Lots of people, Left and Right, have been throwing around accusations of who broke the agreement first. Many say it was Bush and his neglect, followed by aggressiveness. Others say it was the North Koreans. There is some truth to both claims, but on balance I am siding with the Koreans being the chief culprits. Although Bush isn't far behind.
The "Agreed Framework" henceforward referred to as AF called for "The United States and North Korea [to be] committed to move toward normalizing economic and political relations, including by reducing barriers to investment, opening liaison offices, and ultimately exchanging ambassadors."
For the most part, under Clinton we adhered to this. When Bush became president the Clinton approach was neglected. Then came the Axis of Evil speech and things went downhill. Bush took a hard-line.
The AF also called for "Both sides commit not to nuclearize the Korean peninsula. The United States must "provide formal assurances" not to threaten or use nuclear weapons against North Korea. Pyongyang is required to "consistently take steps" to implement the 1991 North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula."
Clearly Bush's claims of preemption and his new nuclear posture review do not honor the spirit of this agreement, perhaps even the letter. But clearly, the North was engaged in a separate and covert program to develop another hidden enrichment facility that is in complete violation of the 1991 North-South agreement.
The AF also calls for a North Korea to freeze operation of its 5-megawatt reactor and plutonium-reprocessing plant at Yongbyon, and construction of a 50-megawatt reactor at Yongbyon and a 200-megawatt plant at Taechon. These facilities are to be dismantled prior to the completion of the second light-water reactor."
This has been honored to the letter by the DPRK; however, their pursuit of a separate enrichment facility is a slap in the face to the spirit of the AF.
The AF also requires that "North Korea must come into "full compliance" with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards when a "significant portion of the [light-water reactor] project is completed, but before delivery of key nuclear components." Full compliance includes taking all steps deemed necessary by the IAEA to determine the extent to which North Korea diverted material for weapons use in the past, including giving inspectors access to all nuclear facilities in the country. The CIA estimates that Pyongyang has not accounted for 1-2 nuclear weapons worth of plutonium from the Yongbyon reactor."
1-2 nuclear weapons you say? That is a bit problematic, wouldn't you agree?
The AF requires that "the spent fuel from North Korea's 5-megawatt reactor at Yongbyon is to be put into containers as soon as possible (a process called "canning") and removed from the country when nuclear components of the first light-water reactor begin to arrive after North Korea has come into full compliance with IAEA safeguards."
This has been done.
The AF also requires "that North Korea remain a party to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty."
They are a party to the agreement still, but their actions, such as pursuing a separate enrichment facility are in direct violation of the NPT.
The AF also requires much from the United States, such as to "Establish and organize KEDO: This includes the securing of diplomatic and legal rights and guarantees necessary to implement the light-water reactor project."
This has been done.
It also requires the United States to "Implement the light-water reactor project: The United States is to facilitate the construction of two, 1,000-megawatt light-water nuclear power reactors."
So, the construction of the reactor is late. What nuclear reactor that has ever been built has not had massive delays and cost-overruns? I point this out only as an observation. Perhaps we have delayed their construction in bad faith. Perhaps not. I am inclined to side with a good-faith delay.
The United States is also required to "provide heavy fuel oil shipments: To compensate for the electricity-generating capacity that Pyongyang gave up by freezing its nuclear reactors, KEDO will supply North Korea with 500,000 metric tons of heavy fuel oil annually until the light-water reactor project is completed."
This was being done until recently when Bush halted the shipments.
That is the scorecard on the Agreed Framework. As I said, Bush's rhetoric hasn't helped. But the North Koreans haven't been the most faithful partners either. I lean toward believing that had the Bush administration paid more attention to this in the first place and not completely blown-off Clinton's approach we would not be where we are today. There is just one little problem with that. We now know the DPRK was pursuing a separate enrichment facility all along. That is bad. And it is also something most people have forgotten about in the blame game that is going around right now. That includes me.
I also said something I want to backpeddle away from, or maybe I want to clarify it a little better. I'll let you choose your definition.
What I should have said is this: Mr. President, resolve this situation carefully and quickly. As it cannot be put on the backburner and be allowed to erupt when we are at war with Iraq. I did not mean to say that the Iraqi invasion should be postponed. It should not. My intent in saying this was that the President must not allow this crisis to get out of hand.
I'll be posting more on this later. And I'll have some comments for the Oxbloggers as well.
Posted by Sean-Paul @ 01/01/2003 09:13 PM
| TrackBack
Comments:
"We now know the DPRK was pursuing a separate enrichment facility all along."
In which case, why in the world should Bush have continued the Clinton policy? If Gore had been elected and was continuing the Clinton policy today, you don't think we'd be in for a horrible surprise, eventually? And, in this context, how could the Axis of Evil speech have possibly WORSENED anything? It seems it merely brought sorely needed attention to the NK violations of the treaty.
Posted by: Mark Harden on January 1, 2003 10:52 PM
Well... actually pursuing uranium enrichment wasn't against the Agreed Framework. it's not one of the questions on this little test, although it might have been:
It's clear that Bush hasn't gone along with ANY part of the agreement apart from the continued oil supplies (recently stopped) and has fairly shouted his non-compliance, even from the beginning. The deal was essentially ripped up by Bush.
It also seems pretty clear that Clinton had no real intention of following through on the deal. The main part of the deal from the point of view of North Korea was for the US to normalise economic and political relations which never happened. America never really showed any willingness to play fair, which is often the case with agreements America makes.
The Agonist admits to these facts but reaches a different conclusion. He says (on the economic duties of the US) "For the most part, under Clinton we adhered to this." In other words a material breach by the US. There was a three month deadline explicitly mentioned for the US. There was no "for the most part", or "try to" or "start to" or "make a good faith beginning" on the terms the US had to meet. Failure is failure.
But the one article which the Agonist attacks North Korea for had precisely that sort of language attatched "consistently take steps" means that North Korea did not have the duty to immidiately implement everything, and in particular the understand was likely that North Korea would take steps as it saw America taking them (this tit for tat was made explicit for other parts of the Framework).
Well just how far did Clinton go in normalizing relations with North Korea? How much good faith did the North Koreans see?
Well 37,000 soldiers in South Korea? Check. Sanctions against North Korea still in place? Check. Ambassadors still not exchanged? Check. North Korea still labelled a terrorist state? Check. So what exactly did Clinton do that made the Agonist say he'd done a swell job? Well Madelaine Albright visitied North Korea once (which IMO would be a black mark!) and some of the sanctions were lifted while others remained.
Did Clinton ever make a formal assurance to North Korea that the US wouldn't threaten NK with nucklea weapons? If he did then Bush just broke that assurance, but I don't think Clinton gave that assurance.
Isn't the US still technically at war with or something? The border is still in dispute even.
Conclusion: North Korea followed through on the deal immidiately and waited patiently for America to play fair. America dragged its heels throughout the Clinton presidency and then sunk the entire deal under Bush.
Sorry to go on about this but as recently as ... I think it was May? this year the US regime was saying that North Korea was entirely conforming to the Agreed Framework.
Yes, we know by now that whenever davidbyron posts, it can be summarized as "United States evil, all others good". So you can save us (and yourself) the trouble of such extended apologetics for despicable human rights abusing regimes in the future.
MH
Posted by: Mark Harden on January 2, 2003 08:41 AM
