Wrong on North Korea
Josh asks whether Bush’s North Korea policy is a fraud. Of course it is. The policy, which was set at the outset of the administration and hasn’t changed much since, was based on two key assumptions — both exactly wrong.
The first assumption was that you must not negotiate with, or even talk to, bad (“evil”) actors like Kim Jong-Il. You can’t trust these people, and the commitments they make aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. These people cheat, so they’ll play you for a sucker if you think they’re ready to make a deal. Any move in the direction of negotiations or taking them seriously will be seen by the Kim Jong-Ils of the world as a confirmation that you’re weak and they’re strong. The fact that Clinton engaged the North directly for six-plus years merely strengthened the presumption that negotiations were the wrong way to go.
The second assumption was that North Korea was in such dire straights that it would take only a tad more isolation for the regime to collapse. This assumption reinforced the first, since engagement was believed to prop up a regime on the brink, while isolation would push it over the edge.
Both assumptions still guide U.S. policy today. The six party talks are designed to prevent the U.S. from engaging the North directly and convincing the other four parties that the North can’t be trusted to resolve outstanding issues through negotiations, leaving them no option but to increase its isolation and, hence, its collapse. (That’s what the diplomatic effort at the UN this past ten days has all been about — getting the others to sign on to further isolation the North.)
The problem, of course, is that these assumptions are flawed. Clinton proved that smart negotiations, and direct talks, can produce results. The Agreed Framework agreement of 1994, so despised by Bush, actually froze the North’s plutonium production program for six years. As a result, whereas North Korea produced material sufficient for making nuclear weapons before and after Clinton was president (i.e., when Bush father and son occupied the Oval Office), no material was produced during the time Clinton engaged Pyongyang directly. And whereas a willingness to talk to Kim Jong-Il directly produced a missile testing freeze, and significant movement toward an agreement that would have gotten the North out of the ballistic missile business altogether, Bush’s thumbing his nose at talks with the North led to a series of missile tests that undermined regional stability and ultimately could threaten the security of the United States and its allies. Far from being a sign of strength, the refusal to engage in direct talks with the North has made us less rather than more secure.
As for isolation leading to the North’s collapse, the problem is that whether to isolate the North or not is a matter for Seoul and Beijing to decide, not Washington. There’s little more we can do to isolate the North; we’re all sanctioned out. But there’s plenty Pyongyang’s neighbors can do to life there even more unbearable. Yet, while we may see the collapse of an evil regime like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as an unquestioned blessing, neighboring countries that will have to live the consequences of its implosion have a decidedly different view of the matter. They don’t want to be responsible for the destitute millions that would come streaming across their borders — or have to provide the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to turn things around in the North. Instead, their number one priority is to avoid the chaos that comes from collapse and disintegration — which is why basing a policy on the hope that China and the ROK will help bring about the North’s collapse is so naïve and wrong-headed.
So, yes, the Bush policy toward North Korea is a fraud. But don’t count on it being changed anytime soon.
Comments (20)
I cannot help but go back to this article printed on the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1908571.stm) back in 2002. Here are some excerpts;
"The US Government has announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.
In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.
President Bush argued that the decision was "vital to the national security interests of the United States".
Deal under threat
North Korea has repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the agreement in recent weeks.
It has been angered by President Bush's accusation that Pyongyang was part of an "axis of evil" producing weapons of mass destruction."
Bush has never been an honest broker when it comes to North Korea and their nuclear program.
July 13, 2006 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush has handled both Iran and North Korea the same...refuse to acknowledge and ignore them.
We have put ourselves in an extremely disadventageous position geopolitically because we have become bogged down in and obsessed with Iraq. Because of our actions our moral standing is being questioned internationally and our military readiness is degraded. Not only has our standing with our allies been strained regimes in Iran and North Korea have become emboldened.
And what is being done? Nothing. When a country like North Korea starts launching missles like they have a logical person would think that all our country's resources, diplomatic and otherwise, would be brought to bear on this problem...instead we get more of Bush doing nothing.
July 13, 2006 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, aren't Democrats all Isolationists? If so, why is there such a furor over Bush "doing nothing?"
July 13, 2006 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is not that Bush is doing "nothing" to resolve the crisis - that IS what he's doing to CREATE the "crisis".
There IS NO Iranian "crisis" - and there IS NO North Korean "crisis".
Both of these situations were created by Bush and the neocons and the rest of the usual suspects (except the oil companies in North Korea's case, as there's no oil there) for their own purposes. Anybody who thus expects Bush to be pursuing any kind of "resolution diplomacy" there is living in an alternate dimension from the real world.
North Korea is irrelevant to the United States. They are no threat to us directly, and not much of one to South Korea as long as the US maintains its defense treaty. Therefore, the US could just sit back and let the North collapse or reunify peacefully no matter how long it took. The rest of the "criminal" behavior the North allegedly engages in - counterfeiting, the sale of nuclear or missile technology, etc. - is of limited importance and can be easily dealt with without ratcheting up any rhetoric or creating a "crisis" situation.
Even the launching of missiles is irrelevant to everybody except Japan - let Japan deal with their own reactions to that.
Iran of course is entirely because of the neocon/Israeli agenda and again is not a threat to either the US or anyone else in the region - as long as Iran isn't attacked first.
Bush is doing nothing about North Korea because the North has no oil, and has nukes and a military that can kick our ass temporarily. There's no benefit in it for Bush to attack them - at this time, at least. Not when Iran is a much better target for his agenda.
Not only is the US's policy on North Korea a fraud, the entire "crisis" is a fraud.
July 14, 2006 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats isolationist? No, not by a long shot. Opposing a particular pointless war does not equate to isolationism. Preferring negotiation to shooting from the hip is not isolationism. Advocating engaging the rest of the world in resolving conflicts is not isolationism.
If anything, it is the Republicans, with there preference for unilateral action and disdain for international cooperation who are isolationist; unilateralism is simply the other side of the isolationist coin.
July 14, 2006 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is strange in our approach to North Korea is how similar it is to our policy toward "Red China" and Cuba. Isolating the People Republic was certainly a big success, Republicans could beat up Democrats over "who lost China" for years. I am sure Castro's isolation will lead to his fall within say 20 years.
Ivo, why aren't you foreign policy gurus more outspoken against the political games playedwith the real crises that exist in the world?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 14, 2006 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
How silly.
Besides the fact that the United States has 40,000 in South Korea that are at risk to North Korea the United States also has major economic intersts in Korea, Japan and China. All of which make North Korea's actions of major interest to the United States.
Similar Iran is a threat to the Saudis and the Turks as well as oil supply. The United States and Israel probably survive and deal with the choas your totalitarian buddies want to inflict on their fellow Arabs or Muslims. It is the latter groups that won't do so well.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 14, 2006 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good observation, Ivo, and I would add one more misconception.
Surprisingly often I read "expert opinions" that China will help us exercising pressure on North Korea "as they are also interested in regional stability".
The region includes very few countries, of which China and Russia are not afraid of this particular "threat to stability" (they could not care less as far as I could observe), ROK is somewhat sanguine and Japan is not. China and Korea are routinely at odds with Japan, and Russia too (Kuril Islands). In any case, there is really not much by the way of instability that is involved, it is rather the case that the danger of war for Japan and ROK increases from minuscule to minute.
On the other hand, China probaly sees it as its vital interest to keep USA at certain distance from its border, and thus they will subsidize North Korea (not too much) to avoid a collapse there.
What makes this misconception really puzzling is that the authors do not hesitate to supports various actions that may alienate China and Russia. Each of these action may be justified on its own right, but again it boils down to expecting support while giving nothing in exchange. This works with client states and even there, only up to a point.
July 14, 2006 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
In politics, anyone who says all [foo] are [bar] are probably wrong.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 14, 2006 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our country routinely does exactly what North Korea is doing - we conduct test launches of missiles out into the Pacific Ocean. So, where is the problem with North Korea doing this? If we truly want North Korea to stop arming themselves with long range nuclear missiles we should first of all stop referring to them as part of a fictional "axis of evil" and apologize for having done so in the past. Then, we should demonstrate our respect for them as a nation by negotiating directly with them when there are disagreements to settle. Finally, we should make it as clear as possible to them that we have zero interest in anything they have, any territory they have, and that we will offer them as much foreign aid as we offer to any other country.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 14, 2006 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...the entire 'crisis' is a fraud. Is it possible to conjecture that some of those 40,000 lobbyists in D.C. represent the Merchants of Death? It is the Bush administration. It is an administration committed to politics determining policy. Merchants of death need markets. Politicians need full campaign coffers. Altogether it makes a nice, tidy little package.
July 14, 2006 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since North Korea has no specific interest in attacking any of the countries you mention, I fail to see how our economic interests in those countries makes it relevant for us to be threatening NK over actions they haven't taken and have no apparent interest in taking.
In fact, it's worse than that. Japan appears to be seriously interested - apparently at US behest - in provoking North Korea in order to start a war there which would damage its trade competitor, South Korea - which would also damage our trade. Of course, since South Korea now does more trade with China, perhaps you feel it is in our interest to damage South Korea in order to spite China.
The only country at risk from North Korea is South Korea - as I said. And that happens to be WHY we have 40,000 troops in South Korea - to make sure that any unilateral attack on SK involves us. And while that is true, North Korea has not and probably will not attack South Korea - unless, of course, they think WE are going to attack them.
So I reiterate - nobody is at risk from North Korea if the US keeps its mouth shut and its troops in South Korea.
The same applies to Iran. Iran has friendly relations with Turkey - just because they are next to Turkey does not make them a "threat" to Turkey - otherwise we'd have to nuke Canada, Mexico, Cuba and the most of the Caribbean.
The same applies to Saudi Arabia. The only thing the Saudis are worried about is their Shia getting stirred up by Iran - they aren't afraid of Iran invading or nuking them.
So your comments are ridiculous - as usual.
And don't refer to anybody as my "buddies". Like you, I don't have any.
July 14, 2006 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Ivo, why aren't you foreign policy gurus more outspoken against the political games playedwith the real crises that exist in the world?"
From somebody who supports Israel, the Israel Lobby and the neocon agenda, this has got to be the joke post of the week.
July 14, 2006 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our country routinely does exactly what North Korea is doing - we conduct test launches of missiles out into the Pacific Ocean. So, where is the problem with North Korea doing this?
Why? Because for the North the Korean War is still continuing 50+ years after the cease fire. That is not saying that the Bush Administration's foreign policy towards the North isn't completely inept and on some levels caused the North to test fire those missles. As a person who abhors war I would want to see every effort (imo especially diplomatic) made to lessen the chances of another war/military conflict from arising. That is why it is not ok in my book if the North test fires missles Hoppy...
If we truly want North Korea to stop arming themselves with long range nuclear missiles we should first of all stop referring to them as part of a fictional "axis of evil" and apologize for having done so in the past.
Yes...I completely agree. Diplomatically that is counterproductive. But, hell, everything Bush has done in 6+ years has been diplomatically counterproductive.
July 15, 2006 6:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
your continued presence on this site speaks very badly for others here. You are an anti-Semite and a dispicable person. You spout the terrorists propaganda and support the murder of people.
Quite beneath contempt.
You are one of the sad jokes of this site and a miserable excuse for a human being.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 15, 2006 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You lie with such ease. I guess not knowing anything makes it easier. Your buddies who advocate murdering Americans and Jews but you in great company.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 15, 2006 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The 'latter groups' are not doing so well in Iraq, under the chaos caused by US invasion, US occupation, US bombing, US torture and rape and murder by some US troops.
July 15, 2006 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give the slowing, debt burdened US economy another year or so Gettysburg, and even you may figure out why Democrats don't want our incompetent in chief to gambol into any more bloody conflicts.
Clinton pulled off the non-isolationist take down of Serbia, with the full support of every country in the region, and without losing the life of even one US troop in combat. I believe he was a Democrat.
The Republicans fought the involvement tooth and nail, even claiming that Clinton was designing Balkan policy and war due to his 'criminal behavior' involving a stained blue dress.
*- The Republicans have removed Larry Craig's bombastic 8/12/1998 Republican Policy Committee's paper implicating Clinton's private affairs with Clinton's Balkan policies from the Republicans Senate website, if you read it you can see why, sort of a Ministry of Truth clean-up no point is publicizing what fools you are to the world, the link above is to the Google cache-
July 15, 2006 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton pulled off the non-isolationist take down of Serbia, with the full support of every country in the region, and without losing the life of even one US troop in combat.
Don't even get me started on Clinton's disastrous Bosnia/Kosovo reactions. By the time NATO mobilized and entered the disaster zones the horrific damage had already been done. In Kosovo in 1999, Milosevic was able to step up the brutality of his "Operation Horseshoe" in the days before NATO intervention.
In Bosnia the UN did little other than to establish the tragic "safe areas" which essentially penned up innocent Albanians like hogs awaiting slaughter.
Clinton pulled absolutely nothing off. Both Yugolslavian campaigns were absolute disasters.
July 15, 2006 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I gotta laugh at that one, folks, sorry.
Bwahahahahah!!!
July 16, 2006 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink