bend the KFR to his will--and he did." "Bush took a stable situation and blew it to hell."
Spin, spin, spin. Turns out Clinton never did the impossible, and get murderous, cheating communists to live up to a deal they didn't want to honor. If the violations were well underway in 1996, when did the planning start?
And it turns out that Bush didn't ruin a stable situation. At most, he took an unstable and bad situation and made it somewhat worse. To a large extent, he took a hidden bad situation and turned it into a public bad situation.
The tragic fact that Kaplan misses is that the KFR are not bit players in some Aaron Sorkin Democrat-vs.-Republican political drama, who will speak only when spoken to, as dictated by the show's plot. They are self-interested, autonomous people who act on the basis of their own ideas of right and wrong, risk and benefit. Clinton never had the power over them that Kaplan (and you) imagine. And, likewise, neither did Bush.
"Clinton never had the power over them that Kaplan (and you) imagine. And, likewise, neither did Bush."
Precisely. Thats the diplomats fallacy, and it seems to be about all the Democratic party has to offer in this instance. Its not a coincidence that the Dems are considered the 'female' party- this is battered wife syndrome at its worst. "If we'd only been nicer to KJI, none of this would have happened. Things were going so pleasantly Sunday afternoon until the Packers lost... its all the Packers fault."
Hypocrisyrules, you are indeed perfectly named.
Notice how it never occurs to Fred Kaplan that North Korea could be cheating more or less from Day 1, as it has done in every other venue. That wouldn't fit his story - though in addition to fitting North Korea's history to a 'T,' it certainly fits Carter's profile of being had by every dictator he ever met.
No, poor Kim "I'm wooonwy, so wooonwyyy..." Jong-Il was the very picture of rectitude, goes the line, but the evil Bush Administration forced him to cheat and produce nukes. And THAT is what you have to believe these days, in order to be a good Democrat.
What are you, auditioning for a part as a F.A.G. representative in "Team America: World Police 2"?
Folks may find a less partisan overview of the negotiations and history on the Federation of American Scientists site; it's a surface skim only, but a useful one.
Well,
China has stated how they're gonna handle this:
"But he said China would continue to develop good-neighbourly and friendly co-operation with the DPRK and this policy is 'unshakable.'"
"In dealing with the bilateral ties, we stick to two principles: First, they should serve the common interests of both sides; second, they should be conducive to peace, stability and development of Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia, Liu said."
http://tinyurl.com/g2vex
No Chapter 7 sanctions, no military action.
No nothing, really...
"Well,
China has stated how they're gonna handle this:
"But he said China would continue to develop good-neighbourly and friendly co-operation with the DPRK and this policy is 'unshakable.'"
"In dealing with the bilateral ties, we stick to two principles: First, they should serve the common interests of both sides; second, they should be conducive to peace, stability and development of Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia, Liu said."
http://tinyurl.com/g2vex
No Chapter 7 sanctions, no military action.
No nothing, really..."
Which is where Joe is making his point, I believe. Our focus needs to be China. We can blame Clinton or Bush when we write the history books later.
Our focus needs to be on China?
What, exactly, are we going to do to them?
Stop borrowing their money?
We have nothing they want, and we certainly aren't a military threat to China.
No carrot, no stick.
A fitting epitaph for America's time as "The World's Only Superpower"
Monkyboy, when you don't even read the posts you're replying to, you remove any miniscule value there might be in having you here as a commenter. Bye.
LOL again at these posts about the Democrats
spousal abusers the Packers
Reality check
Does the PRC situation remind anyone of this limerick:
There once was a lady from Niger
who went for a ride on the back of a tiger...
hypocrisyrules:
I just followed the link Joe provided in comment #9 to the FAS page on North Korea and read their account (dated 9/9/2003).
Wow.
I withdraw my qualified praise in #7 of the Fred Kaplan article you cited in #6. Kaplan's article omits and twists so much background information as to be a whitewash of Clinton and a smear of Bush. (Insert obligatory don't-have-to-be-a-Clinton-hater-or-Bushophile-to-arrive-at-this here.) So Fred (not Robert) Kaplan turns out to be just another journalistic hack: thanks, that's good to know.
When I dig around for support for an argument I've made and encounter a relevant but inconvenient truth, I feel obligated to acknowledge it.
