North Korea by Bruce Cummings. Admittedly controversial, it’s a pretty interesting take on things and he gives a good breakdown of why we basically know shit-all about North Korea.
The timing of events might tell us something. But while the Clinton plan for North Korea may or may not have continued to work were it not for Bush, that situation is developing on a separate track. With regard to the Middle East, is there any indication that the strengthening of radicalized elements in Iran and elswhere may be a reaction to Bush’s policies and/or rhetoric?
Bush certainly didn’t help things. Diplomacy only works if both sides come to the table.
He made sure there was no table to come to.
Our misunderstanding. By ‘likelihood’ read ‘real possibility’ to appreciate my meaning. In fact I think the more likely outcome is that Iran will produce nukes. It is however not cut and dried. The physical production is quite the challenge. The other obstacle is that external forces may be able to offer adequate incentives to forestall Iran producing those weapons. What those are I cannot say but the world has a lot to offer.
Are you referring to the 1995 Carter/Clinton promise to build NK 2 light water reacters capable of refining nuclear material if their crazy dictactor promised not to build nukes using the existing unfinished plutonium reactor? That agreement? Despite the fact that South Korea is willing to work with NK to supply electricity? Or that Russia or China could supply NK with electricity? There is no sane reason to give a crazy dictator a nuclear reactor to produce electricity when you could just give him… electricity.
Yup, and when people notice that the folks they made a deal with aren’t keeping up their side of the bargain, they tend to back away from the deal too. There’s nothing “crazy” about that.
Not sure I’m clear on your position. Are you saying the agreement with KIM Jong Il to build the lightwater nuclear power plant was a good one?
Good, bad, it doesn’t matter. We welched on it.
What is your reasoning behind the thought that it doesn’t matter if it’s a good deal? I would say it is the heart of your argument that President Bush inherited a good dialogue with NK.
Going back to the 70’s we have had a standing policy not to sell light water reactors to countries that pose a proliferation risk. It’s just common sense. We talked the French and Germans out of selling reactors to Pakistan and Iran only to turn around and promise to give 2 of them to North Korea.
The agreement made no sense. If NK truly needed electric power then we could have supplied them with non-nuclear plants at a fraction of the cost and had them operating sooner.
Threatening to build nuclear weapons unless we provide NK with nuclear power plants is blackmail. KIM Jong Il is not stable enough to be trusted in any manor regarding nuclear material. There is no reason to actively contribute toward his nuclear goals. There is every reason to restrict or terminate such an enterprise. I can’t imagine any criteria that would support giving an unstable government a nuclear power plant that they don’t need.
All this was brought before the Senate Amred Services Committee By Gary Milhollin following the 94 agreement.
We MADE the deal. It doesn’t matter if you want to call Kim a ‘crazy dictator’ or the deal ‘blackmail’, or whatever perjoratives you care to pull out of your hat. We made the deal. Walking out on it informed the North Koreans in no uncertain terms that our word was no good. That and Bush’s refusal to talk to the North Koreans for nearly two years made a crappy situation worse.
You’ve made no attempt to explain why the deal was appropriate.
I, on the other hand have laid out a rational reason why it would be logical to cancel the transfer of nuclear material to an unstable government.
How does withholding nuclear material, nuclear technology and the further ability to refine nuclear material make the situation worse?
-North Korea wants to make Nuclear Weapons.
-They have no practical use for a nuclear power plant other than to make nuclear weapons.
What are you confused over? How hard is it to say you are wrong or conversely at least attempt to explain your point of view. You’ve said the situation is worse. President Bush stopped the support of Kim Jong Il’s weapons program. We may not be able to stop his WMD program but we sure as hell don’t need to BUILD IT FOR HIM AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE. Not only is that not worse, that’s substantially better than the prior situation. Negotiations with NK have not stopped. If they need economic assistance the United States, South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia are all willing to help out.
What does appropriateness have to do with the phase of the moon? This is international diplomacy. We made it through the cold war largely by implementing the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. That was an ‘innapropriate’ doctrine. It was based on extortion, or blackmail if you prefer. It had no moral basis that anyone could fit into a 30 second soundbite. Yet it worked.
Is it more important to you to deal with proliferation issues in a way that is ‘appropriate’ or to find a way that works? I’ll choose the later every time. I sure as heck don’t see anything ‘appropriate’ in Bush refusing to engage in dialog for two years, do you?
I can cook by myself but a debate generally requires at least 2 people. I’ve finished making lunch for next week so I bid you good night.
Good night Magiver.