North Korea: Diplomacy Works, Even for Bush
The announcement of a deal that calls for the disabling of the heart of North Korea's nuclear weapons establishment by the end of this year is a giant step forward for global non-proliferation efforts. As reported in an article by Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, the accord calls for Pyongyang to "disable the 5 watt experimental reactor at Yongbyon, a fuel reprocessing plant, and a nuclear fuel rod facility." China's Xinhua news agency has made the text of the agreement available.
What does this all mean? Has the Bush administration had a brain transplant? Could this diplomatic success spur further efforts along these lines?
Before getting too carried away, it should be noted that the Bush administration has a long way to go to even get back to the situation that existed with respect to North Korea's nuclear program when it took office. Early in the first term, then Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested continuing the negotiating framework that had been developed in the Clinton years -- a step-by-step approach that swapped moves towards dismantling the North Korean nuclear program in exchange for growing economic and poltical relations with the U.S.--Powell was immediately slapped down by the neo-cons. Within 48 hours U.S. policy had shifted to one of asking for major concessions BEFORE providing any benefits to North Korea (an approach that may sound famililar, as it bears a striking resemblance to the administration's current position vis-a-vis Iran).
Years were lost due to the Bush administration's intransigence, during which time North Korea tested a balllistic missile and a nuclear weapon, while accumulating enough bomb-grade plutonium to build at least nine nuclear bombs. In short, talking tough while refusing to negotiate was an unmitigated disaster.
What accounts for the change of direction? One line of reasoning is that the neo-cons lack the ability they had in the first term to undermine any and every diplomatic initiative. Another argues that Bush wants at least one foreign policy accomplishment to point to during his two terms in office. A third, admittedly wild idea is that the administration actually learned from its earlier mistakes. Whatever the reason, the deal is an excellent start, including not only the disabling of facilities but full disclosure of North Korea's plutonium stockpile. The next phase of talks will focus on dismantling Pyongyang's current bombs while eliminating its accumulated bomb-making materials.
The lesson here is that diplomacy can work in the non-proliferation field, just as it did in the U.S.-U.K. talks with Libya. And up to a point, mistakes like those made by the Bush team when it refused to engage in serious negotiations with North Korea for most of its time in office can be reversed.
Even if it went full speed ahead towards nuclear weapons development it would take Iran five to ten years or more to get a usable device. This leaves enough time to strike a grand bargain with Tehran that involves U.S. pledges to forswear efforts at "regime change" in Iran and a lifting of sanctions in exchange for limiting its nuclear program to civilian purposes. Pursuing such an agreement should be a medium-term goal of U.S. diplomacy. Given its continued demonization of Iran, the Bush administration is unlikely to be the vehicle for such an approach -- it will be hard enough to keep it from caving in to pressure from the Cheney faction to take military action against Iran. But the success in Libya and the progress in North Korea should hopefully punch some holes in the right-wing argument that military force is a viable tool for stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.
Comments (15)
Note: The Kessler link doesn't work and it's a 5 megawatt reactor.
Also, Kessler has recently reported that the Korean plant may have been merely transplanted to Syria, but that story comes from Israel direct to Cheney and even the CIA doesn't know what's going on, which isn't unusual actually.
October 3, 2007 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fixed the link.
October 3, 2007 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
North Korea is very diffrrent from Iran, even though it was part of the "Axis of Evil". North Korea is not an Islamic country, it has no oil or anything else of value, and it's basically a Chinese client state. Hence Bush and NeoCons can afford to write it off (AKA, let diplomacy work). Military action was never on the table and there were no reasons, involved either geopolitical strategy or vital resources, to want to conquer the place anyway.
October 3, 2007 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
from Gordon Prather, in 2005:
As a result of a letter sent on August 1, 2005 by Iran to the Secretariat of the International Atomic Energy Agency, we now know that on March 23, 2005 Iran offered a package of "objective guarantees" to the EU that included a voluntary "confinement" of Iran's nuclear programs, to include:
1. forgoing the reprocessing of spent reactor fuel;
2. forgoing the production of plutonium;
3. producing only the low-enriched uranium required for Iran's power reactors;
4. the immediate conversion of all enriched uranium to fuel rods.
By any measure, the Iranian "confinement" offer is substantial. The Iranians had intended to "close the fuel cycle" – making new fuel from unburned uranium and plutonium recovered from "spent fuel." They also had a plutonium production reactor under construction.
But now we know that the EU never even acknowledged this substantial offer, much less respond to it [on US orders, no doubt].
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=6926
ecotourism
WeGoEco.com
October 3, 2007 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
How unfortunate for the North Koreans, written off by Bush...kind of like NO, troops without body armor, dead troops (phony or not phony), a few million dead or displaced Iraqi's, a few million US kids without health insurance, Sergio de Mello....
