# Has the Bush foriegn policy failed, even by its own standards? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 10, 2006, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873 "2006-10-10T00:32:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/21 "2006-10-10T15:52:52Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] Honestly, I have no idea what this means other than a sentence that stands in for a reason for not doing anything. Divide and conquer what? The fact is, we are THE major military world power, the biggest ally of South Korea, and the cheif nuclear nation on the planet. Its no surprise that they would want direct negotiations with us more than anyone else. If that’s one of their petty demands, what do we lose by conceeding it? [/QUOTE] You don’t know what “divide and conquer means”? Ok… It means they talk to each of us individually and use that as a delaying tactic. Little kids do that a lot: Well, Mommy said I could do this, so why won’t Daddy let me do it? Besides, this isn’t about South Korea. They’re scared shitless and just don’t want to rock the boat. The real important power is China- you know, the main ally of NK. Without China involved, nothing is going to happen. You think Kim wants aid? He wants his people to be dirt poor so he can control them more easily. He knows we’ll give them basic survival food and medicine no matter what. He knows we’re too moral to just let them starve. So, we feed his people while he uses every last bit of currency he has to build up his military. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/22 "2006-10-10T15:56:51Z")
[QUOTE=rjung] Well, that was a _Clinton_ policy (actually, Bush Sr./Bill Clinton, but who’s counting?), and ol’ GWB can’t have none of **that.** :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] [This](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kim_Jong_Il_and_Madeleine_Albright.jpg) was Clinton’s policy. What, exactly, did it accomplish? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/23 "2006-10-10T16:23:21Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] [This](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kim_Jong_Il_and_Madeleine_Albright.jpg) was Clinton’s policy. What, exactly, did it accomplish? [/QUOTE] The suspension of their nuclear weapons development program. Isn’t that the desired outcome? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/24 "2006-10-10T17:52:36Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] The suspension of their nuclear weapons development program. Isn’t that the desired outcome? [/QUOTE] That would have been a desired outcome if it actually happened. It didn’t. > [@](#): > > [North Korea’s Nuclear Program (PBS Special)](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/northkorea/nuclear.html) > > For more than three years [after 1995], the North Koreans worked quietly on their uranium project while urging the U.S. to fully implement the Agreed Framework. According to a Chinese government report that was leaked to a Japanese newspaper, the project included a secret uranium processing facility located inside Mount Chonma, near the Chinese border. > > The Clinton administration apparently learned of the secret program in late 1998 or early 1999, and by March 2000, President Clinton informed Congress he could no longer certify that “North Korea is not seeking to develop or acquire the capability to enrich uranium.” ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/25 "2006-10-10T19:25:49Z")
McCain says [it’s all Clinton’s fault.](http://www.wxyz.com/wxyz/nw_local_news/article/0,2132,WXYZ_15924_5056020,00.html) There, glad we got that all straightened out. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/26 "2006-10-10T19:45:17Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] You don’t know what “divide and conquer means”? [/quote] Yes, I know what it means. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s like saying that Bush stole the election because I am rubber and you are glue. > [@](#): > > Ok… It means they talk to each of us individually and use that as a delaying tactic. Little kids do that a lot: Well, Mommy said I could do this, so why won’t Daddy let me do it? There is no mommy or daddy. There is NK and US: NK wants nukes, the US will do “whatever it takes” to prevent them from getting some. Now, they have some. You can ramble on about the delicacies of the situation all you want: we all know them. That doesn’t change the language “anything it takes,” them wanting direct talks, us refusing them, and them getting them. NK feels, not without warrant, that the US reneged on their agreements. If you want to blame either being too trusting or too lax in enforcing or fumbling on Clinton, that’s fair. But so the implication is that we do better. As far as I can tell, there was no serious attempt to do much of anything to move forward at all. No new agreement with much stricter controls, nothing. No military pressure either (maybe you can argue that military options would be unwise or implausible, but that’s a question to ask not myself, but the Bush people who suggested that that was what was on the table instead of direct negotiations). And now they have nukes. Again: what happened to “whatever it takes?” That certainly, in context, included even a military option: the blanket idea that we would militarily prevent these evil countries from getting WMD. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/27 "2006-10-10T19:53:52Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] That would have been a desired outcome if it actually happened. It didn’t. [/QUOTE] Ye gods, yet another iteration of the right-wing’s “Blame Clinton” gambit. From the hotbed of left-wing propaganda known as the [**Financial Times:**](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d30d7920-5774-11db-be9f-0000779e2340.html) > [@](#): > > In 1993, North Korea announced it would pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, leaving it free to divert nuclear material from its energy reactors to make a nuclear weapon and setting off a round of crisis diplomacy led by the Clinton administration. The result was the so-called agreed framework, which – in return for supplies of fuel oil to North Korea – froze most aspects of Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons programme for the rest of the decade. > > The agreed framework was in effect consigned to history when the Bush administration came to power in 2001. The new administration argued that although the road to a plutonium-based nuclear bomb had been frozen, the North Koreans were cheating by attempting to develop a uranium-based bomb that was not explicitly addressed by the agreement. > > **That five years later, North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon will be widely interpreted as a sign of the failure of the tougher approach favoured by the Bush team.** But then, I guess saying “it happened on my watch, so I’m responsible for it” is not a conservative value… ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/28 "2006-10-10T19:54:29Z")
As for North Korea, I’m not sure what those pushing “negotiations” would want to happen. What exactly would we give North Korea in return for their not building nuclear bombs? See, we negotiated with the North Koreans: If you stop your nuclear program, we’ll give you food and fuel oil. They agreed, then resumed their nuclear program. So what were our options then? Keep giving them food and oil? And ask them, more nicely this time, to stop their nuclear program? And in return we’ll give them anything they want, just don’t develop nuclear weapons? And every time they start developing nuclear weapons again, our response should be to give them more tribute? If North Korea is determined to have nuclear weapons there is no way we can stop them, short of war. I assume we’re all on the same page that war is off the table? Well then, since North Korea is determined to have nukes, nukes they shall have. We already don’t trade with them. We already prevent other countries from aiding their nuclear program, no country in the world, even China, wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons. But even an impoverished country like North Korea can manufacture nuclear weapons with enough work. And so, North Korea has nuclear weapons and there’s nothing we can do about it, and I personally can’t see any strategy that would. Every other option just results in North Korea getting both the nuclear weapons and the loot. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/29 "2006-10-10T20:29:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Finacial Times: > **That five years later, North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon will be widely interpreted as a sign of the failure of the tougher approach favoured by the Bush team.** Not to worry though, [they’re Staying the Course](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061010/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_nkorea_37): > [@](#): > > The Bush administration rejected anew Tuesday direct talks with > North Korea and said it would not be intimidated by a reported threat from Pyongyang that it could fire a nuclear-tipped missile unless the U.S. acts to resolve the standoff. > > “This is the way North Korea typically negotiates by threat and intimidation,” said U.S. Ambassador John Bolton. “It’s worked for them before. It won’t work for them now.” Thank God Bolton’s UN appointment is up in January. Of course, Bush’ll probably manage to scrape up a _worse_ choice. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/30 "2006-10-10T20:37:43Z")
But I’ve gotta ask again, Squink, what alternate strategy would you advocate? OK, negotiation. What will you negotiate? Give them food in return for not building a nuke? And then when they continue to build nukes, what then? Keep giving them food? Should we have just pretended they weren’t building a nuclear bomb? And what kind of a strategy is it to give food and money to people threatening to build nuclear bombs? Do you honestly think we’ll see fewer nuclear countries if countries know that a nuclear bomb project is a good way to get aid money from the United States? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/31 "2006-10-10T20:46:29Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] But I’ve gotta ask again, Squink, what alternate strategy would you advocate? [/QUOTE] I liked the Clinton approach. Back in 2000, it seemed to be blossoming into a rapid rapprochment between North and South Korea. That couldn’t have held many years without the North being subsumed economically. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/32 "2006-10-10T20:52:34Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] I liked the Clinton approach. Back in 2000, it seemed to be blossoming into a rapid rapprochment between North and South Korea. That couldn’t have held many years without the North being subsumed economically. [/QUOTE] The Clinton approach was reasonable…then. Except North Korea had secretly resumed it’s nuclear bomb program. Suppose Bill Clinton got a third term in 2000, what should he have done when we discovered the North Koreans were building a bomb? If we gave them aid as a condition for no nuclear program, should we just continue giving them aid after they resume their nuclear program? Or should we just give North Korea aid no matter what they do? ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/33 "2006-10-10T20:54:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Has the Bush foriegn policy failed, even by its own standards? If it has, the Administration will never, never, **never** admit it. Or even acknowledge that you asked the question. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/34 "2006-10-10T22:04:03Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] Suppose Bill Clinton got a third term in 2000, what should he have done when we discovered the North Koreans were building a bomb? [/QUOTE] You want an alternate history? It’s not obvious to me that the [North’s 2002 announcement](http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/11/17/nkorea.nukes/index.html) of a uranium based program would ever have occured. Without the enmity brought on by Bush’s 'Axis of Evil" proclamation, things might have gone on much as they had been between North and South leaving whatever [‘basement bomb’](http://www.aijac.org.au/updates/Oct-02/241002.html) program they had to wither on the vine as social and economic factors brought the two nations closer. We don’t yet know for certain if last weekend’s bomb was a plutonium or uranium device, but given the difficulty of enriching uranium, and NK’s known work with old fuel rods, it seems most likely that that the bomb was plutonium based, and thus their 1997 and later experiments with enrichment have nothing to do with actually precipitating the present crisis. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/35 "2006-10-10T22:05:59Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] If we gave them aid as a condition for no nuclear program, should we just continue giving them aid after they resume their nuclear program? Or should we just give North Korea aid no matter what they do? [/QUOTE] Who, pray tell, has been advocating _that_ position? And to answer the bigger question, _any_ sort of diplomatic agreement is built on some combination of trust and repercussions for betraying that trust. You act as if _no one_ had ever considered the possibility that North Korea would violate its side of agreements and that even contemplating such an act would make diplomats’ heads explode or somesuch. ---
**Author:** ![eponymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/36 "2006-10-10T22:18:33Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] As for North Korea, I’m not sure what those pushing “negotiations” would want to happen. What exactly would we give North Korea in return for their not building nuclear bombs? [/quote] What does North Korea want from the United States? Some kind of assurance that we won’t attack it and establishment of diplomatic relations of some sort, if I understand things correctly. The details, of which, could be dealt with via some sort of diplomacy. > [@](#): > > See, we negotiated with the North Koreans: If you stop your nuclear program, we’ll give you food and fuel oil. They agreed, then resumed their nuclear program. If I understand things, they didn’t do this right away (at least, not with regards to the Yongbyong? facility). Admittedly, the agreement wasn’t the best, but it at least put the brakes (to a certain degree) on their moving towards becoming a nuclear power. A delay tactic, to be sure, but one that could have been used as a basis for further negotiations in the future. > [@](#): > > So what were our options then? Keep giving them food and oil? And ask them, more nicely this time, to stop their nuclear program? And in return we’ll give them anything they want, just don’t develop nuclear weapons? And every time they start developing nuclear weapons again, our response should be to give them more tribute? Are you serious? Who said anything about continuing the previous policy regarding food and oil? It was well within the rights of the Bush administration to make changes in the deal negotiated by the Clinton administration. That’s what diplomatic negotiations are for - to let the other side that things need to change in order for some sort of diplomacy to continue. I guess that’s what happened, but at the expense of not engaging with the North Koreans in a manner to further national policy objectives (if the goal was for North Korea to not become a nuclear power; for all I know, that may have not been the ultimate objective). At some point, if diplomacy fails we have two options: 1) do nothing or 2) decide that we are really going to do something about it (i.e. go to war). Diplomacy is better than option #1, because we want the other actor to do what we want (ultimately). Otherwise, why even bother trying (might as well not do anything). That leaves option #2 - go to war. Going to war is always an option, if you are serious about wanting the other actor to do what you want (or if the policy is of serious national interest). Otherwise, your back to #1 again - do nothing. [quote] If North Korea is determined to have nuclear weapons there is no way we can stop them, short of war. I assume we’re all on the same page that war is off the table? [quote] So we should just throw up our hands and do nothing anytime any country decides it wants to acquire nuclear weapons. Like Libya. Right? Oh, wait, we did…my bad. I guess those silly Brits wasted their time, right? > [@](#): > > Well then, since North Korea is determined to have nukes, nukes they shall have. We already don’t trade with them. We already prevent other countries from aiding their nuclear program, no country in the world, even China, wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons. But even an impoverished country like North Korea can manufacture nuclear weapons with enough work. And so, North Korea has nuclear weapons and there’s nothing we can do about it, and I personally can’t see any strategy that would. Every other option just results in North Korea getting both the nuclear weapons and the loot. Well, there’s nothing we can do about it _now_. We’ve spent the last 5 + years basically do nothing of substance diplomatically that would have at least given the impression not only to the American people, but also to our allies and the rest of the international community that we are serious about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It’s not as if North Korea was unwilling to negotiate. If they were unwilling, that would change the diplomatic calculus considerably (back to do nothing or go to war). We’ve basically reduce our options to 1) do nothing or 2) go to war. Unless, of course, the ultimate goal is to go to war. But given the current circumstances vis-a-vis Iraq, Afghanistan (not to mention the situation in Iran), then the going to war option is now less likely. It’s one thing to try to prevent something from happening and fail; it’s quite another to do nothing whatsoever and fail. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/37 "2006-10-10T23:17:53Z")
[QUOTE=rjung] Ye gods, yet another iteration of the right-wing’s “Blame Clinton” gambit. From the hotbed of left-wing propaganda known as the [**Financial Times:**](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d30d7920-5774-11db-be9f-0000779e2340.html) But then, I guess saying “it happened on my watch, so I’m responsible for it” is not a conservative value… [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: No one is “blaming Clinton”-- that’s just your strawman. I was simply responding to the eroneous statement made by Hentor which was precipitated by your bringing Clinton into this thread in the first place. * * * Look, NK has wanted the bomb for years-- long before Bush came to power-- and it is going to want the bomb after Bush leaves office. No matter what concessions we make, no matter what we agree to, they are going to want the bomb. This idea that we can somehow negotiate them out of wanted nukes is naive beyond comprehension. Maybe (and that’s a highly qualified maybe) China could do that, but not us. **We have nothing to offer them.** Nothing, nada, zip, zilch. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/38 "2006-10-10T23:22:41Z")
[McCain Blames Clinton Policies for N. Korea](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101000868.html) Apparently, the bomb _was_ a plutonium device, so the uranium program the right’s been wailing about is irelevant. It was post 2002 events that got us where we are today. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/39 "2006-10-10T23:25:52Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] It was post 2002 events that got us where we are today. [/QUOTE] You mistyped 1953. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873/40 "2006-10-10T23:31:33Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] [McCain Blames Clinton Policies for N. Korea](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101000868.html) Apparently, the bomb _was_ a plutonium device, so the uranium program the right’s been wailing about is irelevant. It was post 2002 events that got us where we are today. [/QUOTE] If I read you right here, you’re talking about the differences between a plutonium bomb and an enriched uranium bomb, which is an important point and need a bit of explication. Its also a darned _good_ point, so the honor of such explication is rightly yours. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-bush-foriegn-policy-failed-even-by-its-own-standards/375873.md?page=3)