Then came the Bushies, who didn't believe in treaties for the Lords of the Earth, which they must have been since they beat the Soviets in the Cold War. So they could just push punks like the North Koreans around. In 2004, they accused the North Koreans of developing a uranium enrichment plant, which, on top of a number of other strains in the relationship, cratered the Agreed Framework. Good. No more agreements with guys that the neocons would prefer to regime change.
So I'm wondering about the timeline on the enrichment plant that the North Koreans just showed Sig Hecker (NYT, LA Times, Sky News, BBC) Sig is quoted as saying the development of the plant was rapid, which suggests it happened after 2004. Last year, there was some indication that this was coming.
The North Koreans have rather regularly reached out to Sig. He was the person most responsible for reaching out to the ex-Soviet weapons scientists when the Soviet Union collapsed, and it's clear that the North Koreans would like him to do the same for them. Unfortunately, it's mixed with a lot of bluster, which is exacerbated by stuff like the Bush/neocon swagger about regime change, accusations, and general boneheadedness. Yes, the North Koreans do a certain amount of swaggering, but responding in kind isn't serious diplomacy.
So did the Bushies' accusation of a uranium-enriching plant encourage the North Koreans to go ahead with one? That would show the world their capabilities. Or, if they're going to be accused of something they don't have, they might as well have it.
All the news accounts I've linked above emphasize the weapons possibilities (fear this!) and how this is going to make negotiations that much harder. I suspect that when they interviewed Sig, he said some things about North Korea's desire to reach out as well as the dangers; he always says such things in his presentations, of which I've seen several.
Another Bushian mess to clean up.
Update: Paragraph added to clarify what the time sequence might be telling us.
Yet another update: Sig's report. h/t to Plutonium Page.
From the report:
A high-level North Korean government official told usI have heard Sig mention numerous "hints" that the North Koreans have provided. I'm hoping the negotiators have been listening to them too.
that the October 2000 Joint Communiqué, which brought Secretary Madeleine Albright
to Pyongyang, is a good place to start.
More from someone who's been talking to Sig recently.
Welcome to those clicking over from Crooks & Liars. I've written a more recent post on Senate politics over the New Start Treaty here.
9 comments:
"So did the Bushies' accusation of a uranium-enriching plant encourage the North Koreans to go ahead with one? That would show the world their capabilities"
That's absurd, Cheryl.
The Norks build nuke facilities regardless of who is president or which party is in power here. You could just as easily argue -and with as much evidence- that Kim Jong-imbecile unveiled the plant because Obama is "weak".
Zen -
I have heard Sig say, many times, that the North Koreans are very proud of their capabilities and want to be recognized. It's not who's president, but the accusation that could well have been some of the motivation to go ahead with something that also made sense (to them) in terms of their national security.
'The Norks build nuke facilities regardless of who is president and which party is in power'
There's a lot of truth in that - and also in Cheryl's note it made sense to them in terms of their national security. The problem is you seem incapable of assimilating their worldview.
There is a little matter of broken promises to N.K. which should have made them feel quite free to deal with deadbeats,liars and thieves as they felt such deserved.
Take a look at what I had to say - I'm NOT a U.S. citizen - and realize I've been playing with the geopolitical propaganda strategizing on the NPT for some time : to whit, it's a trap to guarantee countries set themselves up to be interfered with, gives an excuse for harassment, and certifies their state of helplessness to retaliate in kind to nuclear attack....not surprising when you consider the Korean War is still 'on' almost 60 years after the last go-round with MacArthur.
It's the 'Cold' War - and it never stopped. The President and party nominally in charge still take their orders from the bagman and the policies are fixed in granite.
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2010/11/21-november-remembering-path-of-war-in.html
Dec 20 2009 Afghanistan,etc. outlines a quite wild and woolly Conspiracy Theory. Only problem is...it works in practice.
You could just as easily argue -and with as much evidence- that Kim Jong-imbecile unveiled the plant because Obama is "weak". I was thinking about this overnight. On first reading, I agreed, it's absurd on the face of it.
However, how many Republican talking points have centered on what other countries are likely to do because Democratic presidents are "weak"?
I realize they're not doing that just now because the Republicans are the ones arguing for policies that will allow, for example, Vladimir Putin to game his strategies by arguing that a weak United States President can't get treaties ratified by the Senate.
And countries do take advantage of other countries' perceived or real weakness. So it's possible that the rulers of a country might feel they have something to prove to the world. Plus it's national security, plus revealing this facility at this time just might have something to do with the (perhaps) upcoming negotiations.
"The problem is you seem incapable of assimilating their worldview."
Or perhaps Sig, as you don't actually know me, the problem is that you're a condescending ass with an agenda who is too close to his sources.
Take a look at what I had to say - I'm NOT a U.S. citizen - and realize I've been playing with the geopolitical propaganda strategizing on the NPT for some time : to whit, it's a trap to guarantee countries set themselves up to be interfered with, gives an excuse for harassment, and certifies their state of helplessness to retaliate in kind to nuclear attack....
Your citizenship is not a relevant variable to me.
The NPT regime is designed - albeit, rather poorly - to discourage nuclear weapons proliferation in return for access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Quid pro quo.
So yes, what you call "harrassment" and "interference" is visited upon states seeking to acquire nuclear weapons by the United States if the state in question is also generally hostile to Anerican and Western interests. That was the whole point of the treaty from the inception. Such can be avoided by not trying to develop nuclear weapons on the sly.
It's not a very effective policy. Nor is it applied evenhandedly, but as a policy it does impose *some* costs on *some* states determined to have nukes and slow down their timetable. It's 1945 technology, we can't actually stop any nation "willing to eat grass", from getting the bomb if they are willing to make those sacrifices, which North Korea clearly is.
If you are an avid DPRK watcher then you hardly need to be told Pyongyang's history of squeezing subsidies from Moscow and Beijing during the Cold War by playing one against the other and generally being a headache. The US can basically contain North Korea as a security threat but our ability to change it's internal policies or nuclear ambitions with bribery or threats is minimal. Let the Chinese keep North Korea afloat financially, our dollars are better spent elsewhere.
Hi Zen -
I think you mean Opit, not Sig?
Hi Cheryl,
Yes, correct. My apologies to Sig.
'Contain the DPRK as a security threat'.
That's what war games in a disputed area are to accomplish I take it.
Saying the NPT is designed to slow up nonproliferation is buying into the Mission Statement. That doesn't work out too well when the Third Pillar of the NPT is routinely, regularly and religiously mocked, flaunted and pissed on.
After a few decades people notice that what is said in the treaty is in fact used as an opportunity for spying and economic warfare both. It also can be selectively enforced - so that India ignores Russia's offer of four reactors for the US offer tying arms purchases into the mix : an opportunity for payola. 'Threat' ? Putin said attacking Iran would be viewed as an attack on Russia itself. The 'analysis' ? That he was b.s.ing.
Whatever. B.S. from somebody with nukes and delivery systems is more threatening than speculation about somebody you know not likely capable of defending themselves enthusiastically in comparison. Which is why nonsense about Nork threat is just that.
I remember Saddam trying to pull the same noise. Look where it got him. You're saying NK is suicidal to strut their 'toughness' while they are being threatened by the biggest military on the planet.
'Sorry Bass. I'll be good now. Whip we some more.'
They don't figure that'll work somehow. Having being carpet firebombed might have something to do with generating fear.
Opit, your rants are confused and incoherent. Plus links might be nice for some of your more outrageous statements. (Russia would take an attack on Iran as an attack on itself? Please.)
It's not at all clear what your point is except that you don't like the NPT.
So I'm closing this thread to further comments.
Post a Comment