In comment #6, you quoted the first six of eight sentences of a paragraph that Kaplan wrote. (The first sentence--"Initially, North Korea kept to its side of the bargain."--turns out to be wrong, but that's Kaplan's error, not yours.) Kaplan's 8th and final sentence undercuts your thesis by pointing out that the KFR was already cheating on the Agreed Framework by 1996.
I doubt you'll respond with an apology, and I think it's because you--like Kaplan--have a attorney's attitude about these things. Your client is your belief that Bush Is To Blame, and it's the Other Side's job to bring up any contrary evidence.
This isn't what I aspire to, so in all likelihood, I'll refrain from further dialog with you.
You know, a year ago I was actually thinking McCain might be a good presidential candidate, someone who might be able to avoid the noxious partisanship practiced by the Republicans.
Since then, though, pretty much every time I hear anything about him, its another repulsive move to appease his rabid fundamentalist right wing base.
Playing the blame-game with the N.Korean nuke issue is just another example of trying to please the base...in this case, the "anything but a Democrat" crowd.
But there's blame, and then there's responsibility, and what America needs are politicians who are willing to take their responsibilities seriously, which entails taking responsibility for mistakes or failures.
Republicans cannot do that, and as a result I will not be voting for a single one in November....and McCain can kiss my ass if he thinks keeping the status quo is any kind of solution to the mess Bush has gotten America into.
However, extending the idea of responsibility forward a bit, I'm beginning to come to a realization:
If a terrorist act occurs in the US that can be linked to having been inspired by the war in Iraq (which is turning out to be the best thing that could have ever happened to bin Laden), then all of those who supported, or still support, this fiasco better head for the hills or the border....because the blame game can backfire, you know.
ger5 #16:
A terrorist act will occur in the US. It will be linked to having been inspired by the war in Iraq.
The first part isn't very hard. The second part isn't so tough either: an unsigned letter to the NYT and WaPo stating, "this act is to revenge the martyrs of Falluja and Samarra."
The jihadis aren't stupid. They aren't ignorant of American politics or culture. They aren't morally constrained from calibrating their actions to achieve certain emotional responses among the infidels (and others within the ummah).
There's a difference between writing to the local paper saying, "I hope the hurricane doesn't hit our town," and one going "I hope a burglar doesn't try the unlocked window in back." Hurricanes don't read letters to the editor.
See David Blue's recent post for a discussion of some of these dynamics.
Joe Katzman,
Heh - you really are the comic I cite in #4.
Strain as you might, dismiss as you might - you have no credibility.
The basic facts are, from what I can see, however North Korea was cheating - and I said at the beginning N.K. was not living up to its agreement - it was the Bush administration's decision to leave the negotiating table, that led to North Korea unsealing the locks and begin processing plutonium.
That is the relevant fact.
From the FAS:
I"n a roundtable discussion with the United States and China in Beijing on April 24, 2003, North Korean officials admitted for the first time that they possessed nuclear weapons. Furthermore, North Korean officials claim to have reprocessed spent fuel rods and have threatened to begin exporting nuclear materials unless the United States agrees to one-on-one talks with North Korea."
That is AFTER 2002, when Bush administration decided to "get tough" in the language and negotiations, but of course have all that talk be hollow.
Wake me up when you can admit fact, Joe. I use the label hypocrisyules, specifically for your type of spinning.
Even in a situation like this, which is far too an important issue to spin.
AMac,
As I said - in my first response to you -
"Clearly, North Korea was not living up to its agreement. (Remember that Kim is an insane man.)"
It is only an incompetent who, given the consequences, would simply get up from the negotiating table, because of that. That is both naive, and an immature decision, given the consequences.
Again, as above. The fact is - with the Agreed Framework - no processing of the plutonium.
Bush leaves the -yes very flawed - Agreed Framework in 2002. North Korea starts processing its plutonium and has a bomb by 2003.
That is FACT.
Spin as you like, or as you must. Other less BIASED people will read the relevant articles, and come to the rational conclusion that you can't seem to get to. And I encourage others to do that.
I still believe, that it really isn't in Bush's power to stop countries from getting nuclear weapons, and it really wasn't in Clinton's power. Technology progresses forward.
But to others, since Joe can't stop spinning, and AMac can't stop obfuscating basic facts with various pedantry (just another, more intellectual version of spin), I urge you to read for yourself.
AMac: Do you have a cold? You're voice changed. Or split personality disorder? Or perhaps you didn't write #18.
PD Shaw,
The AMac above is hypocrisyrules - dammit.
Man, a righteous comment, and I gotta F**K it up, because I had AMAc, on the brain.
Sigh.
Oh, and for the(hopefully) good-natured snark now coming my way, I will pre-emptively tell you the always immature:
"Ha ha. That's so funny, I forgot to laugh!"
HR - thanks for stepping up. I'll correct the comment. Just as a reminder - posting under someone else's name is a permanent ban here.
HR made a mistake, admitted it, and it's past us.
A.L.
hypocrisyrules #18:
That isn't an answerable accusation.
I asked you 3 questions in #16; you elide them.
In #18, you wrote:
Yes, it is, at least the second sentence. You've forgotten that the KFR had been cheating since at least 1996 on the Agreed Framework that 'Bush left' in 2002. Relevant?
Following in Kaplan's whirling footsteps, you also neglect to mention the FAS piece's statement that prior to the end of 1994, the IAEA determined that
You seem to write in the belief that it's the reader's job to click every link, so the veracity and context of each of your assertions of fact can be checked--caveat lector. The lawyer and his/her client, as mentioned above.
Yep. It's good to find points of agreement.
(Re. the mixup in names, earlier: thanks for the explanation; no foul.)
AMac,
You keep wanting to ask irrelevant questions. And then dismiss the main issue because your irrelevant questions are not answered to your satisfaction. The side issues you bring up, you may be right about - but they are SIDE ISSUES.
So again - from Josh Marshall
But let's review the salient facts one more time.
[Clinton Supposed - hr]"Failure" =1994-2002 -- Era of Clinton 'Agreed Framework': No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.
"Success" = 2002-2006 -- Bush Policy Era: Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated.
Face it. They ditched an imperfect but working policy. They replaced it with nothing. Now North Korea is a nuclear state.
Facts hurt. So do nukes.
It is not a "fact" that the policy was working, given that NK has admitted cheating on it.
hypocrisyrules:
First, a delayed addendum. You wrote in #18,
I agree. I think that gets to one of the crucial (and terrifying) aspects of this situation.
You also said:
So I get frustrated when this crucial fact drops from your line of reasoning... but I shouldn't forget that you've acknowledged same.
Re. your latest comment, on Josh Marshall's 'salient facts.' Clinton could interpret ignorance of KFR cheating as compliance with the AF; in the face of new knowledge, Bush could not. Is there a plausible scenario where Third-Term-Clinton would have achieved a Good Outcome? Have Marshall sketch it out, please.
This isn't that far from what I quoted you as saying at the start of this comment.
I'll mention a speculation I read (somewhere): that Clinton entered into the AF in the belief that the KFR was on the verge of collapse. He never intended to fulfill Carter's terms, particularly building reactors, but thought that kicking this can into a post-KFR future was about the best that could be done. Sounds pretty reasonable to me; I think I'd have done the same. Unfortunately for Bush and the rest of us, it didn't work out that way.
"It is not a "fact" that the policy was working, given that NK has admitted cheating on it. "
Its a fact in about the same way an ostrich has successfully alluded a predator by burying his head in the dirt. If you judge success by not knowing how badly you are being cheated, I guess there is a point there.
Whoops, some reinventing of the wheel in regards to points already raised in this thread, comment #76 and beyond.
Josh Marshall (and HR by extension) is either an incredibly forgiving man or an idiot of epic proportions, for him to say this:
You may want to help him out and pass along Joe's link from #9, wherein we find:
Emphasis added, and keep in mind this program had been active for years by the time the Bush Administration confronted NK in 2002. How exactly is it a "failure" to confront NK when they break cheat on an agreement? Also note that NK announced they had a nuclear weapon in April of 2003, a scant 6 months after they got caught out. Do you really think NK had been operating in good faith under Clinton's diplomacy gestures, got angry at Bush, and managed to whip up some nukes from a cold start in a mere 6 months?
Because if you do, I got a nice bridge to sell you...
I think the one thing people need to keep in mind is that the AF wasn't binding. It was neither a formal treaty or nor contract and therefor was meaningless.
Neither side was under any legal obligation to fullfill their end of the bargain, it was simply a handshake agreement that allowed the DPRK to avoid a military strike on Yongybon and pull the DPRK back into the NNPT.
Pro-Tip: when entering into an agreement with another nation regarding an issue as serious as Nuclear weapons, make it binding.
AMac,
Stop conflating the fact that North Korea was cheating on the Agreed Framework, with North Korea going forward with the production of plutonium in a nuclear bomb.
1. N.K. WAS cheating on the Agreed Framework.
2. N.K. was NOT going forward with the production of an atomic bomb.
N.K. did not move to production of a nuclear bomb until Bush walked away from the table. As Bill Perry says
it also demonstrates the total failure of the Bush administration's policy toward that country. For almost six years this policy has been a strange combination of harsh rhetoric and inaction.
The Clinton team was engaged - and kept #2 from happening. The Bush team disengaged, and substituted a "strange combination of harsh rhetoric and inaction", which only accelerated North Korea having the bomb.
Unbeliever:
You have a nice bridge to sell? Well, that's pretty clear, considering you conflate the BASIC issue of plutonium being made into a nuclear bomb, and North Korea beginning production of uranium.
This is EXACTLY the whole point of the Washington Monthly article! As FAS says, and as you quote "but LATER [emphasis HR] confirmed the veracity of the US claim".
That "later" is a direct consequence of the Bush team's "strange combination of harsh rhetoric and inaction".
And this is exactly what the Washington Monthly article documents.
Was North Korea being dishonest? Yes.
Were they breaking the disagreement? Yes.
Where they attempting to blackmail the US? Yes.
Did the Clinton approach ACT AS AN INHIBITOR to North Korea ACTUALLY making a nuclear bomb? Yes.
Did the Bush approach NOT ACT AS AN INHIBITOR to North Korea ACTUALLY making a nuclear bomb? Yes.
That is my last say on this matter. Let the hyper-partisans who can never admit Bush fault (in Katrina, Iraq, ad infinitum) have the last say, as they can't be convinced of the obvious.
But I encourage others who have some objectivity and are part of a "reality-based community - look at the record.
Who's watch did N.K make a bomb on? Bush's.
Who's watch did 9-11 happen on ? Bush's.
Who's watch did the Katrina disaster happen on? Bush's.
Who's watch did the "intelligence failure" on WMD's in Iraq happen on? Bush's.
Who's watch did the absolutely atrocious post-occupation of Iraq happen on? Bush's.
It isn't an ACCIDENT that the above all happened during the Bush administration. It's not a BUG, it's a FEATURE.
Government by the deeply ideologically driven and partisan, coupled with farming out the government to revolving door lobbyists - this IS the result of that deadly combination.
#31: Try again.
DPRK didn't have the plans or technical knowhow to build a weapon during the Clinton timeframe (AQ Kahn provided them with both).
Exactly why was the DPRK wanting to enrich uranium?
If you really want to lay some blame, lets look at the IAEA whose utter failure to monitor and enforce any form of nuclear oversight has allowed DPRK, Iran, Pakistan, India, and more than likley Lybia to all join the Nuclear club.
The left seems hellbent on laying all the blame on the DPRK on Bush and the US alone, oddly enough there appears to be little mention of the "unilateral approach" to the DPRK that the left so demonized Bush for with other international issues.
Hypocricsy does indeed rule
hypocrisyrules:
Your latest post is an excellent explanation of where you stand, and why. I've nothing to add that hasn't been covered already in this thread.
I think your style of analyzing controversial issues and engaging in debate is probably near the norm for politically-active Democrats.
That's certainly food for thought.
I would add further, you continue to repost others work repackaged with the Kos/DU tinged commentary, and its this kind of "google-debating" that exposes the truly ignorant in all their uninformed glory. Perhaps if you didn't just rehash other blogs posts and actually took a little time to research and gain some understanding of the issue, you would seem far less naive and ignorant than you appear to be.
So, I'll jump in with a really simple question.
In what way did Bush's refusal to negotiate with the DPRK impede their effort to make a plutonium bomb?
I don't see any positive contribution of the Bush North Korea policy, leaving aside what happened in the Clinton years. AFAICT, the past six (or at least four) years have been full speed ahead on the plutonium bomb (apparently much less difficult for the Koreans than their backup enriched-uranium bomb). It's possible that they might have reached this point under a continuation of the Clinton policy, but I don't find that likely.
As HR would say, this isn't a bug but a feature. We have now had a "clarifying moment" and are left with no leverage over the North Koreans besides more tough talk baloney. A crisis that can only be solved with force may, however, lead to another successful campaign against the real enemies: the Clintons, the Democrats, and the liberals.
So, Andrew, given that the Norks were cheating on the AF within three years, here's one question: what would they have to do to convince you that negotiating with them was a waste of time?
The problem is that negotiations are worthwhile if they result in agreements that are reasonablly well-respected by both parties.
A.L.
> In what way did Bush's refusal to negotiate with the DPRK impede their effort to make a plutonium bomb?
AJL, I don't see that Bush's refusal impeded the KFR in any way.
Here's what I think we know:
During the time of the AF, the KFR continued or expanded its other activities: famines in service to the Juche ideology that killed hundreds of thousands or more; the Korean gulag, forced-abortion penal camps, murder of forcibly-returned refugees, chemical-biological warfare experiments on gulag inmates, counterfeiting US $100 bills at a rate of $100 million per year, development and testing of long-range missiles, export of ballistic missile technology to rogue nations, cooperation with the AQ Khan network, military provocation of the ROK. I probably missed a few things.
The list of carrots the US could offer was and is endless: money, fuel oil, light-water reactors, food aid, recognition, denuclearization of the peninsula, non-aggression, trade, resolution of regional disputes.
The list of sticks available for Clinton or Bush: well, there's always total war. Short of that, an invasion, or a "provocation" like airstrikes or a naval embargo. With Seoul as a hostage, and the ROK primed to Blame America for any bad effects. Short of that: not much.
The KFR has effectively entered into every negotiation saying, "Verification is an unacceptable insult to our national honor; insist on it and no deal. Plus, we're fickle and unpredictable. Plus, whatever carrots you offer aren't enough. Plus, our signature is meaningless--we'll cheat on any agreement we make."
Given these circumstances: how, exactly, would Third Term Clinton have rescued the AF in 2002, instead of ruining it the way Bush did? I must be dense, for despite the many times it's been explained in this thread, I still don't see it.
We may view the KFR as bit players in Our American Drama. But they don't see it that way. They have their own intrigues, their own moral codes (repulsive though they are), their own calculus of risk and benefit. The persistent fantasy that Clinton/Bush had the power to hold the KFR to a deal that benefits US objectives is just that.
A fantasy.
The Bush administration allowed North Korea to develop nuclear weapons as a part of a campaign to gain an advantage against the "real enemies": Democrats.
The mind boggles.
#36
So the US has never, in recent history, violated or ignore the terms of an international treaty?
The Geneva Convention springs to mind.
Why the hell would anyone want to negotiate with this idiot-child we have as a president, I'd like to know???
You're point, once again, AL, is a perfect reflection of the "mirror-world" Bush supporters have to live in to (attempt to) communicate with rational, mature adults while disguising their underlying mental deficiencies that reflect an arrested mental development at around the age of 13.
Once again, AMac, we start with similar premises, but arrive at very different conclusion. The six-year Bush plan, to insult North Korea at every turn, was a guaranteed loser as relates to American security. The Clinton technique might have, at the least, kept the plutonium under seal. But somehow it's all Clinton's fault.
And while we’re at it, just how good was American and South Korean compliance with the Agreed Framework? Oh, but we’re the Good Guys, we get to play by different rules.
What it must take to view Kelley confronting the KFR over their secret uranium enrichment project in terms of insults. From the KFR point of view, this isn't about multicultural sensitivity--at least not the way you seem to think it is. Forget about lefty projections as to their delicate psyches. Read Stephen Bradner's 2000 analysis.
Yeah, I pretty much agree.
Which the Pu? Not the ~24 kg they had already extracted. Keeping the additional Pu under seal would have been good, but it's a curious way to define the entire issue. The KFR cheat, on their own schedule, for their own reasons. KFR and US fundamental objectives are fundamentally incompatible. Clinton had kick-the-can, not some "solution" that Stupid-Evil-Bush missed.
Citation, please, for where I've made that claim.
Not great. Review the Wikipedia summary and judge for yourself (comment #5). But surely better than the performance of the KFR. Care to comment on the speculation that Clinton only went along with Carter on the AF in the expectation that an imminent KFR collapse would make it a dead letter?
Review my description of the KFR in comment #37. Famines. Juche. Hundreds of thousands starved. Gulag. Forced-abortion penal camps. Murder of refugees. CBW experiments on inmates. Counterfeiting. Missile development. Exports to rogues. AQ Khan. Provoking the ROK.
Which do you dispute?
I hope you're just being lawyerly. Someone who truly believes in the moral equivalence of the KFR and the US would be incapable of distinguishing John Wayne Gacy from Richard Feynman.
Wow, AMac.
You know, I pretty much agree with everything in #37.
The single disagreement I might have is:
Given these circumstances: how, exactly, would Third Term Clinton have rescued the AF in 2002, instead of ruining it the way Bush did? I must be dense, for despite the many times it's been explained in this thread, I still don't see it.
It is certainly possible that Clinton could have continued as he had - offering just enough carrots that Kim thought it was worthwhile NOT to turn plutonium into nuclear weapons.
But your position is defensible, and possible.
hr:
I agree with that... but, in my opinion, it's a "these words don't mean what you think they mean" moment. Let me explain.
From the KFR point of view, "Just enough carrots" has always meant strengthening the regime's legitimacy, internally and internationally:
Circa 2000-2001, US satellites detected the KFR U-235 enrichment program. For the US, the list then necessarily expanded to include
When Kelley revealed what the US knew in 2002, the KFR's list then also necessarily included that point.
There was no going back to the pre-2000/2001 status quo ante. "The Great Aggressor has detected one of our Patriotic Activities, yet they continue to press us to accept their resources! Their paper-tiger weakness stands in contrast to our strength!"
Question: Was it therefore a mistake to send Kelley on that trip? Would everything with the AF still be okay if it had continued on the basis that the KFR didn't know that we knew? (Assuming that the Bush Administration could keep a secret like that--doubtful.)
But then, in 2000-2001 the US realized that from the KFR point of view, the AF was not an anti-proliferation agreement. It was a proliferation-promoting agreement; the tradeoff was to temporarily delay further Pu extraction for two benefits:
We now know there was another KFR nuclear weapons secret initiative that was not penalized by the AF. Experts say (no link to hand) that an implosion Pu device requires years of development. That the KFR program is now at the testing stage means that engineering and manufacturing must have been ongoing during the agreement's later stages.
The KFR cheats. They don't care about cheating. They care about regime stability, Juche, and Korean unification on their terms (conquest or surrender of the ROK). Read Bradner's analysis (comment #41).
Third-Term Clinton -- or for that matter, Bush -- could have kept the Agreed Framework going past 2002. They could have continued to delay reprocessing of the fuel rods, which would have been a good thing.
But only at a very high cost.
Considering the things NK considers as an "insult", that's a meaningless turn of phrase. There's a difference between saving face and denying a harsh reality; just how long were we supposed to pretend everything was peachy keen with NK's weapons program?
But that hides the most important question--how do you expect we could get other countries to bring pressure on NK, if we didn't confront them with the evidence we had? How much help do you think China would be without that evidence?
That seems rather optimistic given NK's history of breaking all such agreements, cheating with their weapons program, and general irrational behavior. Are you saying Bush should have ignored the evidence of a nuke program, and "stayed the course" with Clinton's farce?
If Bush kept up Clinton's tactics for 8 years, kicked the can down the road even though he had evidence NK was cheating, wouldn't you blame him when NK tested a nuke during the next guy's Administration? I certainly would.
And anyways, Saint Bill wouldn't be catching so much (well-deserved) flack for his policies if the Democratic leadership and the BDS gang hadn't gone off on yet another crazy rant blaming Bush for everything. I'd much rather be discussing strategies going forward than re-explaining for the nth time why Bill Clinton sucked at foreign policy (NAFTA aside); but when you get junk like HR's #3 comment, or Jimmy Carter (!) writing editorials in the NYT, you have to expect the other side to stop being polite about it.
But somehow it's all Clinton's fault.
I should say, this was meant as a commentary on John McCain and the original post, not on AMac's comments.
It's certainly possible that North Korea would have decided to eject the inspectors and resume plutonium production under a continuation of Clinton's policies. Whether the Koreans were going to settle for cheating around the edges of the agreement, a less rapid way of getting to where they are now, or violate it completely can't be answered, and a good argument could be made either way.
AJL #45:
Thanks for clearing up what you meant re. Clinton's fault. In a TV morning news/infotainment interview on 10/12 (NBC Today?), McCain stated that he came out swinging at Clinton in response to partisan Democrats blaming Republicans for all the North Korea ills. Refreshing honesty, perhaps, but not a terribly persuasive basis for a discussion.
As far as "it's certainly possible...", that's not an argument I was making, but any reader who has ventured this far will have a sense of the different postions.