The Constraints of Paper

The US has no interest in bi-lateral talks with NK, at least according to the AP:

The Bush administration said Friday that it wasn't interested in one-on-one
talks with North Korea about its nuclear programs outside the six-party
negotiations involving the communist nation's neighbors.

"It's not an issue between North Korea and the United States. It's a
regional issue," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "And it's an
issue that impacts all of its neighbors."

I have supported this approach to North Korea since it was first articulated. Many of the opponents of the Six-way talks seem to think that countries like Japan, South Korea and even China have no interest in the question of a nuclear North. I must say, to my ears, that sounds like they wish they could dismiss Kim-Il Jong like a small child throwing a temper-tantrum, or that they honestly don't have the mettle to stand up to the Brat and tell him "No!"

While I stop short of calling the Agreed Framework of '94 appeasement, I do think it represents an idealistic rather than realistic approach to foreign policy that is dangerous in it's consequences. I believe that Jimmy Carter acted in good faith, that is to say that he believed he was accomplishing something important and effective. I also believe that history says that the Agreed Framework was not effective.

In November, 2002 Jim Hoagland wrote a piece for the Washington Post detailing the suspected time-line:

"We developed hard confirmation of the program this summer," says a senior
Bush administration official, who cited "shards of evidence" of the North
Korea-Pakistan nuclear relationship going back to 1997. "Those turned into
pretty clear suspicions by 1998, and by 1999 the North Koreans committed to this
program."

Clinton administration officials confirm that timeline. Like Bush
aides, they say they cannot know whether Pyongyang always intended to subvert
the 1994 agreement or inexplicably changed course. But it is clear that the
program predates President Bush's election and his placing of North Korea on the
"axis of evil." The trigger for the deceit happened on Clinton's more amiable
watch.

Whether the North's disregard for the agreement existed at it's inception or came later is irrelevant; the constraints of paper did not prevent them from realizing their nuclear goals. Yet again, Democracy assumed that it's enemies would keep their word. To my mind, this epitomizes naivete.

What is more realistic? Involving other nations with a vested interest in the situation and backing up any agreements with the threat of force (as a side note, I still sit in amazement as I watch the Administration pilloried for it's unilateral approach to Iraq get pilloried for it's multi-lateral approach to the Korean problem).

Ultimately, I do not believe that even Kim-Il Jong thinks he can fire nuclear weapons at the US and survive. Having said that, resisting the temptation to give in to demands even in the face of nuclear saber-rattling is foolhardy. The US and it's allies in the region must continue to put pressure on North Korea that leads to it's 'De-nuclearization.' To assume again that Democracy's enemies will honor their word is foolishness that we can't afford.