Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How the Bush Administration Let N. Korea Get Nukes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
reprehensor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-04 11:27 AM
Original message
How the Bush Administration Let N. Korea Get Nukes


On Oct. 4, 2002, officials from the U.S. State Department flew to Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea, and confronted Kim Jong-il's foreign ministry with evidence that Kim had acquired centrifuges for processing highly enriched uranium, which could be used for building nuclear weapons. To the Americans' surprise, the North Koreans conceded. It was an unsettling revelation, coming just as the Bush administration was gearing up for a confrontation with Iraq. This new threat wasn't imminent; processing uranium is a tedious task; Kim Jong-il was almost certainly years away from grinding enough of the stuff to make an atomic bomb.

But the North Koreans had another route to nuclear weapons--a stash of radioactive fuel rods, taken a decade earlier from its nuclear power plant in Yongbyon. These rods could be processed into plutonium--and, from that, into A-bombs--not in years but in months. Thanks to an agreement brokered by the Clinton administration, the rods were locked in a storage facility under the monitoring of international weapons-inspectors. Common sense dictated that--whatever it did about the centrifuges--the Bush administration should do everything possible to keep the fuel rods locked up.

Unfortunately, common sense was in short supply. After a few shrill diplomatic exchanges over the uranium, Pyongyang upped the ante. The North Koreans expelled the international inspectors, broke the locks on the fuel rods, loaded them onto a truck, and drove them to a nearby reprocessing facility, to be converted into bomb-grade plutonium. The White House stood by and did nothing. Why did George W. Bush--his foreign policy avowedly devoted to stopping "rogue regimes" from acquiring weapons of mass destruction--allow one of the world's most dangerous regimes to acquire the makings of the deadliest WMDs? Given the current mayhem and bloodshed in Iraq, it's hard to imagine a decision more ill-conceived than invading that country unilaterally without a plan for the "post-war" era. But the Bush administration's inept diplomacy toward North Korea might well have graver consequences. President Bush made the case for war in Iraq on the premise that Saddam Hussein might soon have nuclear weapons--which turned out not to be true. Kim Jong-il may have nuclear weapons now; he certainly has enough plutonium to build some, and the reactors to breed more.

Yet Bush has neither threatened war nor pursued diplomacy. He has recently, and halfheartedly, agreed to hold talks; the next round is set for June. But any deal that the United States might cut now to dismantle North Korea's nuclear-weapons program will be harder and costlier than a deal that Bush could have cut 18 months ago, when he first had the chance, before Kim Jong-il got his hands on bomb-grade material and the leverage that goes with it.

more@link

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-04 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. This story (the gagging of this info until after the IWR) was HUGe
for about three days. It is at one the hearts of the case to be made to the fence sitting public, that time after time this Administration has taken actions towards their blind (and blinded) pursuit of a war in Iraq - that have made us LESS safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-04 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. Why did Bush allow this?

Because he wants to have pretexts for war everywhere: it lets him play "war president," it lets Republicans scream "Patriots don't criticize POTUS in wartime," it keeps the public scared and distracted, and it pumps money to his war profiteer buddies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-05-04 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
4. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-04 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. Pretty good post
Edited on Sun Jun-06-04 01:01 PM by teryang
<Nobody knows precisely what North Korea has. This is what makes negotiations both difficult and necessary. Bush's failure to make a deal, while the fuel rods were still locked up, constitutes one of the great diplomatic blunders of our time.>

Northeast Asian politics require the most skillful diplomacy. Our bumbling policy (or lack of a policy) in Northeast Asia fulfills the most derogatory Asian stereotypes of Americans as ignorant barbarians. The neo-con obscurantists are jeopardizing world peace and encouraging a nuclear arms race in Asia. Of course, they believe this will preserve the necessity of American military presence on the peninsula and justify massive armaments exports and NMD. It's all about the money and the financial interests of the defense contractors who support the regime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 05:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC