Planetarion Forums

Cynical Oracle · 4 Sep 2003, 11:21

I watched a documentary made on the North Korea crisis and how the two administrations handled the situation. It seems that the blackmailing done by North Korea has recieved a response.

The Clinton administration backed the sunshine policy, and made an agreement to provide the N. Korea with two light water nuclear reactors and 500.000 tonns of oil a year in exchange for them to shut down their Nuclear Reactor, wich could be used to make WMDs and let weapons inspectors into the country.

Bush has declared himself unvilling to negotiate without the involvment of Japan and South Korea, while North Korea would like direct talks with the US. Also, the agreement broke down when Kim Jong Ill bought material used to process nuclear weapons from Iran, and tested a new long range missile. Since this, talks have been going badly.

Wich way do you think this should have been handled,; and, do you think Bush is a reaction to Clintons 'soft' line?

acropolis · 4 Sep 2003, 13:16

i think they both did as they should have.

i consider diplomacy to be a better first option than isolation and antagonism, and so clinton's plan (which had the potential to 'remove nukes' from N Korea, improve their standard of living, and get the us another trading partner) was a good idea at the time.

but then n. korea simply ignored their side. which would be okay with me (i don't care if they have nukes), except that if the US kept up our end knowing that they weren't keeping theirs, it would have given every nation on the planet thinking they could make promises to the US and just not keep them.

tbh, i think bush's actions with respect to N. Korea have been the best actions he's taken during his administration. By default more than anything else (vs. Iraq, Queda, terrorism, Israel, our allies, our economy, poverty, drugs, civil rights, environment, etc.).

Cynical Oracle · 4 Sep 2003, 13:46

While I agree with most of your points, do you think he could have gone even futher, as Kim Jong already stated he was mostly interested in bilateral talks and would compare a tradeembargo as an act of war; Bush could not survive politically with another war at the moment, but would not be able to run his consequtive line toward the 'axis of evil' ?

Tactitus · 4 Sep 2003, 16:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
I watched a documentary made on the North Korea crisis and how the two administrations handled the situation. It seems that the blackmailing done by North Korea has recieved a response.

The Clinton administration backed the sunshine policy, and made an agreement to provide the N. Korea with two light water nuclear reactors and 500.000 tonns of oil a year in exchange for them to shut down their Nuclear Reactor, wich could be used to make WMDs and let weapons inspectors into the country.

Bush has declared himself unvilling to negotiate without the involvment of Japan and South Korea, while North Korea would like direct talks with the US. Also, the agreement broke down when Kim Jong Ill bought material used to process nuclear weapons from Iran, and tested a new long range missile. Since this, talks have been going badly.

Wich way do you think this should have been handled,; and, do you think Bush is a reaction to Clintons 'soft' line?

With the benefit of hindsight it's clear that the Clinton approach was a mistake and only made things worse. I think it also shows the futility of making "deals" with unstable dictators. We don't (yet) have the benefit of hindsight for Bush's approach, but I don't see it strictly as a reaction to Clinton's as much as a difference in philosophy.

Clinton didn't want a confrontation with North Korea over their nuclear weapons development program and ignoring it wasn't a pleasant option (other nations, particularly South Korea and Japan were demanding that we "do something"). So Clinton basically tried to buy the North Koreans off--giving them some foreign aid in exchange for them agreeing to cancel their nuclear weapons program. Of course, they didn't cancel it (the inspections program they agreed to at the time was inadequate to the task--and both sides knew it. It was a de facto 'don't ask; don't tell' policy). If you wanted to be generous you could say that Clinton really hoped the North Koreans would hold up their end of the bargain; if you wanted to be cynical you could say he didn't care.

Bush's choice, then, was to either continue this charade or end it. Continuing it would have been the easier choice (he just would have had to act surprised when North Korea detonated their first bomb and then blame the CIA). Ending it would mean confronting the North Koreas but the Bush administration has shown it's not averse to confrontation. Of course, that just moved us back to where we were: other nations demanding that we "do something." Except now North Korea is on the verge of having nuclear weapons and time (and our options) are running out. Of course North Korea is dangling a new "deal," but only a fool would fall for that a second time.

I think Bush's attempt to try to get the South Koreans and the Japanese included in the negotiations is good move, because they are really the ones with the greater interests here. I don't see the North Koreans going for it, though.

Cynical Oracle · 5 Sep 2003, 10:22

Multilateral talks would be in the best interest for the Asian countries indeed, and also the US as they would not make agreements with N Korea on behalf of a third party. It would also, like Jimmy Carters first negotiation with Kim Ill Jong where he promptly made it 'Breaking News' on CNN, make it harder to cancel it.

The Clinton administration did a few bad moves towards the security in the middle east/asian region; and now Bush is in a hard position trying to solve the 'mess' created by a passive government.

I think Bush was elected to be hard. I don't think the American people got something unexpected. I would presume that, while war costs, so does bribery, and now it's payup time.

In an event where N Korea develops Nuclear capabilities it's to late, and the clock is ticking. What happens before or after we will see, but I think a larger war is inevitable unless there is done something to stop their research.

Woof · 5 Sep 2003, 10:40

Korea is too orangey for crows.

endokuken · 5 Sep 2003, 10:41

Can the real North Korea please stand up?

Cynical Oracle · 5 Sep 2003, 11:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Hihihi

Life is unfair to us.

Kåre Willoch · 5 Sep 2003, 11:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle

In an event where N Korea develops Nuclear capabilities it's to late, and the clock is ticking. What happens before or after we will see, but I think a larger war is inevitable unless there is done something to stop their research.

----------
Are you just trolling, or are you that stupid ?
War is not inevitable. You americans can just sign a non-attack pact with north Korea, and they'll give up their plans for the bomb. I hope you were aware of this. Ask yourself what's more costly to the US, a war against a real military opponent with a mass army quite well equipped, OR signing a piece of paper.

By the way, I can clearly see why countries try to get the bomb, they don't want any more blackmail from the US and it's superior warmachine.

Oh, soon the US troops will be holding only Kabul in Afghanistan, the rest of the country is too dangerous. Puts them pretty much in the position of the russians in the 70s.. Can't say I feel sorry for them.

Vaio · 5 Sep 2003, 11:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
----------
Are you just trolling, or are you that stupid ?
War is not inevitable. You americans can just sign a non-attack pact with north Korea, and they'll give up their plans for the bomb. I

He's not from the US, he's from the place where the mods put bad people which is Belgium

Vaio

lokken · 5 Sep 2003, 11:54

Why not offer the US Belgium instead of these middle eastern countries. The ground is relatively flat, ideal for their tanks, and they've been there before so should know the locality pretty well.

This would keep the US busy while getting rid of most of Belgium, I find it difficult not to approve of such a measure.

Cynical Oracle · 5 Sep 2003, 12:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
War is not inevitable. You americans can just sign a non-attack pact with north Korea, and they'll give up their plans for the bomb. I hope you were aware of this. Ask yourself what's more costly to the US, a war against a real military opponent with a mass army quite well equipped, OR signing a piece of paper.

It's not that simple. The Americans won't sign anything without it beeing multilateral.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
By the way, I can clearly see why countries try to get the bomb, they don't want any more blackmail from the US and it's superior warmachine.

It was initially Kim Jong Ill who 'blackmailed' the US to recieve additional funds. That they managed to do so with the Clinton adm. clearly shows that if the US are willing to pay 500.000 tonns of oil and two light water reactors in trade for a Nuclear Program shutdown there must be something to it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
Oh, soon the US troops will be holding only Kabul in Afghanistan, the rest of the country is too dangerous. Puts them pretty much in the position of the russians in the 70s.. Can't say I feel sorry for them.

I think you will find this to be nonsense if you do some research on the field.

Red · 5 Sep 2003, 13:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
----------
Are you just trolling, or are you that stupid ?
War is not inevitable. You americans can just sign a non-attack pact with north Korea, and they'll give up their plans for the bomb.

Yeah, and Kim Yong-Il did 11 hole-in-ones in his first game of golf

Kåre Willoch · 5 Sep 2003, 13:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Red
Yeah, and Kim Yong-Il did 11 hole-in-ones in his first game of golf

--
hehe

Ryudo · 5 Sep 2003, 14:06

The CIA shpuld just send an assassin after Kim Yong-Il, he is another unstable dictator, he has people kidnapped from other countries to satisfy his every whim, e.g. when he wanted a talented film director he had one kidnapped from South Korea.
Also when he saw Titanic he wanted one of his own about a Korean ship, I'm told it is almost the same apart from the name of the ship and where it sails too, because Kim Yong-Il made the director what Titanic 1000 time one after the other. These are a very few of the mad things he has done, like Saddam or Hitler, he is unstable and shouldn't be in charge of a country

Tactitus · 5 Sep 2003, 14:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
War is not inevitable. You americans can just sign a non-attack pact with north Korea, and they'll give up their plans for the bomb.

Yeah, just like they said they'd give it up after the last deal we signed.

Quote:

I hope you were aware of this. Ask yourself what's more costly to the US, a war against a real military opponent with a mass army quite well equipped, OR signing a piece of paper.

Are you channeling Neville Chamberlain?