Commentary Magazine


Contentions

A Bad Deal with Kim Jong Il

A few weeks ago I was at a dinner with a former Bush administration official who expressed concern that, with only two years left in office and with no major achievements to her credit, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would feel compelled to strike a diplomatic bargain somewhere. It’s always possible to get a deal, this former appointee noted, if you’re willing to make major concessions to the other side.

These concerns proved well founded when the administration unveiled its new agreement with North Korea. Actually, that’s overstating the case a bit, since this is only a preliminary agreement, with many issues left unresolved. It may well fall apart—as did an earlier “breakthrough” in September 2005. At least I hope it falls apart, since this deal is no bargain from our standpoint.

It is nothing like the treaty struck in 2003 with Muammar Qaddafi, under which the Libyan dictator agreed to the complete dismantling of his program to develop weapons of mass destruction. For the moment, all that Kim Jong Il has agreed to is a “freeze” on activity at his Yongbyon plutonium reactor—what the North Korean news agency is describing as a “temporary suspension.”

The really important issues—will Kim actually dismantle the reactor and give up his existing nuclear arsenal?—will be addressed at some undetermined point down the road. The current agreement doesn’t even mention North Korea’s other nuclear program, using uranium rather than plutonium. In return for these rather paltry concessions, the U.S. and its allies agree to provide fuel oil and other aid to prop up the most bloodthirsty regime in the world.

Isn’t this precisely the kind of “reward” for proliferation that Bush, Rice, Cheney, et al. have spent years denouncing? However much the Bushies may try to spin it, their latest agreement is in essentially the same spirit as the Clinton administration’s 1994 Agreed Framework, which we now know North Korea violated. I only hope this isn’t a prelude to a similar, unenforceable agreement with Iran.


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.