Six nation talks with North Korea do appear to have bottled up some sort of agreement concerning nuclear weapons for North Korea and the US. Yes, that’s right, these talks have limited both North Korean nuclear capability and American. I think it’s a good thing, but the Bush administration will never admit to negotiating with terrorists whether up front or through a conduit. And North Korea is a terrorist sponsoring state as well as a member of the Axis of Evil. Oh, and they are Communist. With us or against us only applies to Iraq and not al Qeada or countries with nuclear weapons like North Korea and Iran.
In principal, this is very similar to the one brokered by Clinton in 1994. So, Bush’s approach of no bilateral talks with Communist, terrorist states like North Korea has produced the same outcome of that of bilateral talks. It is also probably foolish to assume that the US stayed out of this negotiation allowing only the six nations to converse with North Korea. This deal will not go through without Bush approval, and it appears that Bush is on board. My question is, if this deal (the Clinton 1994 deal) was so bad that Bush had to break away from it in 2001, then why is it good enough in 2005? And why should Bush receive any credit for it, especially considering that the Bush administration supposedly stayed out of it, which isn’t true, but that’s the official line from the White House?
Some background of the Bush reversal is due. This from several Bush administration officials, off the record of course:
Several [Bush administration] officials, who would not allow their names to be used because they did not want to publicly discuss Mr. Bush's political challenges, noted that Mr. Bush is tied down in Iraq, consumed by Hurricane Katrina, and headed into another standoff over Iran's nuclear program. The agreement, they said, provides him with a way to forestall, at least for now, a confrontation with another member of what he once famously termed "the axis of evil."The Bush Doctrine again only applies to countries that broke off friendships with the president’s dad.
This is no great diplomatic victory for Bush. If anything this agreement returns us to the status quo, which apparently Bush sees as a good thing now. It’s worth stealing some good analysis from the Political Heretic that he left on my last post’s comment section about what the new/old agreement has accomplished:
- conceded in principle to unilateral disarmament by allowing the North to negotiate over its weapons program while assuring them of a nuclear-free South.
- conceded in principle to future talks over light water reactors, the very kind of project we agreed to without having the North admit to operating the very uranium-enrichment program that led us to abandon the project to begin with. Are we at fault for the collapse in talks? Don't answer that.
- reiterated our commitment to refrain from regime change on the peninsula.
Tags:
Burger King Commercial, Bush, North Korea, Sanctions, Announcement, Washington Monthly
7 comments:
Thanks for this information MJ. I am not all that clear on the situation in Korea except for thinking that if Bush had an urge to put on combat boots Korea might have been the preferable option. From what I understand they still most likely have the uranium hidden underground somewhere and as long as they say they don't we don't have to acknowledge it. I think this is one of those things that they have to let slide due to the fact that there is too much on their plate right now.
It sadly does show how far we have slid down the ladder of influence.
So what is with the accusation the we are planning a nuclear attack? Will this affect anything or is this insignificant and just a ploy of some kind?
Well, we don't have a real deal yet. We did not sign onto such a nuclear-run plant. We agreed to revisit our decision to revoke an agreement with the Clinton administration. This or a future president can in the future deny North Korea's request for a new plant if it would not admit to a uranium-enrichment program and allow inspectors to help dismantle it.
Don't get me wrong. That in itself is an important victory for the North Koreans and leads me to believe that Bush is not in a very strong negotiating position as of now. That we have agreed to revisit this issue without a proven justification for the revocation in the first place is a huge loss.
Hey Alice. Can't do that with nuclear powers but a secret operation against the leader? That won't get me in trouble with MJ now will it? Pat Robertson had the wrong guy in mind.
businessman, I'm not sure about us planning a nuclear attack. North Korea wanted assurances that we wouldn't invade, which has been a concern of the North since 1953. As far as the nuclear weapons go, it is like the pot calling the kettle black. From the North's perspective, how can we tell them not to have weapons as we point nuclear missiles at them. Of course that's the argument all around about nuclear weapons. It probably is much to do about ploys as well.
Very well said Heretic. And you do lose some points by implying some form of asassination on a foreign leader. I don't think asassinating foreign leaders is a good profession for America. God knows that millions around the world would love to do the same to Bush. I think we've set enough precedents.
And Alice, I agree it is sad.
Thanks to all for reading.
Thanks for checking out my blog. North Korea by all accounts is a gong-show. They seem determined to go to war with the USA.
Post a Comment