I wonder what other Clinton policies Bush plans on endorsing?
The new North Korea deal is surprisingly Clintonian
President George W. Bush finally got a nuclear deal with North Korea because he finally started negotiating like Bill Clinton.
A constant mantra for the past dozen years—chanted by Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney on several occasions—is that the Agreed Framework, which the Clinton administration signed with North Korea in 1994, was a naive and disastrous failure.
And yet the deal that Bush’s diplomats just negotiated is very similar to Clinton’s accord in substance—and nearly identical in its approach to arms control.
In other words, the North Koreans get nearly half a billion dollars in aid and a forum for diplomatic recognition before they even have to talk about scrapping a reactor or surrendering a gram of plutonium. On one point, Bolton is right: This deal rubs against the policy that Bush has pursued—even the political philosophy that he’s held—throughout the six years of his presidency.
But what about Bolton’s other point: Is it a “bad deal”? That depends on what happens next, and we won’t know that answer for months, maybe years.
Wow….Clinton’s policy worked well. Jimmy Carter came home with a piece of paper claiming North Korea would not develop nukes or long distance missiles. That worked, didn’t it!
The big difference here is that Bush refused to go it alone with North Korea. He insisted on China being involved. Now if North Korea violates the agreement, their Sugar Daddy is embarrassed. China does not like to be embarrassed.
Even with that said, I don’t believe this agreement will hold either. Kim Jong-il is a mad man who has no problem starving more than a million of his own people so that he can build weapons and add to his porn collection.
I’ll bet my next paycheck that within the next 10 years, North Korea is at it again.
There is a lesson here: build the bomb and get cheap oil and lots of money, you’ll even be allowed to keep your dictatorship.
I couldn’t agree more with the first three comments. My only problem is that another solution was not found, therefore fallback to the Clinton solution which ultimately didn’t work…
You know, the top sidebar news link as I type this says “Outside pressures broke North Korean deadlock.”
According to that story, the key to the whole affair was NK’s nuke test. It got China upset, who then cut off military aid to NK and helped freeze bank accounts.
As for Bush, he needed some bolstering. *Both* sides needed something, and that is a real incentive to negotiations.
If all that is reasonably accurate, then the Clinton-era folks may have had the right idea, just at the wrong time.
Of course that means those folk get the best of both worlds: claim credit for the idea, but not having to implement it.
While bribing the NK got Clinton a “deal” before, even dreaming that the homicidal maniac who runs NK will fulfill his side is naive in the extreme.
As the U.S. shouldn’t be the worlds police we should wash our hands of this area and pull out of S.K. Let China, & Japan deal with it.
#2 – Mac Guy, would that be when the Repugs take the Whitehouse again?
In certain diplomatic situations a string of delays is just as effective as as anything else. I mean, ten years plus ten years plus ten years is a problem how? Clinton’s ‘solution’ didn’t need to be perfect, and neither does Bush’s. Unfortunately, Bush previously thought otherwise, which helped lead us to where we are now.
IMO buying Kim’s cooperation is a helluva lot better deal then we got in Iraq, where the same approach would have had infinitely better results that what we have now. Maybe Bush is finally ‘getting it.’
No i don’t think he is right when it comes to the Middle East, OK north Korea gave way to the pressure of our economic stranglehold, I think North Korea has a lot more common sense than the Middle East when it comes giving up, especially with the laps of luxury that Kim jong ILL is so used too, he doesn’t have a vast amount oil that he can hug when things get rough like Iran .
Kim is only doing this because he’s getting tired of being a mad tyrant, has changed his mind, and decided after all to pursue Golf. He did shoot 38 under par with 5 aces on his first attempt.
“Bush’s new Korean policy must mean Clinton had it right.” Hmmmm not so much Clinton, as the neo-liberal foreign policy mind-set may have had it right. Why not give credit where credit is due? The Bush Administration effectively used (so far) diplomatic means to achieve a desired goal, working side by side with the international community.
Everybody’s so worried about nuclear weapons…
What about chemical and biological weapons? Wouldn’t NK be able to develop those much cheaper, quicker, and “under the radar” — as opposed to nukes?
Mmmm… anthrax…
11…LOL, I’ve heard about that, and I can’t help but picture the old bastard whacking at balls like a drunk first-timer on some crappy brown municipal course. And then his helpers dropping balls into the cup after his have been sliced like bread.
Look, it isn’t the “Clinton doctrine” — Clinton just happened to be the last sane president. Bush Sr,. Reagan, Nixon etc etc all did the same kind of pragmatic diplomacy.
There are no perfect agreements with rogue countries like North Korea.
But an “iffy” deal is better than no deal at all. Bush’s failed North Korea policy certainly proved that.
But this isn’t “black and white” thinking so conservatives mock it.
#8 – Nah, 10 years just sounded like a nice, round number.
#12 – Honestly, so do I. But since I’m betting a paycheck, I’m covering the spread.
#16
But an “iffy” deal is better than no deal at all
The “iffy deal” idea worked well between the Brits and Germans in the ’30s.
Kim Jong-il has no interest in biological weapons. Any two-bit country can throw together some anthrax or mustard gas. But you’re not a “world power” until you have tested a nuke. For Kim, it’s all about prestige and money. There really isn’t much chance he will lead his nation to war as long as gets his ego stroked. That means he needs to see the mighty US treat him as a legitimate power. Our concern really hasn’t been that Kim Jong-il would use the nukes, we are afraid he will sell them. Perhaps our paying the ransom will mitigate this threat. Given the lack of support from China for anything more drastic, we can only hope this approach will work (this time).
Still, North Korea has never stated its goal is to attack the US — for starters, China wouldn’t sit still for such a threat. That isn’t the case with Iran. If Iran gets the bomb, you can expect a nuke to be detonated in an attack on foreign soil within 5 years. Iran will probably use a surrogate for the attack, but an attack will come.
There is some hope that the people of Iran will get fed up with their president’s saber rattling and force their country into more rationale behavior. Given time, I think this would work. But Israel isn’t about to sit calmly on the sidelines while Iran chambers a round into the pistol held at its head.
1) This has a lot less to do with Clinton being right than it has to do with China wanting to be the “go to guys” when it comes to negotiating things in that part of the globe.
19) We can all talk about whether or not Kim Jong-Il would actually do something other than rattling his sabre, but in the end China has no desire to have a democracy in their backyard and they will do whatever it will take to maintain a buffer so that its own citizens do not really see how a democratic society can flourish.
China is merely maintaining its “way of life” at the North Koreans’ expense. They don’t really care what happens in or to North Korea so long as North Korea doesn’t get the U.S. up in arms. That’s the main reason why China got “upset” with North Korea. The last thing China wants to happen is the U.S. come in and remove Kim Jong IL from power and have Korea reunified as a democracy. Oh by the way, it’s also a reason why there has been lukewarm reception from neighboring Middle Eastern Kingdoms concerning Iraq becoming a democracy.
Bottom Line, North Korea will most likely not even attempt to attack the U.S. but they certainly have no problems selling weapons to the U.S.’s enemies. China does just enough to keep North Korea from imploding with their own forms of “humanitarian” aid. China’s bigger interest is expanding their sphere of influence (at our expense if they can help it) all while they also expand their way of life. Think I’m crazy? You only need to look as far as Yahoo, Google, and Cisco to see what it will take to do business in China.
Back to North Korea, what’s the lesser of two evils? Should we keep feeding the North Koreans and perpetuating our own problems with them, or should we cut the cord and let them implode (although China will work hard to not let that happen). In the end, people will die, but which choice is less evil and which choice can most people stomach? Sadly, most people feel it’s more humane to feed the North Korean government even though it’s civilian population and children starve. Ignorance is bliss.
I think there are those who would rather react to fires instead of preventing them. I would rather prevent them. North Korea won’t be any different than Iran in terms of selling nukes to other hostile countries.
16) If you think an “iffy” deal buys you peace of mind, then I would suggest “Trust but verify”. Bush’s plan being a failure has more to do with internal politics here. It’s too bad that a lot of politicians are more preoccupied about winning and maintaining dominance in Congress or the Oval Office. rather than what is probably good for this country. I’d rather have black and white any day than shades of gray when dealing with someone who demonstrates you cant trust his word. What’s sane about giving a lying dictator more chances when you pretty much know there’s little chance he will keep his word. BTW, I’m not conservative.
Of course Clinton had it right. It naturally takes the GOP a while to figure out that we live in an imperfect world. Sometimes diplomacy actually is cheaper, better, faster and safer. It took the Bush goons 8 years and a trillion dollars to figure out they basically suck at foreign policy.
Hint:
In 10 years, Kim will die of dick cancer and some other ding dong takes over. In the foreign policy card game, diplomacy often buys time for a new hand. The dem’s figured that out. .. Stupid republicans.
Here we have Starbucks in Russia, China and McDonald’s in Vietnam yet our friend in Venezuela, Nicaragua and Iran are not quite our friends anymore. There is a message in there somewhere.
#18 The “iffy deal” idea worked well between the Brits and Germans in the ’30s.
If your point is that not all iffy deals work out, then I wholeheartedly agree.
But, if your point is that that we should totally disengage with all “bad guys” because they can’t be trusted, then I totally disagree. That’s the Bush Policy, to date, and its gotten us into a helluva mess.
Heck, even that old cold warrior Ronald Reagan made iffy deals with the enemy. You think that was a mistake?
#20,
Bush’s plan being a failure has more to do with internal politics here.
Bull crap. Bush has had a free unhindered hand in foreign policy for almost his entire term in office. Because of the lack of oversight, we have had all these blunders, second rate people “advising” the President, and manufactured excuses.
*
Yes China exerted pressure on NK. Most likely because they realize if NK gets too desperate they just might send a nuclear warhead into South Korea. Even if the US is weakened by Iraq, they would surely retaliate in kind against NK. Only in stronger terms. China just doesn’t want that kind of action on its borders. China would rather share some of its new found wealth in order to perpetuate that wealth.