North Korea deal should have been made years ago

By Trudy Rubin/The Philadelphia Inquirer
Tuesday, Jul 01, 2008 - 11:08:57 am CDT

Dick Cheney was angry.

He was answering questions at a meeting of foreign policy experts in Washington last week. Then he got a query about the U.S. decision to de-list North Korea from the terrorism blacklist.

"It was a fascinating, little bit scary moment because the vice president ... just went stone silent" says the questioner, Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation. Cheney gave a non-answer and exited the room.

That moment sums up the tragic contradictions of the Bush administration’s foreign policy. In the never-ending battles between its pragmatists and uberhawks, the North Korea deal marked a huge defeat of the Cheneyites and a victory for Condoleezza Rice.

But this was a deal that could, and should, have been done at the beginning of Bush’s first term. As John Bolton, our former United Nations ambassador and a harsh critic of the deal rightly said, this deal is "the same thing that the State Department was prepared to do six years ago. If we are going to cut this deal now, it’s amazing we didn’t cut it back then."

It was not done then because Cheney’s views were then ascendant. In the meantime, North Korea became a dangerous nuclear power.

Now, with their legacies in mind, Rice finally convinced the president they should try to change North Korean behavior through painstaking diplomacy, rather than pursue the chimera of regime change.

Bush’s change of heart has infuriated Republican superhawks. "This is a sad, sad day," said Bolton. "I think we’ve been taken to the cleaners."

Wrong.

Yes, the deal’s imperfections are apparent. Pyongyang has turned over 19,000 pages of documents of its plutonium production program for making nuclear weapons, and has blown up the cooling tower at its main nuclear reactor. It has yet to reveal, however, the details of a secret uranium enrichment program. (Most experts don’t believe that program got far.)

Also missing are accounts of its sales of nuclear technology to other problematic nations, like Iran and Syria. Israel recently blew up a Syrian facility that supposedly was a nuclear reactor being built secretly with North Korean help.

The North Koreans, the most infuriating of negotiators, were six months late in turning over the documents. Verification will be difficult but crucial. Much needs to be confirmed in next 45 days, during which Congress can review the deal.

And, yes, the superhawks are correct to call the regime of Kim Jong Il despicable. It has starved its own people and sentenced untold thousands to death camps. One issue that slowed the deal was North Korea’s failure to come clean with Japan over the fate of scores of Japanese who were kidnapped from Japanese coastal areas. The abductees were forced to train North Korean spies. Some have been returned to Japan, but the fate of others is still unknown.

President Bush said he would work with Japan to resolve this issue, and he should do so. He did not, however, mention the equally tragic case of U.S. permanent resident and Christian missionary Kim Dong-shik, who was abducted by North Korean agents in northeast China in 2000 while helping desperate North Korean refugees flee their country. If Kim is still alive, he presumably is suffering inside a North Korean prison. This case, too, needs resolving.

The bottom line, however, is not whether the deal is imperfect; it is whether a deal makes visible progress toward ending North Korea’s nuclear program. "We believe our policy could verifiably get the (North Korean) regime out of the plutonium-making business," Rice wrote in the Wall St. Journal. That is a big deal.

The Cheneyites have never admitted their path has led only to failure. The White House debunked and backed off a 1994 U.S.-North Korean deal that had shut down Pyongyang’s plutonium program. The result: North Korea unsealed the reactor, enriched six to 10 bombs worth of plutonium, and tested a weapon. Nor did the Cheney approach do anything to improve Pyongyang’s terrible human-rights record.

For years, Bush permitted multilateral talks but no direct U.S. contacts with North Korea - a charter member of the "axis of evil." Only when Rice finally let U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill engage directly with his North Korean counterparts in 2007 did talks finally move forward. Cheney was reportedly furious.

Future progress will be slow and incremental. North Korea may backslide. But removal from the terrorism list provides only minimum economic benefits. Other sanctions won’t be dropped before Pyongyang lives up to its commitments. "What if North Korea cheats?" Rice asks rhetorically. "The answer is simple. We will reimpose ... sanctions."

Her message sounds so logical, so pragmatic. Negotiate, assess progress, look for incremental change rather than the transformation of nations. What’s unclear about the new White House pragmatism is whether the president has connected the dots on stopping dangerous nuclear programs, dots that connect Libya to North Korea to Iran.

Direct talks led to the end of Libya’s nuclear program, and hold the best chance to curb North Korea’s. But the wait of seven years will make it much harder to reach that goal with Pyongyang, and exponentially harder to reach similar results with Tehran.

The burden will fall on the next president. Hopefully, he will learn from this one’s mistakes.

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Readers may write to her at: Philadelphia Inquirer, P.O. Box 8263, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101, or by e-mail at trubin@phillynews.com.

(c) 2008, The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

Leave a Comment

All posts are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Email Address Required
   
SamIam
Jul 1, 2008 7:15 PM
Dick Cheney is a war monger that gambles with our lives.

I hope W lives a long life, so he can see just how history treats his failure of a presidency.

These two are the most arrogant since Nixon/Agnew and history will treat them similarly.

The Karl Rove politics of division and attack at all cost have damaged us as a nation.
Tex
Jul 2, 2008 9:38 AM
Samlam, Amen!
fremonter
Jul 7, 2008 2:58 PM
to samlam and everyone else;
i agree with you completly. i also have to say that anyone in this country that believes that the problem with north korea is taken care of is either dead or numb from the neck up. do any of you really believe that north korea has destroyed their nuclear facilities? wake up people. we can trust north korea, iraq, iran, and others about as much as we could trust nixon, g.w. bush, cheney, carter, or just about any politician. i cant believe how stupid people are. these foreign countries are sick and tired of us telling them how to run their countries. why do you think 9-11 happened? it was a warning of things to come. these countries are tired of us sticking our noses into their business and they are going to do alot more than just what happened on 9-11. that was nothing compared to what is coming. these people do not have the same ideals about life as we do. mark my words. its coming.
LSB
Jul 7, 2008 4:15 PM
SamIam, Tex and Fremonter... I 100% agree. Fremonter, I have been saying the same thing for years. We used to be viewed as the protectors of the world. We were there if someone needed help or if our own people/country was threatened but we pretty much kept our nose to ourself when we could. Since our invasion of Iraq, against the advice and recommendations of NATO, the USA is seen more as a big bully. It is not our place to force our ways on any other country. That is the point of being a sovereign nation, you rule how you see best for your country/people. How would we feel if the tables were turned? What if Iran or N Korea or France for that matter felt that our president was worthless and it was up to them to come in and overthrow him and our government? I am not saying that Sadam was not a bad person and that he should not have been removed from office, I just don’t think it was our place to make that decision. It should have been a joint decision agreed upon by all of NATO before invading and not up to big bad USA and GW Bush saying we know more than anyone and have the right to throw our weight around to get what we want.
Where is it our authority to tell another country that they can not have nuclear power? How is it that it is ok for us to have it but not someone else? Because we think we can be trusted but they can't? That is like the school bully taking away the weak kids ball bat because he doesnt want he kid to be able to defend themself when the bully attacks. Every country has the right to defend themself whether we like it or not. Yes, it does mean there may be a threat to our country, but why can we be a threat to them but not vice versa?
fremonter
Jul 7, 2008 8:24 PM
amen lsb. we have been asking for it for a long time and now its gonna hit the fan.
Brian
Jul 8, 2008 7:41 AM
I know ALL of you disagree with me but so be it.
1. The cease-fire at the end of the 91 gulf war decreed that Sadam had to disarm according to the UN and their inspectors. He did NOT. The UN passed many resolutions for him to comply to the 91 agreement but he did not. the war was legal and we did have allies going in. France & Russia were against us big time going in b/c they were getting illegal kickbacks in the oil for food program with Sadam.
2. Over the weekend a story on headlaine news CNN: "yellow cake"-- enriched uranium, was shipped from Iraq to a Canadian company recently who paid the highest bid for it. The enriched uranium is part of the stepping process for nuclear energy or weapons.
3. You are all right in the fact that the US should not say who can have nuclear energy and who cant. But what about nuclear weapons?? Both Sadam & the Iranian current president have said in the past that they would wipe Israle off the face of the earth. On June 7, 1981, an Israle air strike blew up a nuclear plant 11 miles Sw of Bagdad shortly before going operational.
How are you going to prevent any arab nations from taking nuclear energy by-products and taking the next step to building weapons? How are you going to stop them from giving such weapons to a terroist & going into Israle.
