Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Who Let North Korea Get the Bomb?

I enjoy a good anti-Bolton hatchet job as much as the next man, but David Sanger’s effort in the New York Times (Sanger & Broad, U.S. Had Doubts on North Korean Uranium Drive, March 1, 2007) inspires more disgust than admiration.

The short version of the purported scoop is this: the U.S. let engagement with North Korea collapse in 2002 because administration hardliners insisted on confronting Pyongyang over a uranium enrichment program that is probably mostly vaporware. North Korea took advantage of the breach to reinitiate and rush ahead with its plutonium program, explode a bomb, and stockpile material for several more.
Moral: It’s John Bolton’s fault that North Korea got the atomic bomb.

Or, as the Times puts it:

“The question now is whether we would be in the position of having to get the North Koreans to give up a sizable arsenal if this had been handled differently,” a senior administration official said this week.

(Insert sound of daggers thumping into back here)

Later on the article:

Two administration officials, who declined to be identified, suggested that if the administration harbored the same doubts in 2002 that it harbored now, the negotiating strategy for dealing with North Korea might have been different – and the tit-for-tat actions that led to October’s nuclear test could, conceivably, have been avoided.

Nonsense.

President Bush, with his prating about the Axis of Evil, his doctrine of military pre-emption, and the invasion of Iraq, is the person who imbued the North Korean nuclear program with a sense of existential urgency.

I yield to no one in my distaste for the mustachioed one and his dangerous obsession with regime change as the solution to all of America’s problems.

However, the fact remains that the North Korean nuclear program derived its impetus in 2002 from America’s strategic posture, and not John Bolton’s negotiating position or dubious intelligence findings.

To imply that sweet words from the State Department could have counterbalanced the understandable trepidation in Pyongyang concerning America’s avowed crusade against the Axis of Evil is simply foolish.

January 20, 2002 is a long time ago, but here’s what President Bush said about the Axis of Evil in his State of the Union address:

By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation’s security.
We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons. (Applause.)

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch — yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

It’s pretty clear what was driving our relations with North Korea back in 2002. It wasn’t diplomacy. And for the State Department weathervanes that promptly pivoted to align with the pre-emptive war policy to pretend otherwise is sheer hypocrisy.

In this environment, North Korea did acquire centrifuges from A.Q. Khan’s illicit proliferation network, centrifuges whose sole purpose was the production of weapons-grade uranium.

That’s bad.

On the other side of the column, one might claim that enriching uranium is fiendishly hard and expensive and beyond the means of the North Koreans; that the science of making a uranium bomb that can be delivered by missile is, relatively speaking, terra incognita; and that A.Q. Khan’s manufacturing and procurement network was rolled up before the North Koreans could establish a useful enrichment facility.

Nevertheless, the program was not illusory, it was a clear indication of duplicity and bad faith by the North Koreans, and it demanded a response.

Bolton’s response-to use the breach as an excuse to pursue his long cherished goal of forcible regime change in North Korea through U.N. sanctions and a de facto economic blockade-was wrongheaded and dangerously destabilizing and, given the unequal contest between China’s intensity of purpose in North Korean matters vs. America’s distracted floundering, utterly impractical.

But in the context of an avowed U.S. policy of confronting the Axis of Evil -remember “time is not on our side…I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer”-Bolton’s continuous push to escalate the confrontation and provoke a crisis was completely defendable and consistent.

Bolton simply played the cards that George Bush-and the North Koreans–dealt him, albeit with reckless abandon.
What I think is at work today is an urgent effort to bayonet the neo-con wounded who were defeated on the strategic and ideological question of whether to engage with or confront North Korea.

The neo-cons lost that battle and Condi Rice, probably itching to win a bureaucratic struggle for the first time in her Washington career, wants to make sure they lose the war as well.

The North Korean deal is not a glorious piece of work for the State Department.

It was a desperate giveaway that duplicated the conditions of the Clinton freeze deal, but with a bitter aftertaste of capitulation and betrayal of our allies, particularly Japan, who had doggedly supported Bolton’s quixotic strategy.
It sent a clear message of American decline in Asia with the unambiguous acknowledgement that it was the good offices of that competing power, China, and not U.S. economic, diplomatic, or military muscle, that secured the agreement.

So it’s in the interests of the State Department to pull a bait and switch, and excuse a badly done deal by claiming that a fatal error-Boltonian instransigence-gave North Korea the bomb and dictated this rather embarrassing and humiliating outcome.

There were plenty of other outcomes available, perhaps better ones that would have required more time, determination, and, yes, possibly intransigence, but none that would have enabled Rice’s frantic putsch, by which she seized the fleeting opportunity offered by the mid-term elections to change the direction of America’s foreign policy with a quick deal on North Korea.

Tarring John Bolton as the father of the North Korean atomic bomb can also be considered as a pre-emptive strike to discredit the confrontational neo-con orthodoxy and forestall its re-emergence on the matter of Iran.

This stunt also nips the emerging Dolchstoss meme in the bud, inoculating the State Department against the charge that Christopher Hill & Co. betrayed America’s principles and interests. In fact, it neatly reverses it, claiming that neo-con dingbats stabbed the realists in the back instead of the other way around.

And, as a gift for President Bush, it places the blame for accelerating the North Korean nuclear program on John Bolton-instead of the man who appointed him, who singlemindedly defined and practiced the regime-change doctrine, and who sits in the Oval Office and pays Secretary Rice’s salary.

Fortunately David Sanger was available to step up and retail Secretary Rice’s version of events to a credulous world.
Perhaps Secretary of State Rice can maintain the initiative and use the fact of her victory over John Bolton, if not over North Korea, to promote a policy of peacefully muddling through the Iran crisis.

President Bush, if he has finally reconciled himself to accepting his limitations of character and ability in the interests of leaving office with at least one seemingly praiseworthy accomplishment-zeroing out the Axis of Evil through appeasement instead of bloody victory–may let her.

And if that achievement has to be established on the shaky foundation of a self-serving lie, well, it wouldn’t be the first time for this administration, or for Condi Rice.

CHINA HAND edits the very interesting website China Matters.

 

More articles by:
October 23, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
The Middle East, Not Russia, Will Prove Trump’s Downfall
Ipek S. Burnett
The Assault on The New Colossus: Trump’s Threat to Close the U.S.-Mexican Border
Mary Troy Johnston
The War on Terror is the Reign of Terror
Maximilian Werner
The Rhetoric and Reality of Death by Grizzly
David Macaray
Teamsters, Hells Angels, and Self-Determination
Jeffrey Sommers
“No People, Big Problem”: Democracy and Its Discontents In Latvia
Dean Baker
Looking for the Next Crisis: the Not Very Scary World of CLOs
Binoy Kampmark
Leaking for Change: ASIO, Jakarta, and Australia’s Jerusalem Problem
Chris Wright
The Necessity of “Lesser-Evil” Voting
Muhammad Othman
Daunting Challenge for Activists: The Cook Customer “Connection”
Don Fitz
A Debate for Auditor: What the Papers Wouldn’t Say
October 22, 2018
Henry Giroux
Neoliberalism in the Age of Pedagogical Terrorism
Melvin Goodman
Washington’s Latest Cold War Maneuver: Pulling Out of the INF
David Mattson
Basket of Deplorables Revisited: Grizzly Bears at the Mercy of Wyoming
Michelle Renee Matisons
Hurricane War Zone Further Immiserates Florida Panhandle, Panama City
Tom Gill
A Storm is Brewing in Europe: Italy and Its Public Finances Are at the Center of It
Suyapa Portillo Villeda
An Illegitimate, US-Backed Regime is Fueling the Honduran Refugee Crisis
Christopher Brauchli
The Liars’ Bench
Gary Leupp
Will Trump Split the World by Endorsing a Bold-Faced Lie?
Michael Howard
The New York Times’ Animal Cruelty Fetish
Alice Slater
Time Out for Nukes!
Geoff Dutton
Yes, Virginia, There are Conspiracies—I Think
Daniel Warner
Davos in the Desert: To Attend or Not, That is Not the Question
Priti Gulati Cox – Stan Cox
Mothers of Exiles: For Many, the Child-Separation Ordeal May Never End
Manuel E. Yepe
Pence v. China: Cold War 2.0 May Have Just Begun
Raouf Halaby
Of Pith Helmets and Sartorial Colonialism
Dan Carey
Aspirational Goals  
Wim Laven
Intentional or Incompetence—Voter Suppression Where We Live
Weekend Edition
October 19, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jason Hirthler
The Pieties of the Liberal Class
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in My Life at CounterPunch
Paul Street
“Male Energy,” Authoritarian Whiteness and Creeping Fascism in the Age of Trump
Nick Pemberton
Reflections on Chomsky’s Voting Strategy: Why The Democratic Party Can’t Be Saved
John Davis
The Last History of the United States
Yigal Bronner
The Road to Khan al-Akhmar
Robert Hunziker
The Negan Syndrome
Andrew Levine
Democrats Ahead: Progressives Beware
Rannie Amiri
There is No “Proxy War” in Yemen
David Rosen
America’s Lost Souls: the 21st Century Lumpen-Proletariat?
Joseph Natoli
The Age of Misrepresentations
Ron Jacobs
History Is Not Kind
John Laforge
White House Radiation: Weakened Regulations Would Save Industry Billions
Ramzy Baroud
The UN ‘Sheriff’: Nikki Haley Elevated Israel, Damaged US Standing
Robert Fantina
Trump, Human Rights and the Middle East
Anthony Pahnke – Jim Goodman
NAFTA 2.0 Will Help Corporations More Than Farmers
Jill Richardson
Identity Crisis: Elizabeth Warren’s Claims Cherokee Heritage
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail