Bush on North Korea

[turbo]

Bush has steadfastly refused to talk to North Korea after defining it as one member of the "Axis of Evil" and he has adamantly refused to seek broad-based diplomacy, choosing to "go it alone". It is interesting that he now calls for the "international community" to face up to North Korea. Where is this jerk coming from? He cuts our ties with the international community, alienates most everybody in NATO, appoints an interim embassador to the UN who wants to disband the UN, and then pleads for back-up? Bush is a joke! We need to elect a congress that will stand up to him, reject his "signing statements" and force him to obey the rule of law. We don't need a dictator running the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061009/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_nkorea;_ylt=Asv.zPA1YNpvcqNpXW_waJKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ-- [Broken]

 

[Bystander]

Who's walked out on bi-partite, tri-partite, and two or three combinations of n-party talks? Not the Russians. Not the Chinese. Not the South Koreans. Not the Japanese. Not the U.S..

 

[ptabor]

I may be mistaken, but isn't Bush the one who wants to continue the 6 party talks, while NK insists on 1 on 1 negotiations with the US?

 

[turbo]

I may be mistaken, but isn't Bush the one who wants to continue the 6 party talks, while NK insists on 1 on 1 negotiations with the US?

Do we reject diplomacy when the pool of participants is reduced to 2 parties? Why? To "save face" that would be lost by negotiating with an enemy that the administration previously swore they would not negotiate with? That is not sufficient cause. Is it to avoid the perception that the US and NK are negotiating as equal partners? That is absurd on the face of it and is not sufficient cause. If there is one good reason why our diplomatic corps should not negotiate privately with NK (if only to stop the proliferation of ballistic missiles), please let me know.

This administration has firmly rejected diplomacy in many instances, leaving international sanctions or military action activity as their only options. The problem with the former is that the administration has squandered the good-will that we once enjoyed with the international community, making sanctions difficult to apply and enforce. I believe we all know the problems that accompany the latter approach.

 

[ptabor]

well, I'm playing devil's advocate here...

I speculate that the administration's reasoning for not entering into 1 on 1 talks is that they want to maintain an air of legitimacy about the process. They could also want to avoid the appeasement policy that was tried in the past, and obviously failed. To be honest, I don't know the intentions and motivations of this administration, so these are my "best guesses" - first order approximations, if you will.

I think you may have contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you state that Bush is adopting the go-it-alone policy on NK, yet in the other you state that Bush refuses to enter into 1 on 1 negotiations. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

As far as what should be done... I'm not certain how sanctions will pan out. From what I understand their main source of aid is China/Russia - and I'm not convinced they will actually abide by internationally imposed sanctions.

As far as our goodwill is concerned, you are correct in that we have squandered it. I don't think this will be a problem in this situation, as most countries recognize that it is in their best interest to keep nukes out of the hands of NK. Surely they will not go against their own interests just to spite the US.

 

[Astronuc]

There are several reasons to avoid unilateral discussions with NK, with the biggest being it gives the appearance to the world that NK is on the same level as the US. Other reasons include the fact the NK is a neighbor of China and Russia, so its appropriate they be involved.

The US cannot afford unilateral negotiations with every single nation - it is just too impractical. Unilateral discussions with Canada and Mexcio make sense only because both nations border the US. Even NAFTA involved multilateral discussion with Canada, Mexico and US.

It is appropriate that the UN plays a role, since what NK does affects all nations.

 

[turbo]

The go-it-alone policy is the standard Bush ploy. In other words, the the administration does not wish to compromise with NATO, the UN, or other global partners when pursuing foreign policy policy goals. Just rattle the sabre and rely on the US's military superiority to force compliance. That is a one-dimensional approach to foreign policy that is bound to keep us in war and in debt forever as real needs and grievances go unaddressed.

The refusal of the US administration to have even private discrete 1-on-1 talks with NK is emblematic of the John Wayne approach in which overwhelming force can be brought to bear against any problem, no matter how complex and nuanced. Life ain't the movies, though.

I would love for our allies and rival superpowers to forgive the slights of the Bush administration and join in meaningful negotiations with NK (and impose and enforce sanctions, if necessary), but the administration has got to make some conciliatory moves to our partners, and I don't see it happening.

OT Note: I am WAY more socially liberal than the Democratic party and WAY more fiscally conservative than the Republican party, and have to hold my nose to vote for any of the candidates that the parties put up. I would very much appreciate voting for a candidate that would pursue diplomacy instead of war, pursue universal health care (so that families cannot be denied help because they are poor or be driven into poverty because a family member develops cancer), and will stay our of peoples' personal business. If we were to go to a fair taxation system, roll back the military spending and pork-barrel waste in Congress, etc, we could easily afford to fund SS and health care without running multi-trillion dollar deficits. Other industrialized nations do this - why is it impossible here? I cannot believe that somehow we are less capable, only that the powers that control our elected representatives are very successful in preventing legislation that would benefit the public to the detriment of their clients.

 

[turbo]

There are several reasons to avoid unilateral discussions with NK, with the biggest being it gives the appearance to the world that NK is on the same level as the US. Other reasons include the fact the NK is a neighbor of China and Russia, so its appropriate they be involved.

The US cannot afford unilateral negotiations with every single nation - it is just too impractical. Unilateral discussions with Canada and Mexcio make sense only because both nations border the US. Even NAFTA involved multilateral discussion with Canada, Mexico and US.

It is appropriate that the UN plays a role, since what NK does affects all nations.

It is a whole lot cheaper to send a diplomat, some translators, and support staff to have talks with the representatives of a country than to mobilize military force against them, or to bribe powerful people in our "allied" governments to stand with us. It is also a whole lot more humane, since it is less likely to end with human suffering. I would far rather pay for a large diplomatic corps staffed with career professionals (not political appointees) than pay for our bloated military. We should have the capability to protect ourselves, but it is a hell of a lot cheaper to prevent wars than to conduct them and pay for the aftermath. One of my dearest old friends was a Quaker, who died a few years ago. I learned a lot from that dear lady, and I miss her.

 

A country can not have effective diplomacy without some sort of power (whether it be economic power, military power, etc.). Call it tribal. Call it primitive, but it's true. There is a reason why people listen to Condoleezza Rice. It is not because of what she says, it is whom she is saying it for. Mongolia, for instance, can probably train or hire diplomats of the same caliber as ones from the rest of the world, but Mongolian diplomats simply do not have as much authority backing them up.

So even if a country's agenda does not include acts of aggression, it may still want to build up its military so it can posture itself advantageously at the bargaining table.

 

[Cyrus]

State of Denial.

 

[russ_watters]

Do we reject diplomacy when the pool of participants is reduced to 2 parties?

What you are describing is not "reject[ing] diplomacy", it is setting the terms under-which diplomacy is to occcur.

Why? To "save face" that would be lost by negotiating with an enemy that the administration previously swore they would not negotiate with?

Again, when, precisely, did Bush swear we would not negotiate with North Korea? And the way you are saying that implies you think Bush said he wouldn't negotiate with Bush under any terms.

If there is one good reason why our diplomatic corps should not negotiate privately with NK (if only to stop the proliferation of ballistic missiles), please let me know.

This administration has firmly rejected diplomacy in many instances...

Could you please cite one for me?

I would love for our allies and rival superpowers to forgive the slights of the Bush administration and join in meaningful negotiations with NK (and impose and enforce sanctions, if necessary), but the administration has got to make some conciliatory moves to our partners, and I don't see it happening.

Huh? If NK refuses to have those talks, how can other interested parties hold them. Bush wants those talks and other interested parties want those talks. You seem to have admitted that in your second post. Heck, the very title of the article you posted is "Bush: World leaders united over N. Korea". You are contradicting yourself.

 

[Gokul43201]

Russ, what turbo is saying is that Bush continues to reject bilateral talks with DPRK.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=bush+rejects+talks&btnG=Search+News

 

[Bystander]

--- as do the Russians, Chinese, S. Koreans, and Japanese reject bilateral talks between N. Korea and the U.S.. This thread is NOT about N. Korea --- it's about Bush, as have half the threads in P&WA been about Bush. If the U.S. begins a bilateral negotiation, the "whine cellar" gripe is going to be that "Bush is 'John-Wayneing' it, and ignoring the interests of the other interested parties in the region." "Heads," the libs win, "tails," Bush loses.

Somebody wanta close this train-wreck?

 

[Cyrus]

Could you please cite one for me?

Come now Russ, you know better than that.

RICHARD HOLBROOKE: Iran is the crux of the problem. It has been for a long time. It has gotten increasingly dangerous. Bill and I certainly agree on that.

My argument is that we should be prepared to talk to them directly, if possible.

CHARLIE ROSE: That`s diplomacy.

RICHARD HOLBROOKE: And that there`s nothing wrong with diplomacy as long as it`s backed up by the readiness to use force if necessary.

Now, as I listen to Bill and some of his colleagues, I have the feeling that, for reasons which are either real or politically driven, that, Bill, you and your colleagues, many of you seem to feel that the very word diplomacy connotes weakness.

I simply don`t share that. I believe -- and this is a response also to what Newt wrote -- I believe that you start with diplomacy backed up by the power and authority of the United States. I`m talking now about Iran and Syria. I`m not talking about Iraq. Iraq is a desperately difficult situation, which I hope we can address separately in a minute, because it`s the underlying problem.

Many of the things -- I don`t -- of course, I reject your comments about Clinton administration. He did plenty of very effective things. And by the way, the continuous negotiation with Syria and the in the Middle East, from Kissinger right through Colin Powell, were essentially productive in keeping the lid on in a very dangerous area. That`s my view, and I do not believe diplomacy equals weakness. And my own record -- and unlike you, I`ve had the privilege of being shot at for my country in three wars, on three -- in many wars on three continents. I`ve advocated the use of force and worked on targeting. I know what the situation is. I`m ready to use force again if necessary any time to defend the national security.

But you start with diplomacy. That`s the lesson of the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy was ready to use force if he needed to, but you don`t -- but you seem to say that diplomacy is weakness. And I just don`t buy that.

BILL KRISTOL: I don`t say that, but let`s look at the instances you just cited. We kept the lid on with our diplomacy with Syria. Yes, we also allowed Hezbollah to build up a very strong state within a state. We allowed a terrorist group to occupy a territory bordering on Israel. I don`t think our diplomacy with Syria was successful over the last 10 years. I guess that`s a difference we have. I`m not against diplomacy in all cases. We have to judge it by results. I totally agree with that.

RICHARD HOLBROOKE: Bill, can I just clarify so we at least narrow our difference. I would never claim that the diplomacy with Syria was successful in those terms. It succeeded in keeping the lid somewhat on. It kept the Syrians out of the conflict.

And this goes to a core issue. Do you negotiate with people who are either in the evil empire -- Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union and he was right to do so -- or the axis of evil. President Bush has said he will not talk to North Korea, to Iran, and now he says he won`t talk to Syria.

I can tell you for a fact that the Syrians are pleading for direct dialogue on an authoritative level. And for the administration to say publicly, as they have at every level, the Syrians know what they have to do and just live leave it at that is not responsible. That is part of diplomacy. But I`m not afraid to use force. And you shouldn`t confuse me with strawmen that you create in your column.

Where was this diplomacy when Israel was bombing lebanon?

Where is it with Iran?

Where is it with Syria?

Where is it with North Korea?

Where was it leading up to the war in Iraq? Ignoring weapons inspectors findings, and telling the world screw you, were going it alone. Very diplomatic.

Diplomacy does not mean do as I say or else Ill bash your head in. That's not diplomacy, that's bullying, and the rest of the world isint going to take that crap anymore. The US has relations with plenty of other countries we don't agree with, so this whole notion that we can't talk to them is bull and we both know it.

 

[Cyrus]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/11/1430219 [Broken]

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Cumings, you just mentioned how A.Q. Khan had gotten nuclear material to North Korea. Three years ago, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh revealed that Pakistan was helping North Korea build the bomb. Hersh reported the CIA had concluded that Pakistan had shared sophisticated technology, warhead design information and weapons testing data with the Pyongyang regime. But according to Hersh, the Bush administration sat on the CIA report, because the White House didn’t want to divert the focus from Saddam Hussein, and Pakistan had become a vital ally in Bush's war on terror.

BRUCE CUMINGS: Well, I think Seymour Hersh is right. Pakistan did have a nuclear Wal-Mart for North Korea, Iran and Libya, other countries. We did not punish Pakistan in any way for this, even though they were the worst proliferators by far in the world. And the Bush administration, when it came in, in 2000, was presented during the transition, by Clinton administration officials, with intelligence that North Korea had begun importing enriched uranium technologies from Pakistan, and they sat on it for 18 months until the preemptive doctrine was announced in September of 2002.

James Kelly then went to Pyongyang the following month, in October of ’02, and confronted the North Koreans with this evidence of a second nuclear program. And the North Koreans, as they almost always do when confronted with their backs to the wall, said, “Fine, you know, we have it. We’ll see you later.” And they proceeded to kick out UN inspectors that had been on the ground for eight years, removed themselves from the NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and reopened their reactors. Furthermore, they got control of 8,000 fuel rods that had been encased in concrete for eight years, and that probably is the plutonium that would be at the basis of this bomb test.

So, this was a complete and utter failure, because North Korea paid no penalty for jumping out of the NPT again, getting back their reactors. And the Bush administration continued to essentially argue inside the administration about whether to topple the regime or try and negotiate with it. So it was really quite a remarkable failure, and North Korea, let alone Pakistan, neither one of them, until now, has really paid much of a price for this.


AMY GOODMAN: Yesterday, Arizona Senator John McCain gave a speech in Detroit, and he said, “I would remind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and other critics of the Bush administration policies that the Framework Agreement of the Clinton administration was a failure.” Explain what that Framework Agreement was.

BRUCE CUMINGS: Well, it was an agreement that came after a very dire threat of war in 1994 that froze their entire plutonium facility at Yongbyon in North Korea. They had seals on the doors, closed-circuit television, and at least two UN inspectors on the ground, 24/7, all the time. So there isn't any possibility of that agreement having failed. It held for eight years and denied North Korea the plutonium that would have allowed them to make more bombs. Senator McCain is engaged in some sort of demagoguery here, because I don't know a single expert who would say that that Framework Agreement was not successful, at least for eight years, in keeping North Korea's plutonium facility shutdown.

Now, the enriched uranium program is not even clearly a program for a bomb. It may be to enrich uranium for light-water reactors that were expected to have been built by the United States and its allies. But even if it is for a bomb, it’s much more difficult to enrich uranium to a weapons grade and create a uranium bomb than it is to create a plutonium bomb, plus they already have now, thanks to the Bush administration’s policies, the wherewithal for six to eight plutonium bombs, so in effect they don’t even need the other program.

People say North Korea cheated. Wow, isn’t that really terrible? Kim Jong-il cheated. I don't know anyone who thinks that Kim Jong-il is a person who can be trusted, but I do know that North Korea kept that agreement made in 1994 and the U.S. did not. We pledged ourselves to normalize relations with North Korea. We didn’t do that. We pledged ourselves to build light-water reactors. They got started in 2002. So when you actually look at that agreement between country X and country Y, rather than the endlessly demonized North Korean regime, you see that we are responsible, as well as the North Koreans, for the current situation.

But as far as Senator McCain is concerned, he is just flat wrong. It’s not a partisan question. It’s a question of knowing what that agreement was and whether it was carried out or not.

Bruce Cumings is a professor of history at the University of Chicago. He is the author of several books on North Korea, his latest North Korea: Another Country and Inventing the Axis of Evil. He joins us in the studio from Ann Arbor, Michigan. Welcome to Democracy Now!

Yeah, Bush wants diplomacy, right...

 

Bush has had six years to do something about NK.

I can't say I am much impressed with his success, or lack there of.

So what will his next step be?

I shudder to even try and guess?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, what turbo is saying is that Bush continues to reject bilateral talks with DPRK.

turbo-1's statements were more general than that and they are self-contradictory. Ie, saying we want to "go it alone" while rejecting bilateral talks is self-contradictory. Bush is rejecting bilateral talks partly because we do not want to go it alone. We have a coalition and if we decide to do bilateral talks, we will be breaking that coalition to "go it alone".

 

[russ_watters]

Come now Russ, you know better than that. ...quote...

What does that quote have to do with North Korea?

Where was this diplomacy when Israel was bombing lebanon?

Where is it with Iran?

Where is it with Syria?

[snip]
Where was it leading up to the war in Iraq? Ignoring weapons inspectors findings, and telling the world screw you, were going it alone. Very diplomatic.

What do those have to do with North Korea?

Where is it with North Korea?

It has been covered in the thread. Do you have an argument as for why the lines of reasoning already argued are flawed?

Diplomacy does not mean do as I say or else Ill bash your head in. That's not diplomacy, that's bullying, and the rest of the world isint going to take that crap anymore.

Turbo-1, you really need to get off your soap-box and start paying attention to what actually happened. The US did negotiate multi-laterally with North Korea and a compromised was reachd. The next day, North Korea broke that agreement and demanded a nuclear reactor be provided for them before they would come back to the table. Like you said: that's not diplomacy, that's bullying. You're lookign at this issue backwards.

Turbo-1, it really looks like you jumped-into a rant without even knowing the history of what acutally happened. Could you comment on that actual history (described above) so I at least know you are aware that it happened?

 

[russ_watters]

Bush has had six years to do something about NK.

I can't say I am much impressed with his success, or lack there of.

Indeed - he's been busy dealing with a country that Clinton had 8 years to do something about, with little success. :uhh:

edit: btw, that's three years (plus a few months) since the current situation started with North Korea pulling out of the NPT.

 

[turbo]

There are dymanics here that are important to NK but are glossed over in our press. Technically, we are still at war with them, and have not recognized them diplomatically. Engaging in one-to-one talks, even on a low level, will affirm that the US is dealing with them as a nation, not a rogue territory. This may be enough to gain some concessions at the outset - at least an agreement to suspend fuel-enrichment programs (whether they are effective or not).

Anyone who has followed the tortured reasonings for and against particular diplomatic initiatives with Taiwan and mainland China might appreciate NK's position. At this point, the US treats NK as a rogue territory, with China as its main supporter, and China views Taiwan as a rogue territory with the US as its main supporter. There are similar alliances all over the world. If the present administration had any creativity at all, they would ask our main trading partner (PRC) to engage in productive one-on-one diplomacy with Taiwan in exchange for us engaging in one-on-one diplomacy with NK. Sometimes we have to give a little to get a little, and the Chinese and the North Koreans know this. It's better to be talking with these people than to be rattling sabres and throwing down challenges. The stakes are too high. Diplomacy and negotiation have critical roles in foreign policies, and the present administration refuses to use these tools. Sometimes, internal pressures in a country can be leveraged in a negotiation to the extent that the the country's leadership is pressured into accepting things that we want and that they adamantly oppose. Suppose that the US agrees to help ease NKs critical shortages of foods, medicines, etc, in exchange for their cooperation in curtailing nuclear programs and in converting their economic base to the production of consumable products instead of dumping all their money into the military? If the NK people knew of such an initiative, it would be hard for Kim to rally them against it. If we could help stabilize the Korean Pennisula, gain a trading partner, and reduce Kim's dictatorial stranglehold on NK, would we not all benefit?

 

[russ_watters]

Here is some info on the six-party talks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-party_talks

Here is some info on North Korea breaking up the six-party talks and attempting to break up the coalition:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/09/19/korea.north.talks/index.html [Broken]

North Korea said Tuesday it would begin dismantling its nuclear program only if the United States provides a light-water reactor for civilian power.

The demand could threaten a day-old agreement between North Korea and the five nations involved in nuclear disarmament talks.

A timeline of North Korea events: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1132268.stm

An article discussing N Korea's demand for bilateral talks and why they would do that (to break up the coalition): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16214-2005Feb11.html

North Korea's request for direct talks appears to be aimed at trying to split the fragile unity of its bargaining partners...

Throughout the two years of talks, North Korea has sought to win upfront, direct benefits from the United States as a condition for agreeing to end its nuclear programs. Despite pleas from South Korea, the Bush administration has refused even symbolic gestures until North Korea gives up its programs and its claims are verified by U.S. intelligence...

Another Asian official said the predominant view in his government is that this is a negotiating ploy, particularly because North Korea's negotiating partners had made it clear Pyongyang needed to make a counteroffer to the U.S. proposal. But he said there is a minority view that North Korea will not give up its weapons and thus a change in tactics is necessary.

Essentially, North Korea is demanding concessions before it will even go back to the bargaining table it was at before. Rediculous.

 

[russ_watters]

There are dymanics here that are important to NK but are glossed over in our press. Technically, we are still at war with them, and have not recognized them diplomatically. Engaging in one-to-one talks, even on a low level, will affirm that the US is dealing with them as a nation, not a rogue territory.

Again, you are mischaracterizing the history. The action in Korea is now and was always a United Nations action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

And the words "recognized them diplomatically" are misleading at best. We certainly recognize that they are a country with a right to exist. We don't have an embassy there for the same reason they have no embassy here.

At this point, the US treats NK as a rogue territory, with China as its main supporter, and China views Taiwan as a rogue territory with the US as its main supporter. There are similar alliances all over the world. If the present administration had any creativity at all, they would ask our main trading partner (PRC) to engage in productive one-on-one diplomacy with Taiwan in exchange for us engaging in one-on-one diplomacy with NK.

What?? Those situations are nowhere near analagous. For starters, the US doesn't claim ownership of North Korea.

Sometimes we have to give a little to get a little, and the Chinese and the North Koreans know this.

No, the North Koreans are demanding concessions before they will return to the negotiating table they left.

It's better to be talking with these people than to be rattling sabres and throwing down challenges.

You are reading your newspaper upside-down again. The US is not issuing challenges and demands, North Korea is. The US has stated explicitly that we will return to that negotiating table with no pre-concessions by either side. What could be more fair than that?

Diplomacy and negotiation have critical roles in foreign policies, and the present administration refuses to use these tools.

Simply not true and you now must know it. The US was talking and North Korea left the talks. And an agreement was made in one round that NK went back on the very next day. Who is not negotiating in good faith?

Suppose that the US agrees to help ease NKs critical shortages of foods, medicines, etc, in exchange for their cooperation in curtailing nuclear programs and in converting their economic base to the production of consumable products instead of dumping all their money into the military?

That is precisely what we are trying to do and what NK agreed to do before they renounced their own negotiated position.

If the NK people knew of such an initiative, it would be hard for Kim to rally them against it.

NK already agreed to it, but the NK people know only what Kim tells them.

If we could help stabilize the Korean Pennisula, gain a trading partner, and reduce Kim's dictatorial stranglehold on NK, would we not all benefit?

Certainly. How do we do that? Will assisting in NK's nuclear program prior to them sitting back down at the negotiating table help...?

 

[turbo]

russ, please read this article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2151354/

 

[Bystander]

(snip)Suppose that the US agrees to help ease NKs critical shortages of foods, medicines, etc, in exchange for their cooperation in curtailing nuclear programs and in converting their economic base to the production of consumable products instead of dumping all their money into the military? If the NK people knew of such an initiative, it would be hard for Kim to rally them against it. If we could help stabilize the Korean Pennisula, gain a trading partner, and reduce Kim's dictatorial stranglehold on NK, would we not all benefit?

"If pigs had wings ..." Concatenations of longshots aren't viable alternative policies. You assert, "Diplomacy and negotiation have critical roles in foreign policies, and the present administration refuses to use these tools," from a privileged position within the state department? Or, are you guessing, based on Bush not doing what you think you would do in his position, and on the fact that he hasn't consulted you personally for guidance on the matter? You have no idea what offers have been made. I have no idea. Russ has no idea. We ain't in "the loop." Complaints about the performance of government that are based entirely on speculation are pointless. State a problem; discuss the possibilities, discuss the circumstances, but don't go guessing what is and what ain't and proceeding to conclusions.

 

[Cyrus]

What does that quote have to do with North Korea?

It has to do with what you questioned turbo about, namely:

This administration has firmly rejected diplomacy in many instances...

And you replied:

Could you please cite one for me?

More importantly, it demonstrates a clear pattern that this administration does not believe in true diplomatic negotiations to reach their objectives. (let's not get into a he said, she said, because that's pointless )

Turbo-1, you really need to get off your soap-box and start paying attention to what actually happened. The US did negotiate multi-laterally with North Korea and a compromised was reachd. The next day, North Korea broke that agreement and demanded a nuclear reactor be provided for them before they would come back to the table. Like you said: that's not diplomacy, that's bullying. You're lookign at this issue backwards.

Turbo-1, it really looks like you jumped-into a rant without even knowing the history of what acutally happened. Could you comment on that actual history (described above) so I at least know you are aware that it happened?

No, that was me who said it :tongue2:. Thank's for that info, as I was not aware. Can you put a date to that fact so I can put it into prespective?

Did you see the transcript I provided?

People say North Korea cheated. Wow, isn’t that really terrible? Kim Jong-il cheated. I don't know anyone who thinks that Kim Jong-il is a person who can be trusted, but I do know that North Korea kept that agreement made in 1994 and the U.S. did not. We pledged ourselves to normalize relations with North Korea. We didn’t do that. We pledged ourselves to build light-water reactors. They got started in 2002. So when you actually look at that agreement between country X and country Y, rather than the endlessly demonized North Korean regime, you see that we are responsible, as well as the North Koreans, for the current situation.

This is why I asked about the time frame.

In any event, Bush is not a diplomat, he's a cowboy. That should have been fairly obvious to everyone after the fiasco of invading Iraq. We distorted evidence and went to war with Iraq, meanwhile Ignoring the real problem of Iran and North Korea.

 

Indeed - he's been busy dealing with a country that Clinton had 8 years to do something about, with little success. :uhh:

Let me see. Clinton was in the process of normalizing relations. The IAEA was monitoring NK nuclear sites. probably not all but enough to significantly curtail any weapons programs. NK was not producing plutonium. And as far as I know, they never tested a nuclear device.

Bush changed policy toward NK almost as soon as he took over the office. Go ahead, blame Clinton for this and say his policies were a failure. And perhaps you are correct, his policy may not have worked, but at least he was getting some positive results. Bush's policy is escalating the situation, unless you think NK testing nukes is a positive development.

edit: btw, that's three years (plus a few months) since the current situation started with North Korea pulling out of the NPT.

And why did they pull out? Oh I guess it must have been Clinton's fault.

 

[Cyrus]

Turbo-1, you really need to get off your soap-box and start paying attention to what actually happened.

No, Russ, no one is standing on a soap box. This is all from past events. Read below if you do not believe me.

CHARLIE ROSE: What did he say?

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: He did -- certainly said that on terrorism, we have to fight terrorism, and he was annoyed at whatever happened. Obviously, everyone was. And he said you -- I want to ask you whether on terrorism, are you with us -- either you are with us or you are against us.

CHARLIE ROSE: Repeating the president`s words?

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Yes. Now, I didn`t take much time. I said, as far as terrorism is concerned, we are the victims of terrorism, and we`ll fight terrorism. We are ready to fight terrorism. But that was all that we discussed.

Now, as far as Richard Armitage, I didn`t talk to him. He didn`t ring me up. I got a message, I think it was either on the second or the third day, from my DD ISI, that he had a meeting with Richard Armitage, and he was very rough, and these are the words that he told him.

CHARLIE ROSE: "We will bomb you back to the stone age."

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: "Unless you`re with us."

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Yes. So, these are the facts which I know. Whether Richard Armitage said those or not, I don`t know.

CHARLIE ROSE: We have a conflict now. You have what your intelligence chief said to you.

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Yes. That`s what I`ve written.

CHARLIE ROSE: "Stone age" is what he said; bomb you back to the stone age.

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Exactly what I`ve written there.

CHARLIE ROSE: Richard Armitage says I may have used tough language, but I would never say that, because I didn`t have the authority to say that.

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: No comments.

CHARLIE ROSE: Oh, come on. How do you - how do you -- somebody is not .

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Speaking the truth.

CHARLIE ROSE: Not you, because you`re not party to it.

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Yes, I`m speaking the truth. I know what was told to me.

CHARLIE ROSE: Told to you?

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: And have you called your intelligence person and said, well, Armitage says he didn`t say that? That`s what you told me, what`s the problem?

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: No, no, I didn`t do that. I didn`t do that. No. I didn`t --- I don`t -- I really don`t want to make it an issue. Why should we make this an issue?

CHARLIE ROSE: One thing about the Armitage business, you told "60 Minutes" that you felt it would`ve been - it was rude if those words were used, rude, and it did not please you.

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Yes. Yes, of course. Yes, they were rude. My own mental make-up, frankly, is to confront. I have been - I have been taught confrontation. I`ve been trained to confront. So my first reaction obviously is to an offensive statement, counter-offensive.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why didn`t you?

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: But then .

CHARLIE ROSE: Or did you?

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Well, I don`t know. I must have said something rude also, but I didn`t mean to go and tell him this exactly. But when -- I think when states are involved, when national issues or regional or maybe international situations come up, personal bravado is -- I think leadership, it defines a leader to put personal bravado aside and think of bigger than themselves.

CHARLIE ROSE: You know, even the president said he may have used the wrong language at times over the last five years.

 

Quote:(turbo)
This administration has firmly rejected diplomacy in many instances...
(Russ)
Could you please cite one for me?

How bout Iraq..., My reasoning for why the current admin's stance is so stand- offish is: 1) Our military is stretched to thin {with the situation worsening in Iraq & Afghanistan} 2) The US has lost a great deal of credibility internationally, 3) Bush is apprehensive,possibly, about what could happen with 1 on 1 talks between the US and NK.{ie, The US losing Face,slang term - getting dis'd} 4) Bush and/or members of his admin are not really as concerned about NK as the public is led to believe. 5) The admin really is hog tied about what policy(ies) to pursue.

 

[Bystander]

Might be useful if the participants would state their definitions of "diplomacy;" it's more than a little obvious that some are using the "social definition," while others are using the "technical definition."

Edit: (append) Kissinger talking tough and giving everything away; Harriman talking "soft" and giving everything away; Gromyko talking tough and giving nothing away; Ribbentrop and Molotov talking "soft" and giving nothing away --- respectively, examples of bad "technical diplomacy," bad "social diplomacy," good "technical diplomacy," and "good" social (and technical) diplomacy.

 

[Astronuc]

North Koreans Arm Ethiopians as U.S. Assents
NYTimes - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/world/africa/08ethiopia.html

WASHINGTON, April 7 — Three months after the United States successfully pressed the United Nations to impose strict sanctions on North Korea because of the country’s nuclear test, Bush administration officials allowed Ethiopia to complete a secret arms purchase from the North, in what appears to be a violation of the restrictions, according to senior American officials.

The United States allowed the arms delivery to go through in January in part because Ethiopia was in the midst of a military offensive against Islamic militias inside Somalia, a campaign that aided the American policy of combating religious extremists in the Horn of Africa.

. . . .

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, as the administration has made counterterrorism its top foreign policy concern, the White House has sometimes shown a willingness to tolerate misconduct by allies that it might otherwise criticize, like human rights violations in Central Asia and antidemocratic crackdowns in a number of Arab nations.

It is also not the first time that the Bush administration has made an exception for allies in their dealings with North Korea. In 2002, Spain intercepted a ship carrying Scud missiles from North Korea to Yemen.

Hmmmm!

 

[Gokul43201]

Astro, could you throw in the link to the article?

 

[BobG]

Astro, could you throw in the link to the article?

North Korea sells arms to Ethiopia with U.S. OK

John Bolton was right about something for once.

It does reflect a more pragmatic approach to foreign policy, but this particular deal hurts anti-nuclear proliferation more than it helps in Somalia.

 

[denverdoc]

Not to deflect this thread, and maybe it should become a new one addressing my question which is: has there been any instance in the past 100 years where we supported a gov't that was socialist or communist? By supported I do not mean providing financial aid or other inducements? I mean simply engaging in reasonable negotiations without threat of force, like you might with a neighbor across the fence in the backyard. Heaven help me, i don't see it. I remember the SALT talks with USSR, which might remotely fall under this definition. Help me, because I have seen neither a peace dividend nor a more stable world after USSR ceased to be the bad guy. Hell now the French and Germans are bad guys because they don't completely accept our positions on foreign policy. Proliferation via Packistan has made the world more dangerous. Now they are a friend with even greater exchange of technology in the offing.

The Irani's are now trumpeting their 300 centrifuges to produce "energy".
Where did we go wrong?

 

[turbo]

The Irani's are now trumpeting their 300 centrifuges to produce "energy".
Where did we go wrong?

We have gone wrong every time monied interests in control of aspects of our government have chosen profit and expediency instead of ethics, morality, and sound policies regarding the future of the human race. Whenever a politician tells us that we must aggressively oppose another country on the basis of ideology or some perceived threat, it's time to take off the blinders and start following the money. Jingoism and flag-waving are the clearest signs that our politicians are engaging in behavior that is detrimental to most of us, and financially beneficial to their handlers.