Nuclear North Korea (Hellie)

The good folks at the National Security Network need to update their North Korea page:

Under President Bush significant ground has been lost. When he took office, North Korea was adhering to a negotiated freeze on plutonium and may have possessed enough plutonium for one nuclear device. Since then, North Korea may have more than quadrupled its stock of weapons-grade plutonium and breached all previous constraints on its program. Under the Bush administration, North Korea has expelled international nuclear inspectors, withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and produced enough new weapons-grade plutonium for a number of nuclear weapons.

President Bush and Congress have largely neglected the issue of North Korea’s nuclear program, presiding over a significant increase in the threat to the United States and its allies. The administration has rejected any effort to negotiate a freeze and instead insisted upon immediate disarmament. The U.S. effort to create a multilateral negotiating group — known as the six party talks — has been a total failure. These nations have met only five times over four years and produced no significant results, and North Korea is now boycotting the discussions. The United States is seen by states in the region, including China and South Korea, as contributing to the standoff by having recently imposed increased measures to deter North Korean counterfeiting operations, a secondary but important concern.

. . . my jaw dropped when I read the NYTimes's language here:

But the explosion was also the product of more than two decades of diplomatic failure, spread over at least three presidencies. American spy satellites saw the North building a good-size nuclear reactor in the early 1980’s, and by the early 1990’s the C.I.A. estimated that the country could have one or two nuclear weapons. But a series of diplomatic efforts to “freeze” the nuclear program — including a 1994 accord signed with the Clinton administration — ultimately broke down, amid distrust and recriminations on both sides.

Three years ago, just as President Bush was sending American troops toward Iraq, the North threw out the few remaining weapons inspectors living at their nuclear complex in Yongbyon, and moved 8,000 nuclear fuel rods they had kept under lock and key.

Astounding that they're pre-emptively spreading blame to Clinton and being vague about the lines of causation. Clinton's "Agreed Framework" (in which Pyongyang pledged to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs", and in return, Washington agreed that the United States and North Korea would "respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize their relations") was as successful as might be hoped for -- NK's nuclear program was on hold during the reign of Clinton. If the Agreed Framework "ultimately broke down", the causation is clear. In August 2002, Bush proclaimed to Woodward "I loathe Kim Jong Il. I've got a visceral reaction to this guy", calling Kim a "pygmy" -- shades of "fuck Saddam, I'm taking him out" -- which could not have possibly been lost on Dear Leader. Bush bizarrely included NK in the "Axis of Evil", then "just as" he proceeded to invade one of the members of this "Axis" -- lo and behold!, no one could have anticipated that! -- NK decided bargaining is no longer in their interest.

Krugman was typically astute here, writing in early '03:

Moreover, there's every reason to take Mr. Bush's viscera seriously. Under his doctrine of pre-emption, the U.S. can attack countries it thinks might support terrorism, whether or not they have actually done so. And who decides whether we attack? Here's what Mr. Bush says: "You said we're headed to war in Iraq. I don't know why you say that. I'm the person who gets to decide, not you." L'état, c'est moi.

So Mr. Bush thinks you're a bad guy — and that makes you a potential target, no matter what you do.

On the other hand, Mr. Bush hasn't gone after you yet, though you are much closer to developing weapons of mass destruction than Iraq. (You probably already have a couple.) And you ask yourself, why is Saddam Hussein first in line? He's no more a supporter of terrorism than you are: the Bush administration hasn't produced any evidence of a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. Maybe the administration covets Iraq's oil reserves; but it's also notable that of the three members of the axis of evil, Iraq has by far the weakest military.

So you might be tempted to conclude that the Bush administration is big on denouncing evildoers, but that it can be deterred from actually attacking countries it denounces if it expects them to put up a serious fight. What was it Teddy Roosevelt said? Talk trash but carry a small stick?

Your own experience seems to confirm that conclusion. Last summer you were caught enriching uranium, which violates the spirit of your 1994 agreement with the Clinton administration. But the Bush administration, though ready to invade Iraq at the slightest hint of a nuclear weapons program, tried to play down the story, and its response — cutting off shipments of fuel oil — was no more than a rap on the knuckles. In fact, even now the Bush administration hasn't done what its predecessor did in 1994: send troops to the region and prepare for a military confrontation.

So here's how it probably looks from Pyongyang:

The Bush administration says you're evil. It won't offer you aid, even if you cancel your nuclear program, because that would be rewarding evil. It won't even promise not to attack you, because it believes it has a mission to destroy evil regimes, whether or not they actually pose any threat to the U.S. But for all its belligerence, the Bush administration seems willing to confront only regimes that are militarily weak.

The incentives for North Korea are clear. There's no point in playing nice — it will bring neither aid nor security. It needn't worry about American efforts to isolate it economically — North Korea hardly has any trade except with China, and China isn't cooperating. The best self-preservation strategy for Mr. Kim is to be dangerous. So while America is busy with Iraq, the North Koreans should cook up some plutonium and build themselves some bombs.

Again: What game does the Bush administration think it's playing?

What game does the NYTimes think it's playing? The first draft of this bit of history badly needs redrafting.

. . . Especially scary time for this considering these revelations about the Decider's current state of mind:

The President is mad, really, really mad according to the NY Daily News. He and Laura thought things were going well after they exploited "September the 11th" again. Now, between the Foley Republican child sex predator scandal and the Woodward book "State of Denial," W is having a melt-down:

Now, however, friends, aides and close political allies tell the Daily News Bush is furious with his own side for helping create a political downdraft that has blunted his momentum and endangered GOP prospects for keeping control of Congress next month.

Some of his anger is directed at former aides who helped Watergate journalist Bob Woodward paint a lurid portrait of a dysfunctional, chaotic administration in his new book, "State of Denial."

In the obsessively private Bush clan, talking out of school is the ultimate act of disloyalty, and Bush feels betrayed from within.

"He's ticked off big-time," said a well-informed source, "even if what they said was the truth."

The Daily News reports that "steam coming out of [Bush's] ears" over the Foley scandal.
Our president sounds like he is coming unglued.