Bush offers North Korea a deal to end the world's oldest cold war
It's the problem for people who take hard line stances. When you eventually back down, the people who you have been bullying and harassing want to make sure you have dotted every "I" and crossed every "T".
And so it has come to pass with North Korea's relationship with the US. Bush now wants to deal with the same North Korean regime that he once proclaimed part of the "Axis of Evil".
South Korea's president, Roh Moo-hyun, pushed the US President to be specific about what he was actually saying:
Mr Roh leaned across and urged the president to be more explicit about the security arrangement.North Korea has already invited the US, Russia and China to inspect it's nuclear facilities in order to prove that it is no longer attempting to develop a nuclear weapon.
"I might be wrong. I think I did not hear President Bush mention a declaration to end the Korean war just now," Mr Roh said through an interpreter. "Did you say that, President Bush?" Mr Bush replied it was "up to Kim Jong-il".
The South Korean leader remained unconvinced. "If you could be a little clearer," he said.
A clearly irritated Mr Bush said that he had in mind a formal peace treaty that would end hostilities in the war, which ended with the US still technically at war with the North.
South and North Korea have also failed to agree a truce and their border remains the most heavily fortified in the world.
"I can't make it any more clear, Mr President," Mr Bush said. "We're looking forward to the day when we can end the Korean war. That will happen when Kim Jong-il verifiably gets rid of his weapons programmes and his weapons."
There is a terrible irony in watching Bush, who refused to honour the deal which Clinton struck with North Korea, now scrambling to come to an arrangement with the communist regime. In the early days of this administration, deals with Kim Jong-il were viewed as appeasement and the rewarding of North Korea for pursuing a nuclear agenda.
Now, Bush is being embarrassed publicly to make sure he is being specific in the offer that he is now making.
This is the same Bush regime who once claimed that they made their own reality whilst the rest of us scrambled to keep up before they reinvented reality all over again.
Now, reality has caught up with them. Now, the most unpopular President in history has to suffer the ignominy of having the South Korean President ask him to publicly clarify the terms of his U-turn with the North.
It really would have been better had Bush simply accepted Clinton's deal and left North Korea well alone.
But, as always, the neo-cons thought they knew best, and set out to show the world where those lame Democrats had gone wrong.
Now, tail between his legs, Bush is forced publicly to state what he will offer North Korea in order to get us back to where we were before Bush came into office.
There are so many examples of the limitations of US power littering this Presidency, the most obvious example of which is the Iraq war and the quagmire Bush has trapped his country in. But North Korea is another example of Bush's inability to force another regime to bend to his will.
It's really odd, but the neo-con fantasy that they did not need to participate in negotiations and could proceed as an American empire forcing all others to bend to their will has not revealed the extent of American power, but rather, it's limitations.
That is Bush's actual legacy.
Click title for full article.
6 comments:
There is a terrible irony in watching Bush, who refused to honour the deal which Clinton struck with North Korea,
Actually, Clinton made a deal with North Korea in 1994 that the North Koreans did not honor.
And Bush and Cheney decided to play hard ball with North Korea and force them to give up their nuclear ambitions whilst rewarding them with nothing.
How did that work out Jason?
The insistence on multi-lateral talks, along with pressure on the banks worked pretty well obviously. As for supposedly giving them nothing, as far back as 2003 Bush has stated that we may be willing to give the DPRK security assurances if they give up their nukes. More recently we have offered them fuel to give up their nukes.
But all that is beside the point, which you are dodging. Your framing of the situation as "Bush refusing to honor the Clinton deal", flies in the face of the fact that it was the North Koreans who completely ignored the Clinton deal. This is yet another instance of choosing to ignore historical fact for political convenience.
I have never ignored the fact that the North Koreans attempted to circumnavigate the terms of the deal. But they were caught. That's why we have inspectors written into these deals.
So Bush could have continued with the deal as it existed when he took office. He refused, saying he would not reward North Korea for it's nuclear ambitions and - as you yourself have pointed out - he is now falling over himself to offer them things that only bring us back to where we were with the Clinton deal.
Years of haggling and empty threats only to end up exactly where we started...
And all that hogwash about "not rewarding" North Korea simply forgotten by partisans like yourself.
I honestly can't think if a single thing this administration could do that you wouldn't defend.
I have never ignored the fact that the North Koreans attempted to circumnavigate the terms of the deal. But they were caught. That's why we have inspectors written into these deals.
So they blew off an agreement but we should have just pretended it never happened. That would be some brilliant diplomacy. "Sorry guys, you busted us. We won't do it again. Promise."
Years of haggling and empty threats only to end up exactly where we started...
I think this just demonstrates a barely superficial understanding of the North Korean problem. The single most effective exercise of soft power against the DPRK has been isolating them from the world banking system. That act, which happened to be undertaken by the Bush administration, along with the insistence on a multilateral framework (the Chinese were particularly instrumental) is what brought the North Koreans around.
I honestly can't think if a single thing this administration could do that you wouldn't defend.
I'd chalk that up to either a lack of breadth of topics discussed here, or a lack of imagination.
Okay, define what you think are the differences between the deal which Bush has just struck and the deal which Clinton struck? Not the differences in how the deal was arrived at, the differences in the deal itself...
Post a Comment