4. the tribune comment policy does not allow one to put up websites. But Last thursday I found out that that the Iraqi government signed a 5.5 billion contract with Boeing for 787 airliners and and a Canadian company for smaller airliners. Things are better over there then the mainstream media lets on. LSB,
I am truly sorry your cousin was killed over in Iraq, and my heart goes out to you and your family. But At this point in time I feel the decision going into Iraq was the right one. If anything DaddyBush was wrong in NOT stopping at his borders in 91. But that could be debated till the end of time. Russia & we did not stop at hitlers borders in 1944.
5.Yes the US was the protecter of the world in history. We won 2 world wars and the cold war, thus giving freedome to billions of people worldwide. We are still protecting the world. Its just today people are more "liberal leading, or pacafist" then they were 50 or 70 years ago. Can you imagine todays people arguing with FDR about our entry into WWII. Keep in mind we invaded France & the Philipines in WWII (along with other islands or nations) but they did not attack us. Muslim radicals want to controll the world like Hitler, Tojo, or the Communists of previous generations. I dont "LIKE" the fact we are at war overseas, but sometimes it has to be done. No one "likes" chemo treatments, but when one has cancer they have to do what they have to do.
6.As for North Korea, you cant please anyone. When Bush,cheney acted tough to n Korea they are called War mongers. If they negotiate, its said it was stupid b/c Nkorea cant be trusted. In your eyes nothing they could do was right.
Anyway take care all & have a good day.
fremonter
Jul 8, 2008 8:59 AM
sounds to me like brian believes everything that is printed or told to him by our government. as a veteran of vietnam, i can tell you that the government is full of liars. certain people in this country make alot of money on wars and if you believe me to be wrong, then find a way to check on their finances and stocks etc. i know for a fact that what i am saying is the truth. wake up and get a grip on reality.
Brian
Jul 8, 2008 9:23 AM
Fremonter,
First of all, Thank you for your service to our country in the military. I appreciate your sacrifice.
Secondly, I do NOT trust EVRYTHING I read or is told by our government. I have been a history buff my whole life and I am well aware that our government regardless of political parties one follows is fully capable of dishonesty. Both R's & D's have been dishonest in our nations 231 year history. But of course that is an easy argument. If one diagrees with one party R or D, then those against the party will claim dishonesty supporting their views. I have heard as many conspiracy theories against the R's as I have heard or read against the D's. BTW the story I heard about the "yellow cake" was on CNN headline news, a liberal leaning news network. the Airliner story was on a link to a NON government website which had other links to news organizations. But tribune comment policy does not allow websites to be put up due to lack of time to verify them. Have a good day fremonter
Brian
Jul 8, 2008 10:55 AM
fremonter, btw
I am fully aware that politicians have investments and do things with government policy that would increase their wealth. That is nothing new. But it cuts both ways. After John McCain won the R primaries for candidate for pres, his wife Cindy was forced to sell two mutual funds (The Euro Pacific growth fund, and the Capital World Growth & Income Fund) becuase each fund had a couple of companies that did business in Sudan, which has a government known for civil right abuses. After Obama wins the election this fall, will Cindy be allowed to buy them back if she chooses too? Or is the media going to use political correctness to tell people where they are allowed to invest. I highly doubt When Cindy's broker suggested those funds they looked at evry company in the fund to see where each place they did business. My source for this was yahoo finance. But we all know AL GORE has been on a global warming crusade since he lost election in 2000. Anyone looking at his investments would see that he is HEAVILY invested in companies that would highly profit the more "green" society gets. But you never hear that from the media whenever he is getting attention from his global warming activities. But anyway have a good day and thanks for serving again.
fremonter
Jul 8, 2008 11:52 AM
to brian:
thank you for your comments about me serving. i also wanted to say that if we think real hard and think rationally, this is what we come up with. if someone, in the news media, says anything about a politician or his or her policies. and it really (i have to use the word upsets) them enough, that politician will contact someone that has connections with the fcc. the fcc people will be asked to investigate the liscense of that persons television or radio station. they will look at when that stations liscense is up for renewel, or whether or not there are any, and i mean any, complaints about that station so they can use that as a reason to suspend or cancel that stations liscense. it all a nasty game. if you upset me i will see to it that you get upset. they act like a bunch of children instead of adults. it has happened before and i'm sure it will happen again. theres only 2 reasons that the station will come out of it clean. help from another politician or lots of money. just another example of corruption.