GOP's Boot "This deal is no bargain" as Bush returns to Clinton Korea Plan

[papau]

Seems that neocon's like Max Boot are having a hard time with Bush returning to the Clinton Plan for the North Korea Nuke problem. In 2001, Bush killed futher work on the 1994 Clinton agreement's Nuke Power Plant contruction - and now Bush agrees to go back to building the same power plant (with China taking credit for solving the problem this time).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot21sep21,0,89655.story?track=tottext

This deal is no bargain
Max Boot

September 21, 2005

ONE SUSPECTS that if George W. Bush were not in the White House, he would be condemning the accord with North Korea announced on Monday. As it is, the president was decidedly lukewarm in his endorsement of what others are prematurely calling a breakthrough. His caution is warranted, because the six-party deal unveiled in Beijing has loopholes big enough to fly an ICBM through.

The most obvious flaw became apparent within hours: North Korea and the United States have very different ideas of what was agreed to. Pyongyang issued a blunt addendum saying it would not even dream of disarming until the U.S. and other signatories provided it with a light-water nuclear reactor. The Bush administration has rightly refused to deliver a "civilian" nuclear plant that could be turned to military uses — at least not before an ironclad verification program is in place.

No such inspection agreement has been reached, nor is one likely. It is hard to imagine the world's most closed society giving foreign inspectors the run of its countryside. Under the 1994 Agreed Framework, inspectors were allowed to visit only the atomic facility at Yongbyon. Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence indicates that Kim Jong Il set up a covert effort to enrich uranium far away from the world's prying gaze. Even today Kim will not admit to the existence of this secret program, making it doubtful that he will honor his latest commitment to abandon all "existing nuclear programs."

This does not necessarily mean that it was a mistake for the U.S. to sign Monday's joint statement. North Korea did offer concessions, at least on paper, that go beyond those reached in 1994 — for instance, it committed to dismantling rather than simply freezing its atomic weapons programs. And, unlike in 1994, the U.S. did not commit to massive aid before the dismantling is completed. <snip>

MEANWHILE others note that Clinton had the same idea.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-norkor21sep21,0,4774152.story?track=tottext

THE WORLD
A New Tilt Toward N. Korea
President Bush is now warily engaging the nation he had called part of an 'axis of evil.'
By Sonni Efron
Times Staff Writer

September 21, 2005

WASHINGTON — President Bush has called North Korea part of an "axis of evil" and said that he "loathed" its leader, Kim Jong Il, but now he's embraced a strategy of wary engagement with the isolated communist state much like former President Clinton did.

By signing an agreement with North Korea this week, the Bush administration committed in principle to normalizing relations with the country for the first time since the Korean War ended in 1953. In exchange, the United States and its allies secured a promise from North Korea to abandon all its nuclear weapons and nuclear programs, submit to international inspections and rejoin the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

But a day after signing the deal in Beijing, the administration Tuesday found itself defending the pact amid North Korea's insistence that it would abandon its weapons only if the U.S. first gave it a civilian light-water nuclear reactor. The fresh demand caused consternation in Washington and gave critics of the deal more ammunition.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the chief U.S. negotiator at the six-nation nuclear talks, said the United States would not discuss a light-water reactor for North Korea unless it gave up its nuclear weapons and programs.<snip>

<snip>A senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said any comparison between the Clinton deal and Monday's pact was "just bogus" because the Bush administration was not promising North Korea a reactor or any other benefits before disarmament.

But others said a similar deal could've been reached four years ago if Powell had been allowed to negotiate with North Korea.

"The fact that Powell's gone and Rice is in has made it much easier to cut these kinds of deals," said Joel S. Wit, a former State Department official who under Clinton led a nuclear inspection team to North Korea. "This kind of agreement could have been reached with North Korea a long time ago, and we could have avoided the damage that has been done in the meantime."

[Wickerman]

1. Good first step

now lets go back to Clinton's economy, 'kay?

[papau]

2. Can I second that thought! :-)

:-)

[rodeodance]

3. also see this article.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=914257&ct=1443217
The Art of the Deal

For five years, the Bush administration has shaped its North Korea policy around the erroneous notion that a policy of "no sticks, no carrots" can effectively persuade a nuclear power to disarm. That approach seems finally to have been set aside. Earlier this week, North Korea agreed in principle "to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, return to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, abide by the treaty's safeguards and admit international inspectors." In return, the United States again pledged to respect North Korean sovereignty, and to work toward normalizing relations between the two states. The agreement is not certain to hold, and many critical details were left unresolved. Yet the progress that has been made is a direct result of the Bush administration abandoning a strategy that failed to engage the many and varied powers of the United States - military, economic, political, cultural, and diplomatic, among others - thereby weaking America's hand. Success came, in other words, when the administration adopted the stronger, progressive doctrine of "integrated power." It was a much needed reality check.

THE BUSH SUCCESS -- JUST LIKE CLINTON'S DEAL, ONLY FIVE YEARS LATER: Though the new agreement is to be celebrated, it's important to note that the "main elements of the deal are essentially the same as the agreement nearly concluded at the end of the second Clinton term, and gift wrapped for the first Bush administration." For instance, the basic concept of the Clinton administration deal was "more-for-more": as North Korea made specific steps to eliminate its nuclear weapons programs, the United States and others would provide specific types of assurances and aid. Up until this point, the Bush position "was that the North Koreans had to completely dismantle their program before there would be any discussion of aid and assistance." But the statement announced this week describes the process for going forward as one of "commitment for commitment, action for action."

I'M TRYING TO CONTAIN NORTH KOREA, BUT DON'T TELL THE PRESIDENT: Why is the White House agreeing to this principle only now? Because President Bush and his top advisers spent the last five years denigrating President Clinton's deal, "and dissing Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, who favored it." Indeed, the shift in strategy may have been possible only because it was apparently concealed from President Bush. Over the last several months, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "slowly and incrementally changed policy, all the while denying there was any change in policy," Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment noted in an interview. "She therefore kept the confidence of the president while morphing the policy from one of confrontational posturing into actual negotiations with the North Koreans."

ABSENCE MAKES THE NUCLEAR THREAT GROW STRONGER: The Bush administration's numerous false starts with North Korea and Iran have unquestionably endangered our national security, since in both cases, time has been the enemy. Rather than develop a coherent policy toward either nation, the administration took up the motto: "better to ignore bad behavior than risk being perceived as rewarding it." In the meantime, North Korea reprocessed enough plutonium to make another half-dozen nuclear bombs, while bureaucratic momentum in Iran "continues to build for a nuclear program supported by 'hardliners' and 'reformers' alike."......more.

[papau]

4. I doubt that this view - while very true - will make mainstream media.

:-(