Why shouldn't the North Koreans have nukes?

Great Debates
81

Oh come on, that’s not realistic.

Slick Willie sent Jimmy Carter to NK in 1993 to negotiate a treaty. Said treaty was duly signed and agreed to, in which the North Koreans agreed not to develop nukes in return for fuel oil, food, and a couple of power-only nuclear reactors (NK claimed they needed nukes for power). All duly paid for and delivered by the US of A.

Said treaty was violated by the NK almost at once, who set about developing nuclear bombs as fast as their little hands could work, and to hell with the hundreds of thousands of North Koreans who starved while Kim built up his arsenal (and otherwise showed that he was as crazy as batshit - read some of the links Sam Stone provided).

Fast forward to 2001. Bush accuses said guano-brain of possessing nuclear weapons, and, after some preliminary lying just to keep in practice, Kim Jong-whichever one it is says, “Yup - we got 'em, ain’t shit you can do about it, and we absolutely never will negotiate with anyone else except the US, no matter what, so help us Karl Marx, so there nyah nyah”. Subsequently the famous Axis of Evil speech. Subsequently also Bush casts nasty glances at Iraq, another charter member of the AoE. Then NK decides that multi-lateral negotiations aren’t so bad after all, and talks are held. They get nowhere, since NK essentially asks for reparations for being talked to so nasty by everyone who ever noticed their unpleasant country, an oath signed in virgin’s blood that the US will do nothing if NK decides to invade South Korea again, and the moon with their name on it. And a pony and a cold six-pack. And North Korea says, again, “we absolutely never will negotiate with anyone else except the US, no matter what, so help us Karl Marx, so there nyah nyah”.

However.

The sunny skies over Iraq turn darker, and the forecast turns to “cloudy with a chance of high explosive”. Said forecast is right on the money, Saddam crawls into a hole and tries to pull it in after him. Libya decides that rejoining the community of nations is a Grand Idea, since the alternative seems to be the Boomy Treatment from Allied forces, Iran agrees to nuclear inspections, and suddenly it is getting lonely in the clubhouse of the Nasty Tinpot Dictators Club - No Girls Allowed. And guess what - North Korea decides to grace the negotiations table with its august presence once more.

Probably to no avail - as before, the difference between Kim’s attitude to the world and a bucket of warm lizard vomit is essentially the bucket. But talk-talk is usually better than boom-boom, and if Ghaddafi can have an epiphany at missile-point, perhaps Kim can also be brought to reason. Or killed in a palace coup, which might be easier and is certainly more likely.

So how is any of this a failure of Bush’s foreign policy?

As has been posted elsewhere, this is a problem Bush inherited, not one he created, and it ought to be to his credit that he is not pretending that North Korea’s word of honor is worth a burned-out light bulb, and sweeping the problem under the carpet like a certain pair of Good Old Boys.

Perspective. It’s a good thing.

Regards,
Shodan

82

Nice summary, Shodan, the next time I buy myself a drink (tonight) I’ll sit down the empty glass in your honor. Regards, Milum

83

Shodan - you forgot to mention that, in 2001, Bush announced a “time out” on North Korea policy as soon as it came to light that Albright’s visit to North Korea months earlier was on the verge of producing an agreement to end the DPRK’s long range missile program.

Bush then stopped all contact with North Korea until October 2002, (not 2001 as you stated), when a Bush Administration official confronted North Korea on the intel about nuclear weapons. That places that meeting AFTER Bush called North Korea a part of the Axis of Evil.

North Korea then sought bilateral talks, which Bush refused, preferring instead six-party talks. At least you got that part right. Those multilateral talks took a year for Bush to set up because we couldn’t get the Chinese to get involved. The idea that North Korea sued for talks after the fall of Iraq is, to use the PC term, truthfully-challenged.

If you’re going to argue that Bush is not to blame for North Korea’s nuclear weapons development, at least get your facts straight.

84

No, it’s not. Although the topic is “Why shouldn’t the North Koreans have nukes,” not “On the border of what country will John Kerry skip with Jane Fonda while wearing hippie costumes?”

This debate has everything to do with John Kerry (although I’ll admit it has little to do with Jane Fonda).
[/quote]

It has LITTLE to do with Jane Fonda? Get a grip.

Although it - along with South Korea, and who knows, maybe part of Japan or the American West Coast - might go away by nuclear war. Good strategy you’ve formulated there to prove you have balls.