Saturday, February 10, 2007
North Korea: Extreme multilateralism pushes us to the brink of peace
As previously reported, I am attending my company's national sales meeting in California and therefore out of touch with the media for roughly 15 hours a day. I have not seen television since Tuesday, and have managed only occasional glimpses at the news online. So perhaps I'm off base in my impression that there has been almost no high profile coverage of the huge Libya-style deal that we -- meaning in this one case the United States, China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea -- may be about to strike with North Korea. The New York Times, for example, put its story -- "Deal To Shut Major North Korean Nuclear Facilities Appears Closer" -- on page A6, displaced on the front page by stories about Rudy Giuliani allegedly shifting "gently" to the right on abortion, Harvard "planning" to name a female president, U.N peacekeepers in Haiti, and Princeton finally closing the small lab a couple of scientists were using to study ESP.
Read the Times article to the end. The details of the deal, which is now apparently just one issue away (one paragraph away!), have not been anounced, but leaks suggest that it will require North Korea to shut down its nuclear weapons program and go fully transparent, just as Libya did, before it receives most of the goodies under the deal.
[I]n Washington, officials at the White House and the State Department were preparing for a major announcement this weekend, and described the agreement as very different from the nuclear freeze that the Clinton administration negotiated in 1994. That agreement ultimately fell apart, and the North has produced enough fuel for more than half a dozen nuclear weapons during President Bush’s term.
“This is the Libya model,” said one senior administration official, referring to Libya’s decision in late 2003 to turn over all of the equipment it had purchased from the secret nuclear network run by the Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, to produce bomb fuel. In that agreement, both the Libyans and the United States executed a series of steps, in a carefully negotiated order, that rid the country of nuclear technology and ended its isolation.
This is not a "freeze," such as that negotiated by the unilateralist Clinton administration, which would leave Pyongyang in a position to restart its program with but a single decision. It is, apparently, a verifiable elimination of North Korea's program. And if it is indeed as transparent as the Libya deal, we will learn an awful lot about the extent of Pyongyang's illegal proliferation. It would be useful to know whether the North Koreans have, for example, been helping Iran (the revelation of which would fairly decisively confirm the "axis" part of the "Axis of Evil").
At the end of the process the United States and Japan will recognize North Korea. We will have an embassy in Pyongyang, and that means we have a channel for spying on North Korea.
Now, there is no deal yet. However, according to the BBC, the principle outstanding issues are among the five parties -- such are the perils of multilateralism -- and not between the five parties and North Korea.
This effort is the result of years of effort by my favorite American diplomat, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill. If you have ever seen this guy brief reporters on C-Span, you will agree that he is just about the smartest, wittiest and most candid diplomat Foggy Bottom lets near a microphone. This bit from the Bloomberg story gives you a taste for it:
Hill said North Korea wants a ``very precise measurement'' of how to go forward with implementing the declaration.
``I'm sounding Chinese now, but we have to be patient,'' he said.
"I'm sounding Chinese now"? Who says that to a reporter? Christopher Hill, that's who!
If North Korea does surrender its nukes and go genuinely transparent, it will be because George W. Bush insisted that we work with our traditional allies, engage our geopolitical rivals, avoid unilateralism, work within international institutions, respect international law, and refrain from the preemptive use of force, all notwithstanding the demands of Democrats and the mainstream media.
At the risk of perhaps jinxing the final deal, let's review the peanut gallery's opinions of the Bush administration's approach to North Korea:
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, October 11, 2006:Democrats such as Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois blamed North Korea's reported nuclear test in part on Bush's decision to not negotiate directly with the country, as the Clinton administration did. Durbin also said the Bush administration was distracted from North Korea by the "pre-emptive" war in Iraq. "It is clear that the Bush approach has failed," he said.
Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), November 16, 2006:In the aftermath of the test, "it is now abundantly clear to the world that our current policies have failed," said Lantos, who will wield the gavel when the new Congress convenes in January.
Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, October 9, 2006:A potential 2008 Democratic presidential contender, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin issued a statement denouncing Bush for using the vehicle of six-nation talks involving China and Japan to try to persuade North Korea to forego its nuclear weapons ambitions.
Sunday’s nuclear test, Feingold said, showed “the weakness of the Six Party approach as well as the danger of this Administration's hands-off approach to North Korea.”
He added, “the stakes are too high to rely on others to address the North Korean crisis.”
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, October 9, 2006:Where Democrats usually criticize Bush for what they call a “go it alone” strategy in Iraq, on Monday some Democrats took the opposite tack, criticizing him for being too multilateral and not unilaterally negotiating with North Korea.
“Bush aided and abetted the outsourcing of American jobs, and now he’s outsourced our diplomacy as well,” Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean cracked.
Senator Harry Reid, September 14, 2006:“On President Bush’s watch, and with the Rubberstamp Republican Congress in tow, North Korea’s nuclear threat has quadrupled. Though Bush Republicans have allowed North Korea’s plutonium stockpile to increase, Democrats are fighting to provide the real security Americans deserve. I urge President Bush to appoint the new North Korea policy coordinator recently called for in the Defense Authorization Bill. With South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun in Washington today, the President has an opportunity to change course from failed policies that have made America less safe.”
Senator Carl Levin, January 13, 2003:Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan said in a political debate program on the Fox network that the Bush administration should meet face-to-face with North Korea so as to prevent any miscalculations, adding such action would not mean compromising or surrendering.
The New York Times in unholy alliance with "senior Republican senators", June 26, 2006:What would be better still would be for the White House to heed yesterday's call by senior Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for direct talks with North Korea on the issue.
If this deal gets done on anything like the terms already leaked, it will be a huge diplomatic victory for the Bush administration, and the direct result of, quite simply, not blinking first. There is often value in both intransigence and restraint, and the United States almost always has more time for both than its impatient press and political system are willing to allow. In retrospect, this was obviously true in Iraq, a point the Democrats and the media have made incessantly. That so many leading Democrats have counseled the opposite in the case of North Korea suggests strongly that their position is not so much historical or principled as it is partisan.
UPDATE (9:30 am EST Sunday): There is still no deal, and the Norks seem to be digging in over the quantity of energy assistance they will get for flipping. This seems to contradict the earlier reports that the primary disagreements were among the other five parties. Still, it does seem as though they are awfully close. Let's hope that the United States stands tough on enforceable transparency, which at day's end is the most important thing.
7 Comments:
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Sat Feb 10, 02:38:00 PM:
L'Affaire DPRK was always a sham. That it could be anything other than a garden variety aid shakedown was embraced only by congenital idiots.
By 
, at
Sat Feb 10, 04:16:00 PM:
This is going to inject an additional portion of vitriol to Iran discussion. Certainly if this is as advertized it will become more problematic advocating a more energetic policy toward Teheran. Any arguments that Korean approach was tried and failed will be stalemated by the simple 'more time is needed that's all' response.
By , at
Sat Feb 10, 06:49:00 PM:
Saddam was obviously not running an extortion game based on his prior actions.
I don't believe the Iranians are either, or we'd be hearing about what would be an acceptable payoff by now.
By buck smith, at
Sun Feb 11, 10:53:00 AM:
Actually, this helps clear the decks for action against Iran. Potentially freeing US troops on the Korean peninsula and eliminating coordinated responses by the Nokos and Iran to US actions.
By Henry Hunt, at
Sun Feb 11, 05:25:00 PM:
Good article, I was pointed here by the corner, so I'm not a regular.
One comment. I watch Mr. hill often on Japanese TV and he is not someone I would ever want to negotiate on my behalf. He has more tells than a poker game in a house of mirrors. Good one him if this works out, but I remain skeptical of his abilities based only on his demeanor when cornered by the Japanese press.
-jcp-
By Henry Hunt, at
Sun Feb 11, 05:29:00 PM:
Sorry. That's "Good ON" Mr. Hill.
Its early and I'm typing on a laptop in bed.
-jcp-
By , at
Mon Feb 12, 11:47:00 PM:
The NORTH KOREANS are trying to make a VULTURE look like a DOVE