October 3, 2007 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no striking "A Grand Bargain" with Iran. They were willing to talk to us in 2003, remember. And before. We're the dumbasses. Well, at least preznit and his cronies, least wise.
We went from 1945 to 2001 dealing with all major confrontations with diplomacy rather than force, although we had a propensity for using force anytime the downside was limited, 'cos we're the business. Oh Yeah!
Wake up, USA! This man is a liability.
Let's talk to Iran without Israel looking over our shoulder, for once.
October 3, 2007 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
There may be another reason that "diplomacy" has worked in this instance.
Lil' Kim is a club member....the atom bomb club, that is.
It seems that tough talk, bluster and bluff works when this administration appears to hold the trump card, but when another at the table is playing "Texas Hold 'Em" with their hole card being nuclear the Bushies fold and let the diplomats take the fall if things heat up to the thermonuclear level. In this instance, I think Chris Hill seems to be a shrewd player, knows when to fold a bad hand and ante up for the next deal. He may not have many "Mission Accomplished" grandstand pots in the big game, but (IMHO) at the end of the night he'll walk away a winner (and we'll be the better for it).
Not that Bushies care.
No, diplomacy is for the weak and the womenfolk in this little rhinestone cowboy's world, and while Hill and his team should get a Medal of Freedom for just having to negotiate this long with Lil' Kim Jong and his Ilk, I fear that they will be the next target of Rush Limbaugh. Probably something along the lines of "phony diplomats".....
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
October 3, 2007 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think of this being January 2000. Now, imagine what would happen if an utterly incompetent, utterly corrupt, megalomaniac were to become our new president. Just what would you expect to be the outcome of that? Forget for a moment that that new president wouldn't be interested in engaging in a sexual encounter with a young woman in the White House - that, after all, is not relevant to the question. Ok, now we know that what you would expect is exactly what happened.
So, shall we roll the dice again and try it with JulieAnnie or Freddie? Maybe this time was just an aberration.
Hoppy in Sacramento
October 3, 2007 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is precisely because the North Koreans have nothing to offer and that they don't possess any resources the Bushies covet that diplomacy has been allowed to work. It has nothing to do with any diplomatic skill on the administration's part...they just simply happen to be the monkeys in charge at the time when the North Koreans have pushed their bluff as far as they can take it. They are more reliant on the rest of the world than we are on them.It simply isn't in the best interests of the North to be completely shunned by the international community. Even a dictator like Kim Jong Il can see that...
October 4, 2007 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: We went from 1945 to 2001 dealing with all major confrontations with diplomacy rather than force
Korean War? Vietnam? Gulf War?
October 4, 2007 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it also has something to do with the fact that China wanted to fix this through diplomacy.
I don't know what kind of geopolitical calculus Kim Jong Il uses... but the very bizarre narrative that one takes away from this turn of events is that the Bushies will use diplomacy as a last resort, once all belligerent options have been exhausted or ruled out.
October 4, 2007 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. The North Korean deal is probably a triumph of China's diplomacy, not the US's. Bush is just taking credit for something that China achieved in its sphere of influence, not wanting a renegade nuclear power on its border.
We can all look forward to seeing the display on Bush's one foreign policy "achievement" in his new library, built with Hunt Oil money. That's the same Hunt Oil which has the new oil pumping contract in Iraq.
October 4, 2007 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to commenter #1 for noting typo of "watt" vs. "megawatt" -- a five watt reactor -- if such could be built -- would pose no big threat!
Much as I have been a staunch critic of the Bush gang from day one, I think they deserve some credit for taking the diplomatic route in this case. If they had "stayed the course" against diplomacy they could have continued to demonize the another spoke of the rapidly receding "axis of evil," continued to use NK as a rationale for Star Wars, pleased the neo-cons, and so forth. In short, I see no reason the HAD to make a deal now.
The main entertainment now will be listening to the howling of the John Boltons of the world -- hopefully to no effect.
October 4, 2007 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, those were not major confrontations. Major fuck-ups, maybe. But N. Vietnam, N. Korea, and Iraq were minor players on the world stage. Had we fucked up the Berlin Airlift or the Cuban Missile Crisis this world might now be largely devoid of human life. Big picture. We humans have the power to exterminate ourselves. Small wars are a tragic waste. At this point in history a big war might be the end of us all.
October 4, 2007 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: But N. Vietnam, N. Korea, and Iraq were minor players on the world stage.
True, but doesn't that still apply to Iraq?
Re: At this point in history a big war might be the end of us all.
Also very true, but the only big wars we could fight like that would be with Russia, and maybe China (OK, in principle, France, Britian and maybe Israel, but I see no likelihood of that at all). Like the typical bully the Bush administration only picks on those it can overpower. It carefully appeases powers like China and Russia, apart maybe from some occasional poseur stances and loud rhetoric, intended more to rally the faithful at home (and China and Russia do that too).
October 4, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink