North Korea given a pass for rest of this administration
Wednesday, May 24, 2006 at 6:20PM ARTICLE: “U.S. Said To Weigh A New Approach On North Korea: Bush Approval Expected; Plan for Discussing Formal Peace Treaty as Nuclear Talks Continue,” by David E. Sanger, New York Times, 18 May 2006, p. A1.
This policy change is being touted as an innovative new step from the Rice crowd at State, but to me, it comes off as a strange reward for Kim and North Korea, especially given our stance with Iran, which frankly has offered to help us out on the equivalent of a peace treaty in Iraq.
But admin officials say they push this peace treaty approach so as not to give Iran the wrong signals--i.e., that North Korea is getting away with it. How offering a peace treaty that effectively signals that we won’t seek regime change in Pyongyang should act to dissuade Iran, which desperately seeks such an assurance through acquisition of the bomb, is beyond me. Doesn’t it say the exact opposite? Get the bomb and we’ll promise not to invade?
This new approach does not say, “give up the bomb and THEN we’ll give you the peace treaty.” Instead, it proposes two tracks of negotiation. Why that is such a mental breakthrough on totalitarian North Korea while being impossible to consider with authoritarian (and tired, at that) Iran is really weird.
It’s hard to see how Kim will give up the bomb for the treaty when it’s clear we’re offering the treaty because he has the bomb.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but to me, this is a bad sign of how little Rice’s State Department will take advantage of the freedom of action provided by a Bush post-presidency already begun.
Reader Comments (2)
the only difference I see between DPRK and Iran is oil dollar :). How do you pay for the reconstruction in DPRK if ROK does not support the invasion?
there is a chinese proverb, though not entirely analogous to this discussion, "the innocent often becomes guilty if he owns the piece of jade".
The only rationale I can see for this is that the Administration is sick of being left holding the bag by South Korea, Russia, and China and so are washing their hands of it. But it's a failure and it *does* seem like they're being sas akwards - trying to round up everyone to agree on Iran (when they're not going to) but letting loathesome Kim off.
I mean, as bad as the Iranian regime is (and it's far worse IMO than Tom portrays it), remind me again which one starved a couple million of its own people recently?
That'd be Kim's, right?