October 5, 2004
USE NUKES TO DETER NUKES:
Why N. Korea Talks Matter So Much (J. Peter Scoblic, October 5, 2004, LA Times)
U.S. relations with Pyongyang started to unravel two years ago when North Korea admitted having a secret program to enrich uranium, which, like plutonium, can be used to make an atom bomb. This violated a 1994 Clinton administration agreement that froze North Korea's known plutonium-producing facilities, including 8,000 used fuel rods from a reactor, and placed them under the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In return, the United States agreed to build two light-water reactors for North Korea and supply it with tons of heating oil in the interim.Conservatives never liked this deal. To them, paying off a dictator smacked of appeasement. That North Korea then cheated only proved to them the fecklessness of negotiating with tyrants. And so, when North Korea admitted having the uranium program, sparking a new nuclear crisis, Bush's priority was to avoid doing anything Clinton-like.
Initially, this meant not meeting with the North Koreans at all. When he did agree to allow meetings, it was not to negotiate but to talk about how North Korea could meet its international commitments. And, when the two sides did talk, he refused to do so alone because that is what President Clinton had done. Hence, the multilateral talks, which also include Russia, China, South Korea and Japan.
A year and a half later, however, these talks have made little progress, and the situation has gone from bad to worse. In addition to the uranium program, North Korea has reprocessed the rods frozen by the Clinton agreement, providing Pyongyang with enough plutonium for half a dozen nuclear weapons. Worse, we don't know where the plutonium is. North Korea has a long history of exporting dangerous technology to dangerous people, and it's frighteningly plausible that it might sell the plutonium to a terrorist group. [...]
As Dan Poneman, who helped negotiate the 1994 accord, told me, "If you want to solve a problem like this, you kind of gotta wrestle it to the ground." But you can't do that if, like Bush, you're afraid of getting dirty.
If you want to solve a problem like this you don't talk to Kim Jong-il about it, you get your hands really dirty and remove him. It's a pretty easy equation: the price of developing nukes is regime change, but that's a task for the second term... Posted by Orrin Judd at October 5, 2004 8:51 AM
social security overhaul, tax overhaul, regime change in north korea, syria, iran, capturing baden and zaquari, Bush would be the Tiger Woods of all prez if he actually did all this in his last four years.
Posted by: neil at October 5, 2004 9:05 AMAs Dan Poneman, who helped negotiate the 1994 accord, told me, "If you want to solve a problem like this, you kind of gotta wrestle it to the ground." But you can't do that if, like Bush, you're afraid of getting dirty."
Dirty as in propping up a dictatorial wackjob whose starving his people, that kind of dirty?
Posted by: Chris B at October 5, 2004 9:20 AMSo the man who helped draft the original 1994 appeasement deal that is roundly considered a failure is criticizing Bush for not doing the same thing? And Kerry's plan for Iran is based on this 1994 deal? Unbelievable.
Posted by: AWW at October 5, 2004 10:04 AMBush refused to meet with N. Korea bilaterally b/c this was what Clinto did?
Uh, no. He refused b/c that had failed, and he recognized that only China has anyy real leverage over NK -- esp China w/ a bunch of angry Japanese at the table hinting at the speed in which they could have nukes.
I think it'd be more accurate to say that Kerry and the Dems are critical of the multilateral talks solely b/c that's what Bush is doing.
Altho ultimately the Kerry plan would probably be to send Jimmy and Roslyn to N.K. where Jimmy could talk about his good friend the Dear Leader and his ding-bat wife could talk about the marvelous peach cobbler Mrs. Dear Leader makes.
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at October 5, 2004 11:15 AMThis is really China's mess to clean up, after all they're the ones proping up the Norks right now. They are biding their time because keeping Kim Jong-il around is a useful thorn in the side of South Korea and Japan, and ultimately the US. They believe (likely correctly) that the West will give him money before they are forced to contain his nuclear threat. Yet another reason to hope Bush wins in Novemeber.
Posted by: MikeB at October 5, 2004 11:37 AM[T]he watchful eye of the [IAEA] ????
Nyuck · Nyuck · Nyuck
Lil' J. Petey Scoblic, bless his heart, he writes for newspapers, but apparently doesn't bother to read them.
If you're a dictator attempting to build nuclear weapons, the next best thing to nobody noticing, is for the IAEA to "watch" your progress.
Wow, Bush insisted that North Korea (and Saddam) meet the conditions of the treaties that they signed, and refused to renegotiate. How out of touch is that ?
Why, it's just like the baseball owners.