Bush Gets It Right

The excellent news out of East Asia is that Ambassador Chris Hill has not only managed to strike an okay deal with the North Koreans over their nuclear program, but also triumphed over administration hawks and gotten Bush to do the sensible thing. For a while now, Bush has been tilting in a reasonable direction with regard to the DPRK (after years-worth of screw-ups that have forced us to accept a much worse deal than we could have had years ago), a direction that John McCain has denounced in favor of the only approach he knows -- coercion, escalating conflict, and the risk of war. And, indeed, since at least 1999 McCain has been calling on us to reject pragmatism in Korea in favor of war:

McCain repeated this trope throughout the speech, drawing on his personal history and adopting the rhetoric of moral seriousness about the consequences of committing American forces. But awareness of the consequences was, for McCain, no reason to avoid starting a war. Indeed, McCain almost seemed disappointed that the Clinton administration managed to peacefully resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis with the "agreed framework" of 1994. He remarked in Kansas that "a firmer response to North Korea might have triggered a war, a war we would win, but not without paying a terrible price." McCain was sophisticated enough to recognize that other policy options such as refusing aid to the North might nonetheless have resulted in conflict "as the North's last desperate measure."

This analysis, in the hands of a normal person, becomes a defense of the Clinton administration's policy -- though a bit distasteful, the agreed framework was the only way to avoid a destructive war. Not, however, to McCain. In his view, efforts at conflict prevention are fundamentally misguided. He told the Kansas State audience that notwithstanding the Clinton administration's efforts, Korea's leaders "remain quite capable of launching in their country's death throes one final, glorious war. But now, they are much, much better armed." In short -- war is inevitable, so better to get it over with as soon as possible.

But good for Bush and good for Ambassador Hill.

Comments

I guess we can add Bush II to the list of Republican Presidents who ended up being damn dirty appeasers.

Posted by DTM | June 26, 2008 8:53 AM

On the other hand, it does give some credence to McCain's claim that he's not simply going to continue Bush's policies.

Posted by Tel | June 26, 2008 9:03 AM

So basically when it comes to foreign policy, McCain really is simply the worst parts of Bush and Cheney all rolled into one angry doughball.

Posted by LFC | June 26, 2008 10:06 AM

But ... but ... I thought we didn't negotiate with evil regimes?! I thought those who suggested diplomacy were a bunch of pussified dirty fucking hippies?!

So why the change of heart?

I'm starting to think those accusations only apply if the regime in question doesn't like Israel ... but that couldn't be it, could it?

/snark

Posted by Mark D | June 26, 2008 10:20 AM

It is quite an accomplishment, and Hill definitely deserves most of the credit.

But FYI, Hill is "Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs," not Ambassador.

Posted by Steve W. | June 26, 2008 10:22 AM

It is quite an accomplishment, and Hill definitely deserves most of the credit.

But FYI, Hill is "Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs," not Ambassador.

Posted by Steve W. | June 26, 2008 10:25 AM

It is quite an accomplishment, and Hill definitely deserves most of the credit.

But FYI, Hill is "Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs," not Ambassador.

Posted by Steve W. | June 26, 2008 10:29 AM

Excellent news indeed, but why does Korean progress on the nuclear disarmament get them taken off the state sponsors of terrorism list? Did anyone really suspect that they were doing all this so they could hand over nukes to Al Qaeda? Or that they were funding terrorists (which ones?) in return for nuclear secrets?

If N. Korea is supporting terrorism, they should still be on that list; if they're not, then it just shows that the list was nothing more than a meaningless political fiction used to scare up money for the war on terrorism.

Posted by Jared | June 26, 2008 10:43 AM

Leave it to Democrats to try to reap credit where none is deserved.

It was during the Clinton Administration that Dads, Kim Il Sung, was able to throw that Administration over the barrel because he fully understood he could keep his program, proceed in secret, and commit that Administration to a bilateral program. The Elder Kim understood that the Clinton Administration would be too embarrassed to admit that it was taken to the cleaners, but partisans like Yglesias will never admit that the North Koreans were lying from the beginning. Nor will Matt ever, ever admit that the U.S. needed to get the Chinese and the Russians to the table. This is what Rice and Hill understood that the Democrats could never admit: that the American procedure to go hat in hand to the North without anything substantive in return would always come a cropper.

This was not because the Clinton Administration was feckless or dishonest. They wanted a good agreement to try to open up the North to eventual peaceful reunification with the South. Yglesias gets his partisan back up because he can't tolerate criticism of the Agreed Framework or the Clintons' diplomacy because he doesn't understand that the issue here isn't the Clintons or the Democrats, but the nature of regime in Pyongyang. The Clintons efforts weren't appeasement as such; rather, it was an incomplete understanding of what was needed that Rice and Chris Hill brought to fruition.

Albright and Berger were lied to repeatedly by the North. It's not that we didn't negotiate in good faith. We did. The North never intended to abandon its bomb program and saw it as regime insurance. In the late nineties and into the 21st Century, the North wanted to have its cake an eat it too. By bringing the Chinese and the Russians on board, we brought in the North Korean allies. That's the only way we could get this deal done and disabuse the Kim Junior Regime of that notion.

John Bolton and the Ledeen crowd are just as wrong about Rice's State Department. Rice's decision to support Chris Hill's efforts were critical in this regard, and she did so agains withering fire both within the White House and from the Usual Suspects at the National Review and the Weekly Standard (viz., Steven Hayes' recent hit piece, or the caterwauling on the Right about the 25 million that was unfrozen in the Macau banks as if civilization itself was at stake...). What she understood that Bolton and the Clintons only partly perceived was the following: that the North Koreans were finally ready for a settlement of the 1950-53 Korean Conflict.

That's what this is all about. The nuclear issue is a smokescreen for the larger issue of the settlement of that war. That's why the Six Party Talks had to exist, because those were the parties involved in that conflict.

One of the parties, North Korea, probably won't exist in ten years' time. Rice and Hill know this. You people don't give her the credit she deserves on this, mostly because of your partisanship. That's okay. Neither do the folks over at the Wall Street Journal and the American Spectator.

Sometimes it pays to have all the right enemies, especially when you're doing the right thing.

Posted by section9 | June 26, 2008 11:43 AM

Leave it to Democrats to try to reap credit where none is deserved.

It was during the Clinton Administration that Dads, Kim Il Sung, was able to throw that Administration over the barrel because he fully understood he could keep his program, proceed in secret, and commit that Administration to a bilateral program. The Elder Kim understood that the Clinton Administration would be too embarrassed to admit that it was taken to the cleaners, but partisans like Yglesias will never admit that the North Koreans were lying from the beginning. Nor will Matt ever, ever admit that the U.S. needed to get the Chinese and the Russians to the table. This is what Rice and Hill understood that the Democrats could never admit: that the American procedure to go hat in hand to the North without anything substantive in return would always come a cropper.

This was not because the Clinton Administration was feckless or dishonest. They wanted a good agreement to try to open up the North to eventual peaceful reunification with the South. Yglesias gets his partisan back up because he can't tolerate criticism of the Agreed Framework or the Clintons' diplomacy because he doesn't understand that the issue here isn't the Clintons or the Democrats, but the nature of regime in Pyongyang. The Clintons efforts weren't appeasement as such; rather, it was an incomplete understanding of what was needed that Rice and Chris Hill brought to fruition.

Albright and Berger were lied to repeatedly by the North. It's not that we didn't negotiate in good faith. We did. The North never intended to abandon its bomb program and saw it as regime insurance. In the late nineties and into the 21st Century, the North wanted to have its cake an eat it too. By bringing the Chinese and the Russians on board, we brought in the North Korean allies. That's the only way we could get this deal done and disabuse the Kim Junior Regime of that notion.

John Bolton and the Ledeen crowd are just as wrong about Rice's State Department. Rice's decision to support Chris Hill's efforts were critical in this regard, and she did so agains withering fire both within the White House and from the Usual Suspects at the National Review and the Weekly Standard (viz., Steven Hayes' recent hit piece, or the caterwauling on the Right about the 25 million that was unfrozen in the Macau banks as if civilization itself was at stake...). What she understood that Bolton and the Clintons only partly perceived was the following: that the North Koreans were finally ready for a settlement of the 1950-53 Korean Conflict.

That's what this is all about. The nuclear issue is a smokescreen for the larger issue of the settlement of that war. That's why the Six Party Talks had to exist, because those were the parties involved in that conflict.

One of the parties, North Korea, probably won't exist in ten years' time. Rice and Hill know this. You people don't give her the credit she deserves on this, mostly because of your partisanship. That's okay. Neither do the folks over at the Wall Street Journal and the American Spectator.

Sometimes it pays to have all the right enemies, especially when you're doing the right thing.

Posted by section9 | June 26, 2008 11:45 AM

Leave it to Democrats to try to reap credit where none is deserved.

It was during the Clinton Administration that Dads, Kim Il Sung, was able to throw that Administration over the barrel because he fully understood he could keep his program, proceed in secret, and commit that Administration to a bilateral program. The Elder Kim understood that the Clinton Administration would be too embarrassed to admit that it was taken to the cleaners, but partisans like Yglesias will never admit that the North Koreans were lying from the beginning. Nor will Matt ever, ever admit that the U.S. needed to get the Chinese and the Russians to the table. This is what Rice and Hill understood that the Democrats could never admit: that the American procedure to go hat in hand to the North without anything substantive in return would always come a cropper.

This was not because the Clinton Administration was feckless or dishonest. They wanted a good agreement to try to open up the North to eventual peaceful reunification with the South. Yglesias gets his partisan back up because he can't tolerate criticism of the Agreed Framework or the Clintons' diplomacy because he doesn't understand that the issue here isn't the Clintons or the Democrats, but the nature of regime in Pyongyang. The Clintons efforts weren't appeasement as such; rather, it was an incomplete understanding of what was needed that Rice and Chris Hill brought to fruition.

Albright and Berger were lied to repeatedly by the North. It's not that we didn't negotiate in good faith. We did. The North never intended to abandon its bomb program and saw it as regime insurance. In the late nineties and into the 21st Century, the North wanted to have its cake an eat it too. By bringing the Chinese and the Russians on board, we brought in the North Korean allies. That's the only way we could get this deal done and disabuse the Kim Junior Regime of that notion.

John Bolton and the Ledeen crowd are just as wrong about Rice's State Department. Rice's decision to support Chris Hill's efforts were critical in this regard, and she did so agains withering fire both within the White House and from the Usual Suspects at the National Review and the Weekly Standard (viz., Steven Hayes' recent hit piece, or the caterwauling on the Right about the 25 million that was unfrozen in the Macau banks as if civilization itself was at stake...). What she understood that Bolton and the Clintons only partly perceived was the following: that the North Koreans were finally ready for a settlement of the 1950-53 Korean Conflict.

That's what this is all about. The nuclear issue is a smokescreen for the larger issue of the settlement of that war. That's why the Six Party Talks had to exist, because those were the parties involved in that conflict.

One of the parties, North Korea, probably won't exist in ten years' time. Rice and Hill know this. You people don't give her the credit she deserves on this, mostly because of your partisanship. That's okay. Neither do the folks over at the Wall Street Journal and the American Spectator.

Sometimes it pays to have all the right enemies, especially when you're doing the right thing.

Posted by section9 | June 26, 2008 11:46 AM

No oil patch, so no special focus from our failed Texas oil man, still aching from his unfullfilled gusher fantasies.

N. Koreans have never shared the deeper beliefs & dreams of America's truer soul mates...the Iraqis, Iranians & Inuit... with whom America has so much more in common.

Bush & first officer Cheney are clinically Pon Far for the fantasy lands in which they long to drill. N. Korea is lucky that he/she/it has a poor dowry: no black gold, Texas tea, lumber, unemployed software writers or anything obvious to exploit.

By her poverty is N. Korea spared from America's special attention.

Posted by bryan murray | June 26, 2008 11:47 AM

No oil patch, so no special focus from our failed Texas oil man, still aching from his unfullfilled gusher fantasies.

N. Koreans have never shared the deeper beliefs & dreams of America's truer soul mates...the Iraqis, Iranians & Inuit... with whom America has so much more in common.

Bush & first officer Cheney are clinically Pon Far for the fantasy lands in which they long to drill. N. Korea is lucky that he/she/it has a poor dowry: no black gold, Texas tea, lumber, unemployed software writers or anything obvious to exploit.

By her poverty is N. Korea spared from America's special attention.

Posted by bryan murray | June 26, 2008 11:47 AM

Leave it to me to screw up the posting. Sorry kids. RedHat said there was some sort of #500 posting error.

Sorry about that. Administrator please remove two of these and have a nice day!

Best,

Section9

Posted by section9 | June 26, 2008 11:49 AM

Regarding commentary posted by section9: well said. An unusually astute analysis in the forum/message board arena. I can still envision the photo of Albright toasting Jong. I think most Americans were wise to the regime, or at least those of us with kinsmen who'd fought in that war. Thanks--KDay

Posted by Kay B. Day | June 26, 2008 12:02 PM

I guess that means that We've Never Been At War With East Asia. Oceania had better watch out.

Posted by microtherion | June 26, 2008 1:44 PM

The North Korea deal is just more proof that the Surge is working.

Posted by Geoff G | June 26, 2008 3:27 PM

Section9 is completely wrong. It was Clinton who reneged on the Agreed Framework, dragging his feet over the light water reactors and failing to supply the fuel oil agreed to.

Then Bush came in and totally scrapped the Agreed Framework and added his "Axis of Evil" crap to the "diplomacy".

The North Koreans adhered to the Agreed Framework until Clinton and Bush demonstrated their bad faith.

As for McCain, he doesn't care that Pentagon war games show the US suffering fifty thousand casualties in the first ninety days of a war with North Korea. The 30,000-odd troops we had near the DMZ (now moved further south during the last couple years because of the threat of imminent war over the nuclear issue) would have been destroyed in the first 48 hours.

But McCain is a "war hero" and "supports the troops".

Right.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 26, 2008 4:41 PM

It is my recollection that Richard got it right. For all the mantra that North Korean regime is "unpredictable", the unpredictable party was always USA.

Given high uncertainty (justified) that USA will deliver on promises, it was not cheating but keeping open options to hide part of the nuclear program (whose scope was allegedly later vastly exaggerated by Koreans themselves).

Another thing: North Korea was accused by USA to use a bank to clear the proceed from currency forging, and to my knowledge, proofs were never presented to the Chinese. I think we lied, pure and simple. North Korean were using this point for months, and we never refuted them. Our credibility with Russia and China is pretty low as a result (and as a result of numerous instances like that, I guess).

Realistic foreign policy has to be based on actual reality, rather then some kind of "there are evil and guilty of everything we can think of".

Posted by piotr | June 27, 2008 5:37 AM