According to an analysis in today's Financial Times, "North KoreaGÇÖs probable test of a nuclear weapon on Monday has triggered the second nuclear crisis in 13 years on the Korean peninsula." How did this terrible situation come to pass? Well, as much as the right-wingers are going to try and blame Bill Clinton, or some other Democrat (Harry Truman, LBJ, JFK, anyone but Bush!), the Financial Times is clear: the Clinton Administration managed to halt North Korea's nuke program, while the Bush Administration's provocative, hardline, bumbling policy has done the opposite. First, here's the Financial Times on President Clinton:
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 GÇô in return for supplies of fuel oil to North Korea GÇô froze most aspects of PyongyangGÇÖs nuclear weapons programme for the rest of the decade.
Sounds good, right? A deal with North Korea to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for fuel oil supplies and other assistance.
But wait. Enter the Bush Administration and cue the ominious music:
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.
In other words, North Korea's nuclear test represents yet ANOTHER foreign policy debacle to add to the long and growing list of Bush Administration foreign policy screwups:
*An Arab-Israeli peace process that has been completely neglected, even abandoned, with predictable results
*A more unstable Middle East, which has contributed to $60 per barrel (and about to move higher once again) oil prices
*Increasing anti-Americanism throughout the world, including in our backyard of Latin America (see Brazil, Boliva, Venezuela, Mexico...)
*The rise of the Taliban once again in Afghanistan (see the chief of NATO's warning that the Afghan people may be at a "tipping point" where they switch their allegiance back to the Taliban out of desperation at a lack of progress in that country)
*Iraq turned from a contained, harmless pariah into a terrorist haven and plaything of Iran - 'nuff said
*A far more empowered, emboldened, and radicalized Iran (the third leg, along with Iraq and North Korea, of Bush's "Axis of Evil") that is threatening to go nuclear itself
*A Russia that is backsliding into authoritarianism more every day (see the recent murder of a leading Russian journalist)
*Following North Korea's nuclear weapons test, a destabilized East Asia, which may be on the verge of a nuclear arms race - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan?
*A massive U.S. trade imbalance with China and other countries (note: this represents a failure of both domestic and foreign economic policy)
Did I leave anything off the list? Of course, but this is not an attempt to be exhaustive; that would be, well, exhausting! The point is, the supposedly "strong on foreign policy" Republicans - Bush, Cheney, Rummy. Condi, Allen et al. - have led the United States from one foreign policy/national security debacle to another over the past 6 terrible years. Let's face it, these Republicans have no clue what they're doing, except to do the exact opposite of what Teddy Roosevelt preached - speak loudly and carry a small stick.
Heckuva job, guys.
[UPDATE: I dug up a December 2002 column on Bush's North Korea policy by the late, great Mary McGrory. Here's what she had to say about the beginning of the Bush Administration's miserable failure on North Korea - its unwillingness to negotiate and its backhanded snub of the Nobel Peace Prize winner and American ally, South Korean Prsident Kim Dae Jung:
We should perhaps remember that President Bush has never liked talking to Koreans. His first overseas visitor was the estimable Kim Dae Jung, whom Bush snubbed.Bush, as he was eager to demonstrate, was not a fan. Kim's sin? He was instituting a sunshine policy with the North, ending a half-century of estrangement. Bush, who looked upon North Korea as the most potent argument for his obsession to build a national missile defense, saw Kim, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, as nothing but trouble. He sent him home humiliated and empty-handed.
Sending a close ally home "humiliated and empty-handed?" Why is it not surprising that this led to nothing but bad stuff happening, up to and including yesterday's nuclear weapons test by North Korea. Heckuva job.]
Lowell Feld is Netroots Coordinator for the Jim Webb for US Senate Campaign. The ideas expressed here belong to Lowell Feld alone, and do not represent those of Jim Webb, his advisors, staff, or supporters.
I love the right wing nutjobs pinning it on Clinton. Do they realize that they're really saying that 6 years of Bush and a full Republican government is too weak, impotent and incompetent to overcome Clinton's legacy?
