pudge's Journal: North Korea Confusion

Apparently, there is some confusion about whether Clinton's policy against North Korea worked.

It was a categorical failure.

It is true that the primary nuclear weapons facility at Yongbyon was shut down from 1994 to 2002 because of the Clinton agreements with North Korea. However, that's about all that was shut down. North Korea continued to violate the agreements with its work on missile technology and uranium enrichment, including, by all indications, importing nuclear encrichment centrifuges from Pakistan. And this was long before Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech.

North Korea continued working on its nuclear and missile programs, violating its agreements, before Bush even took office. It continued to get closer to being able to enrich uranium. It continued to get closer to being able to attack the U.S. with a missile.

It's true that after North Korea reopened Yongbyon in 2002, the process accelerated. But the process was able to accelerate as much as it did because of the advancements it had made in the intervening years. If North Korea had actually been abiding by its agreements, we would not be where we are right now.

And that's not even taking into account the fact that North Korea unilaterally pulled out of the agreement in 2002, without any actual provocation or change in policy by the U.S. We were still honoring the existing agreements. The "Bush failed" line asks us to believe that the only reason North Korea backed out of the agreement was because Bush said they were part of the "Axis of Evil." Not even Kim Jong Il is that thin-skinned. Clinton's policy is actually what brought us to the reopening of Yongbyon.

I don't blame Clinton. He tried, he failed. It happens. I do blame people who today want to return to this terribly failed policy. Following the Clinton policy today would mean that Yongbyon would be shut down, in return for more technology and aid, only to allow North Korea to continue its nuclear programs, and to reopen Yongbyon as soon as North Korea simply felt like it. Does that make you feel safer?

Now Playing: The Black Crowes - Lickin'

oh puh-leeze!

[eglamkowski]

After five years you still haven't figured out that every possible thing that is wrong in the world is Bush's fault? Absolutely no exceptions! Please report immediately for re-education! Thank you for your cooperation, citizen.

Re:

[RevMike]

After five years you still haven't figured out that every possible thing that is wrong in the world is Bush's fault?

I blame Bush

If only Bush had a comprehensive plan to re-educate right wingers...

Uranium vs. Plutonium

[jamie]

Maybe you weren't aware of what was at Yongbyon: enough plutonium to make several bombs, maybe as many as six. That material was just sitting under lock and key (and camera and seal and international inspections) from 1994 to 2002. Once it was pulled out it was probably made into bombs within months. And of course the reactor, now restarted, continually produces more plutonium.

There are two ways to make an A-bomb, the tedious, slow way with centrifuges enriching uranium, or the quick, easy way with nuclear

Re:

[pudge]

Would he have gotten The Bomb eventually? Sure, maybe. But Clinton, bless him, ended the Reagan-Bush era of DPRK plutonium production, locked up most of what had been produced, and bought the world eight more years without a nuclear North Korea.

And his policy led directly to a restarting of that program at the conclusion of those eight years.

Bush's decision to play cowboy, and his decision to focus on the wrong third of the "axis of evil," has proven disasterous.

You really think the DPRK restarted Yongbyon

more errors

[jamie]

The "Bush failed" line asks us to believe that the only reason North Korea backed out of the agreement was because Bush said they were part of the "Axis of Evil." Not even Kim Jong Il is that thin-skinned.

Strawman. Bush's "axis of evil" speech was a clear delineation between the old U.S. policy toward North Korea and new. It was not "the only reason." Bush started taking a hard line with North Korea almost as soon as he took office. Here's Powell in March 2001 explaining what had to change:

With respect

Re:

[pudge]

Strawman. Bush's "axis of evil" speech was a clear delineation between the old U.S. policy toward North Korea and new. It was not "the only reason." Bush started taking a hard line with North Korea almost as soon as he took office. Here's Powell in March 2001 explaining what had to change:

But nothing actually had changed.

Note that wrt "monitoring and verification," at the time, and indeed until late 2002, the IAEA had the plutonium at Yongbyon behind lock and key, with IAEA seals undisturbed, UN cameras mon

Re:

[pudge]

Even you yourself have conceded that the DPRK's policy under the Clinton policy was to simply bide its time, get some free stuff, and then threaten us again later to extort us some more.

What I was referring to was this comment [slashdot.org]: "Even if that is true, in light of recent events, I'd say coming to the table every few years to re-promise some goods and services, going through the diplomacy theater, would have left us better off than we are today. Wouldn't you agree?"

I retract: you did not concede that. However

Re:

[jamie]

Nothing is inevitable. Continued forestalling of a nuclear North Korea was and would have remained a success. Bush's change of diplomatic approach, whether we call it policy or "tone," ended that success. A lot of doors closed last week.

Re:

[pudge]

Nothing is inevitable.

Liar! Death and taxes!!!!

Continued forestalling of a nuclear North Korea was and would have remained a success.

Again, no, it was not a success. An active highly enriched uranium program, in direct violation of the Agreed Framework and the NNPT, is not a "success."

It did succeed in its most pressing goal, but that is at best a "qualified" success, and the qualification is not sufficient for its continuance. The longer we wait, the stronger the DPRK position grows. The longer we wait

A shorter comparison, Clinton vs. Bush policy

[jamie]

In Search of a North Korea Policy [washingtonpost.com], by William J. Perry in today's Washington Post:

The Clinton administration declared in 1994 that if North Korea reprocessed, it would be crossing a "red line," and it threatened military action if that line was crossed. The North Koreans responded to that pressure and began negotiations that led to the Agreed Framework. The Agreed Framework did not end North Korea's aspirations for nuclear weapons, but it did result in a major delay. For more than eight years, under the

Re:

[pudge]

Huh. "... the administration unwisely stopped compliance with the Agreed Framework." That didn't happen.

"The administration deplored the action but set no 'red line.'" That also didn't happen (at least, not as he defined it, in regard to what Clinton did; we said under Bush we reserved the right to attack if they proceeded, which is what we did under Clinton too ... the difference was that Clinton was open to bilateral talks without enforcement or dismantling of the weapons program, and Bush -- thankfull

A few documented facts

[poster.toaster]

So, where do you get your "facts"?

"We also had to deliver a quantity every year of something called heavy fuel oil to provide energy replacement for what they were giving up with not having their own nuclear facilities. And did we meet every delivery schedule on the day? No. Did we generally meet the schedule, and were we generally providing what we said we'd provide? Yes. So in terms of the hard performance under the framework, both sides were doing it."

- Robert Gallucci, Chief U.S. Negotiator with North K

Re:

[pudge]

So, where do you get your "facts"?

Is there any that you question? If so, say which one, and I will supply you with the documentation.

"We also had to deliver a quantity every year of something called heavy fuel oil to provide energy replacement for what they were giving up with not having their own nuclear facilities. And did we meet every delivery schedule on the day? No. Did we generally meet the schedule, and were we generally providing what we said we'd provide? Yes. So in terms of the hard performance

Re:

[poster.toaster]

Is there any that you question? If so, say which one, and I will supply you with the documentation.

I question these and am happy to read that you will supply me with the documentation.

#146237 "the fact that North Korea unilaterally pulled out of the agreement in 2002, [I agree] without any actual provocation or change in policy by the U.S."

"Clinton's policy is actually what brought us to the reopening of Yongbyon." [can you cite a statement by North Korea as to this, or are you relying on opinion or c

Re:

[pudge]

"the fact that North Korea unilaterally pulled out of the agreement in 2002, [I agree] without any actual provocation or change in policy by the U.S."

Right. This was shown by the last post. The provocation was North Korea's violations by starting its HEU program. The U.S. responded by stopping fuel shipments, which was not a change in policy. It did not mark the end of the AF. It was just saying, "hey now, if you're going to have this violation, why would we keep giving you fuel? Let's talk about this

Re:

[poster.toaster]

You did not document _anything_ on the FOUR points I provided, except documenting the existence of your own previous assertions. So I repeat my request for your promised documentation regarding:

(1)without any actual provocation or change in policy by the U.S.

(2)"Clinton's policy is actually what brought us to the reopening of Yongbyon." [can you cite a statement by North Korea as to this, or are you relying on opinion or conclusion? The statement shows an unusual level of insight into North Korean policy. O

Re:

[pudge]

You did not document _anything_ on the FOUR points I provided

False. I had already documented those things, and was explaining how the documentation led me to make those statements. It's unfortunate that you don't understand that.

In the interest of throwing pearls before swine, I'll try to explain this so even you can understand it.

I said the claim that "... the administration unwisely stopped compliance with the Agreed Framework" didn't happen. You incorrectly claimed I meant that the U.S. did not stop f

Re:

[poster.toaster]

As I have stated many times for years, including in the journal entry preceding this one, we must insist on two points the Clinton policy failed on: dismantling, not merely freezing, DPRK's nuclear program, and doing it within a multilateral, not bilateral, framework. We should set a deadline for coming to the table, and penalty for not meeting it -- at least severe sanctions and a blockade, if not outright military action -- hopefully with the agreement of China and Japan, at least.

To my reading, that i

Re:

[pudge]

To my reading, that is only the start of a policy.

Well, no, it's not. Only if you think Clinton had only the start of a policy. I don't understand what part of it you didn't get.

Do you think that Clinton and Bush did not wish it was that easy? Guess what, they did think of it, and it is not that easy, which I guess Clinton knows and Bush did not but may yet learn, God help us.

Um. The policy I proposed was the exact same policy Clinton had, with two important modifications, which he should have insisted o

Re:

[poster.toaster]

In fact, I do believe you saw only the start of Clinton's policy. But you seem to think you have the answer, and it is new. See, I get all of your "policy", and it is still old and incomplete for the reasons I cited. My policy is to buy everyone in Korea a balloon, but that is not a complete policy either. I think you need to have a post-conflict policy before you talk about how tough you are going to be. You apparently don't think so.

China saying they agree to "increased sanctions" does not mean they

Re:

[pudge]

In fact, I do believe you saw only the start of Clinton's policy.

You believe incorrectly.

But you seem to think you have the answer, and it is new.

Nothing new about it, no.

See, I get all of your "policy", and it is still old and incomplete for the reasons I cited.

For your false reasons? OK.

China saying they agree to "increased sanctions" does not mean they agree to "such sanctions" -what the US wants.

Obviously. But you claimed China won't agree to sanctions. Care to back that up with documentation? Let's

Re:

[pudge]

Don't shoot your parents and complain that you're an orphan.