Slam. Dunk!
SIX YEARS of Bush policies have not worked to make the world safer. Osama has not been caught, after six years. We are mired in a mess in Iraq, with experts suggesting that the Iraq War is a breeding ground for new terrorists. And now, we have seen one of our most hostile opponents come forward with a nuclear weapon. We need a new approach, because the Bush/GOP "plan" has been a total failure.
Dems need to forget Clinton, forget the attacks on Clinton. They need to come out hard, swinging at Bush. Right now, Americans are a bit skeptical of Republicans after the Foley thing. Now is the time to say, "these guys are not competent for the job, and cannot be trusted to do the right thing." Nail them on both - competence and trust - and then demand that they explain themselves. Insist that they tell us why, when they've held the White House and both sides of Congress, we've seen new nuclear powers emerge. And tell voters that we need a new direction.
Our man power, our weapons, and our money is all going into it, pinning us down in this country making us unable to react to things that are going on in the rest of the world.
US in Iraq = USSR in Afghanistan
HUH!
Who has been in charge of foreign policy for the past 6 years?
Who committed our forces to an unnecessary war leaving us without a credible deterent?
Who refused bilateral talks with the North Koreans (hint: it was the same guy who was busy setting records for the most vacation time for a president, ever)?
As for Baker, his disgusting display during the 2000 recount was more than enough to make me permanently ill at the mention of his name.
Latin America is rejecting the IMF/World Bank version of the free market, which is not the same as becoming anti-American.
Latin America embraced neo-con free market ideas about 25 years ago. The idea was that it was going to bring prosperity and quickly bring these countries into the first world. I am not that familiar with what happened in the rest of the continent, but I know what occurred in Mexico.
Mexico engaged in a version of free-trade that would make our neo-cons drool. It embraced a radical, right-wing version of the free-market where salaries were tightly controlled, labor laws weakened, and national property sold at a discount to a few businessmen.
After about 20 years of these policies, Mexico lives in a country with more inequality, and the economy is, for all practical purposes, stalled. The former inefficient public monopolies are now inefficient private ones.
Mexico lost plenty of jobs because it cannot compete with China, and now even the agricultural jobs are about to be lost when the Mexican farmer will have to compete with a subsidized American farmer. They will fail. And expect to see them mowing lawns around here soon.
Very similar things happened in the rest of Latin America. The rejection of right-wing candidates that endorse this radical form of free-market is a response to the failure of radical free-market policies to bring prosperity to the population.
I learned of NK's nukes in discussion with a South Korean Colonel about 6 years ago - we were on my fathers property and he was helping with my golf swing. According to him, the South Korean government had been making noise about the nukes, while the very fact that they had them was classified in our own country.
If you speak with military leadership, they will tell you that North Korea is a disaster waiting to happen. We recently redeployed our troops further south in Korea - being on the DMZ would give them minutes to live. An American officer I spoke with over dinner said that we would be a "speed bump".
My point in saying this is that given our knowledge that North Korea actually did have nukes, and that our troops were in harms way (including my father) why have we been playing games with Pyong Yang? Our multi-lateral talks appear to have been designed with the intention of failed diplomacy.
Horrible diplomacy like this COULD ONLY BE DELIBERATE. The question is why.
My step-brother - also Korean - is a military doctor/officer. He has the displeasure of seeing the suffering of our war wounded on a daily basis. It seems to me, and most people I speak with, that Iraq is a huge distraction from the more significant threat to our nation - a country that actually has WMD and is intent on proliferating them.
The worst Iraq could do was attack our oil supplies, and perhaps sell chemical and biological weapons to our enemies. Bad stuff, but not when compared with what a nuclear weapon can do. UN Inspectors on the ground could have mitigated some of that risk as well. Iraq didn't have a viable military, so any direct attack on our oil supplies would be quickly stopped.
North Korea on the other hand has millions of tons of explosives pointed at South Korea and will probably reserve some of their nuclear weapons for financial centers in Japan - ie Tokyo.
Japan is the second largest economy in the world. An attack on them would impact us, and would be felt around the world. An attack on South Korea would be an attack on one of our closest allies.
Who in the Middle East is really a close ally? Isreal aside, nobody. The only reason the Saudis help us is because of oil. If those royals are toppled, Saudi Arabia becomes an enemy. The Taliban is re-emerging in Afghanistan. Iraq is being over-run by militants and terrorists from Iran. Iran is run by a religious fanatic - who is also in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. If we leave the middle east alone, they leave us alone. 9/11 was a response to Gulf War I and our presence on their so-called "holy lands". Let's leave that god-forsaken place and let them have it.
We should protect what is most valuable to us. We have alternate energy supplies and could go without Saudi oil if we were forced to. We cannot replace allies like Japan and South Korea. The Middle East should be the least of our worries right now, but because of a flawed foreign policy they are our main concern.
In addition to flawed foreign policy, we also have flawed trade policy. Our trade agreements with China are feeding this. It's time that we stop making trade deals with Communist regimes.
George W. pulled Bandar aside.
"Bandar, I guess you're the best asshole who knows about the world. Explain to me one thing."
"Governor, what is it?"
"Why should I care about North Korea?"
Bandar said he didn't really know. It was one of the few countries that he did not work on for King Fahd.
"I get these briefings on all parts of the world," Bush said, "and everybody is talking to me about North Korea."
"I'll tell you what, Governor," Bandar said. "One reason should make you care about North Korea."
"All right, smart alek," Bush said, "tell me."
"The 38,000 American troops right on the border." ..."If nothing else counts, this counts. One shot across the border and you lose half these people immediately. You lose 15,000 Americans in a chemical or biological or even regular attack. The United State of America is at war instantly."
"Hmmm," Bush said. "I wish those assholes would put things just point-blank to me. I get half a book telling me about the history of North Korea."
"Now I tell you another answer to that. You don't want to care about North Korea anymore?" Bandar asked. The Saudis wanted America to focus on the Middle East and not get drawn into a conflict in East Asia.
"I didn't say that," Bush replied.
"But if you don't, you withdrawl those troops back. Then it becomes a local conflict. Then you have the whole time to decide, 'Should I get involved? Not involved?' Etc."
At that moment, Colin Powell approached.
"Colin," Bush said, "come here. Bandar and I were shooting the bull, just two fighter pilots shooting the bull." He didn't mention the topic.
"Mr. Governor," Bandar said, "General Powell is almost a fighter pilot. He can shoot the bull almost as good as us."
Guest Analyst
Bush's Blunder In North Korea
Former U.S. National Security Advisor Donald Gregg - First: Don't panic. Kim Jong Il's objective is survival and eventual change in North Korea, not suicide. The diplomatic situation in Northeast Asia will be immensely complicated by the North Korea test, which I think was a huge mistake on their part, but missiles are not about to start flying.The test may indicate the rise in influence of a hard-line faction in the KPA, which is holding sway, at least for now, over others more interested in transformational change in NK. The initiation of a strong bilateral dialogue between NK and the US would strengthen the moderates, and ease the situation in general, but that is not at all likely to happen.
Second: Why won't the Bush administration talk bilaterally and substantively with NK, as the Brits (and eventually the US) did with Libya? Because the Bush administration sees diplomacy as something to be engaged in with another country as a reward for that country's good behavior. They seem not to see diplomacy as a tool to be used with antagonistic countries or parties, that might bring about an improvement in the behaviour of such entities, and a resolution to the issues that trouble us. Thus we do not talk to Iran, Syria, Hizballah or North Korea. We only talk to our friends -- a huge mistake.
Donald Gregg was a CIA official since 1951 and a liaison to President Carter's National Security Council and, National Security Advisor to Vice President George H.W. Bush and U.S. ambassador to South Korea from 1989 to 1993. He's now chairman of the board of the Korea Society