Jimmy Carter - Don't Know Much About History...

Jimmy Carter delivers a NY Times op-ed recounting the history of the North Korean nuclear program and blaming everything on Bush.  Here is the report from our correspondent on Planet Jimmah:

Responding to an invitation from President Kim Il-sung of North Korea, and with the approval of President Bill Clinton, I went to Pyongyang and negotiated an agreement under which North Korea would cease its nuclear program at Yongbyon and permit inspectors from the atomic agency to return to the site to assure that the spent fuel was not reprocessed. It was also agreed that direct talks would be held between the two Koreas.

The spent fuel (estimated to be adequate for a half-dozen bombs) continued to be monitored, and extensive bilateral discussions were held. The United States assured the North Koreans that there would be no military threat to them, that it would supply fuel oil to replace the lost nuclear power and that it would help build two modern atomic power plants, with their fuel rods and operation to be monitored by international inspectors. The summit talks resulted in South Korean President Kim Dae-jung earning the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize for his successful efforts to ease tensions on the peninsula.

But beginning in 2002, the United States branded North Korea as part of an axis of evil, threatened military action, ended the shipments of fuel oil and the construction of nuclear power plants and refused to consider further bilateral talks. In their discussions with me at this time, North Korean spokesmen seemed convinced that the American positions posed a serious danger to their country and to its political regime.

Responding in its ill-advised but predictable way, Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, expelled atomic energy agency inspectors, resumed processing fuel rods and began developing nuclear explosive devices.

Yet by uncanny coincidence the NY Times presents this history in a different story:

Under an agreement Mr. Clinton struck with North Korea in 1994, the North agreed to “freeze” its production of plutonium at its main nuclear plant at Yongbyon, in return for energy aid. North Korea abided by the freeze.

But starting around 1997, the North Koreans took steps to start a second, secret nuclear program, one based on enriching uranium. South Korean and American intelligence agencies did not find conclusive evidence of that program until the summer of 2002, and that fall the Bush administration confronted the North Koreans with its evidence.

I wonder if anyone has mentioned to Mr. Peanut that the agreement of which he was so proud went almost immediately into the NoKo shredder.

Lots more at QandO.

Comments

[maryrose]

Jimmy Carter {also worried about his legacy as the worst President ever} is in revisionist history mode. He's trying to make it look like Clinton actually did something about North Korea. The sad truth is his mission was an abyssmal failure and has brought us to the place we are today. Hil Bill and Jimmuh all have to spin this story to their own political benefit because they all dropped the ball and ignored the problem. In 02 President Bush had it right;Iraq,Iran and
I would only add Syria and North Korea are and still remain the axis of evil and we will take them out one at a time unlike Clinton who fiddled while NK burned nuclear power.

[Terrye]

Alzheimers.

[Bob]

What a pathetic POS this man has always been. And this just proves he's never going to change. What a moron!

[RichatUF]

Why couldn't Lil'Kim feed Mr.Peanut to the sharks instead of Mr. Hans Blix

RichatUF

[Paul]

It's horrifying that the Gramscian rot has so penetrated the fabric of our society that perhaps a third of the nation agrees with this traitorous bastard.

[PeterUK]

Amazing Carter never questions why this dirt poor country,where the population is starving to death,so poor that they even steal the trains that bring aid,needs nuclear power.A bit like putting a jet engine on the outhouse.

[Bob]

PeterUK... cause he's a dumb penunt farmer, that's why!

[Bob]

PeterUK... cause he's a dumb peanut farmer, that's why!

[Bill Arnold]

Have the NKs actually produced enough highly enriched uranium to build uranium bombs? I know we assume they have but is there any evidence beyond worst-case estimate?

If they haven't, then Carter's history holds - if the current NK weapon program is from plutonium from spent fuel, then the open question is pretty much whether there was any significant chance the NKs wouldn't have left the NPT and looted the spent fuel rods, if the Bush adminstration (and the chinese and other players) had negotiated differently or dealt with the NK program differently.

[TexasToast]

It isn’t revisionist history if the history hasn’t been written yet. Both sides are trying to furiously write the history for political purposes. It is just like the 9/11 blameorama.

Okay, ignore all the above and just blame Bush. Or Cheney. Or the neocons. Or whatever lame excuse you want to come up with for domestic political gain.
…
.And who is to blame for this?
George Bush.
Not Kim Jung-il. Not the regime itself.
But Bush.
And someone here asks why we call it "Bush bashing"?
Amazing.
...

What is so amazing? The number of posts on this board blaming Clinton for everything from 9/11 to the NoKo nuke to moral decay to potholes might make an interesting comparison. The search for cloak and dagger “democratic operatives” who timed the Foley matter is a case in point. The blame game is, frankly, unstoppable. Lie detectors? Be careful what you wish for.

Bush is the current president. He was the President when 9/11 happened. He is the president who launched a war of choice in Iraq that we are losing. He is the President that 86% of Americans think is “hiding something” or “lying” about Iraq.

He is also the President now that NoKo has set off a nuke – a plutonium based nuke, if what I understand is correct. Plutonium was being monitored and would not have been available if the Agreed Framework were still in place. A large number of people, a majority if one believes the polls, disagree with how he is handling, or not handling, our foreign policy. When his policies result in bad outcomes, of course these same people are going to blame him. A large group of other people are going to blame Clinton, or Kerry, or the “Kumbaya crowd” - anybody but Bush. Which is the greater “leap of faith”?

[TexasToast]

Sorry - 83% think he is "mostly lying or hiding something" about Iraq.

[Bob]

"What is so amazing" Well in some ways I can see why it would be amazing to a moonbat that Clinton wasn't to blame for 9/11... I think the answer was down Sandy Berger's pants.

The liberals heroes Jimmy Carter, Mad Albright and Clinton struck a ridiculous deal with NK, and it failed miserably... face it they own that baby!

[Pofarmer]

Well Bill, here's the deal. If they were so worried about the Plutonium, why was it left there in the first place? Move the damn stuff out!!! Really, why rely on a treaty that they won't use the stuff they have lying around?

Same deal with Iran. Either you totally control their program or you let them do whatever the heck they want. Anything in the middle is just foolish.

What is so amazing? The number of posts on this board blaming Clinton for everything from 9/11 to the NoKo nuke to moral decay to potholes might make an interesting comparison.

Nobody is blaming Clinton for Potholes. The rest of it you got about right though.

[Harv3]

Howdy; Your link leads to an NYT story that doesn't contain the text quoted in your blog item; waz'up?

[Harv3]

found it, my bad!

[Jane]

What is so amazing? The number of posts on this board blaming Clinton for everything from 9/11 to the NoKo nuke to moral decay to potholes might make an interesting comparison..

I daresay no one would bother at all with Clinton if he, and his brawny wife didn't spend so much time lying. And now we have sandy Burlar piling more lies onto the pile.

Poor Clinton, so concerned with his legacy, which I predict will be nothing but trash when history gets there, does everything he can to make it worse.

[Dee Allred]

Jimmy Carter is a sad, little, bitter, old man. He is trying to rewrite history for his own benefit, but to the detriment of his country.

He hasn't learned anything since being president and continues blaming the wrong person. Most people progess as the experience life and become a better person.

Dee Allred

[Good Captain]

As bad as Carter was, I think the all time worst presidency was probably Buchanan's. Carter is still in the running for the worst president however as his post-presidency extends onward with similar disastrousn results for our country.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Actually, the North Koreans had been inviting Carter to come to see them during Bush I. But, he had the sense to tell Carter to stay home.

The Clintons didn't know what a snake Carter really was, and he simply took control away from the State Dept by announcing to Wolf Blitzer from Pyongang what the deal was going to be. As a private citizen.

Even the Clintonoids were calling him a traitor.

[Bill Arnold]

PoFarmer,
Well Bill, here's the deal. If they were so worried about the Plutonium, why was it left there in the first place? Move the damn stuff out!!! Really, why rely on a treaty that they won't use the stuff they have lying around?
They didn't use the stuff, didn't move it out of storage (I presume at the bottom of cooling ponds") until they exited the NPT, kicked out the inspectors, and broke the seals. Agreed, that it would have been better to remove the stuff, but nobody really wants to (a) move spent reactor fuel, (b) take possession of it. Both (a) and (b) could have been resolved, but they would have complicated the negotiation tremendously. I suppose we could have bombed it; we made a credible threat to bomb it prior to the '94 agreement.

This is all very weird to me. As a partisan Democrat, I'm fully willing to blame BClinton for the Pakistani nuclear weapons program and the arms race on the subcontinent in general. (With GHWBush getting a small amount of credit as well.) The NK nuclearization happened on GWBush's watch, close to 6 years into it, and is at least arguably the result of mishandling negotiations with a fruitcake, and with no substantive action to replace the lack of serious negotiation. If the administration seriously thought negotiation was useless, why allow the NK program to continue?

[MayBee]

The NK nuclearization happened on GWBush's watch, close to 6 years into it,

By nuclearization, do you mean the test? Or do you mean the whole process leading up to the final test. If you mean the former, that's true. If you mean the latter, I think you are wrong.

and is at least arguably the result of mishandling negotiations with a fruitcake, and with no substantive action to replace the lack of serious negotiation.

There was negotiation. Negotiation does not= getting people to do that which they are unwilling to do. Kim wants us to financially support him while he does what he wants to do. He's basically a blackmailer.

If the administration seriously thought negotiation was useless, why allow the NK program to continue?

Because destroying it militarily means 1,000,000 dead in Seoul in about 30 minutes.

[Other Tom]

We have a word for people like Texas Toast: "Loser." One of the hallmarks of losers is that, when confronted with any sort of difficulty, including murderous regimes led by madmen, they instinctively look around for one of their own to blame.

[Bill Arnold]

MayBee:
If you mean the former, that's true. If you mean the latter, I think you are wrong.
The NK plutonium-based weapons program dates from when they left the NPT. There was a clandestine uranium enrichment program as well, and it is unknown to me whether it produced any significant amounts of HEU. We worst-case assumed it did, which is reasonable.
There was negotiation. Negotiation does not= getting people to do that which they are unwilling to do.
There was lousy negotiation, which looked at the time to me to be intended to anger the NKs enough that they would break out of the NPT. There was also a debate about BMD at the time. Your interpretation may have varied. In any event, the line I keep hearing about how it's useless to negotiate with some people is just wrong IMO, since it is a pure judgement call whether negotiations are useless with them. We negotiate, on a smaller scale, with crazy people all the time.
Because destroying it militarily means 1,000,000 dead in Seoul in about 30 minutes.
This is a strong argument, but again, it's a judgement call. (Also a lot of American troops would die.) It's truer now, assuming they didn't fake the recent test.

[NeilS]

There is no contradiction between Carter and the NYT report.

Using the already processed plutonium was the fastest way to go nuclear. The agreement that Carter negotiated kept NoKO away from this plutonium. It bought time, but didn't solve the problem.

NoKo then pursued using centrifuges to enrich uranium. This is much more difficult and would take more time to achieve.

It is a clear violation of the agreement and shows that NoKo cannot be trusted. But then we already knew that. However, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't negotiate, just that everything must be verifiable.

I think that NoKo is a pathetic, dirt poor country that was/is trying to use the threat of nuclear weapons to shake down the US. It is a shame that it has gotten as far as it has. Now national pride is at stake for both the US and NoKo.

We're going to have to try something different, because the only policy worse than that which Clinton pursued is the that of the Bush administration.

[Paul]

Because destroying it militarily means 1,000,000 dead in Seoul in about 30 minutes.

"This is a strong argument,"

No shit.

[maryrose]

A sniper rifle to take out Kim would be my suggestion and I nominate Texas Toast to be the person for the job. I believe we would have a positive result.

[Seixon]

Joshua Marshall tries his hand at the same revisionist history.

Sigh. It's as if they are basically admitting by doing this sort of thing that they are liars covering up for Clinton.

[Neo]

France said outright for the first time Wednesday that North Korea's proclaimed nuclear test produced such a small blast that it must have failed

[maryrose]

Seixon:
"Liars covering up for Clinton"
Sounds about right to me.

[Pofarmer]

Bill

The problem is that the Norks technical programs didn't stop just because the fuel was sealed. All the technical work just continued underground. Ditto with their missle programs. They didn't just all of a sudden put this stuff together. They had been working on it for years, and were probably looking for a good reason to pull out and give er a try. At least now we know they are up to no good and don't have to rely on the CIA to guess for us. You don't just all of a sudden realize how to put a bomb together, although it looks like they still ain't got it right.

[MayBee]

In any event, the line I keep hearing about how it's useless to negotiate with some people is just wrong IMO, since it is a pure judgement call whether negotiations are useless with them. We negotiate, on a smaller scale, with crazy people all the time.

Well, it is useless to negotiate with some people. I wouldn't say it was useless to negotiate with N Korea, which is why we have been. I'm saying that when you are dealing with some people, you can't judge the quality of negotiations on the results obtained. You can't make someone do that which they will not do.
As a Democrat and a thinking person I know you know that. What could I say to make you decide to be a right-wing evangelical?

Because destroying it militarily means 1,000,000 dead in Seoul in about 30 minutes.
This is a strong argument, but again, it's a judgement call. (Also a lot of American troops would die.) It's truer now, assuming they didn't fake the recent test.

But it has never been just our decision to make. We've agreed to protect Japan and S Korea, who not only have very different ideas on how N Korea should be handled, but also don't really care for each other. Whatever we would have done, or do in the near future, affects them much more than it affects us.

[richard mcenroe]

Jimmy Carter: This is all you know and all you need to know.

[buck smith]

Didn't Carter run for president saying he would withdraw US troops from South Korea? Funny thing is Bush and Rumsfeld (or the next admin Dem or Rep) may do it. Given South Korea's policies I think that is the best deal for the US. We can use those toops in the Afghanistan, Darfur, Iraq or the tribal regions of Pakistan. Our policy toward NoKo should be, if a nuke explodes in a US city we will assume it theirs and retaliate overwhelmingly.

[NeilS]

buck smith --

About a month ago the US announced that troops numbers in Korea would be reduced.

I'm assuming that this turn of events will change that.

[Reid]

The libs just don't get it. We do not want to be paying protection money to prolong the abomination that is the DPRK. It is not only immoral to aid those thugs in their incredibly brutal oppression, but it is insane to think you can buy gangsters off indefinitely while they continue to build up their offensive weaponry.

This has got to end, and it has got to end now, before it goes too far. We do not seek a modus vivendi - we seek the end of this odious regime. THAT is what is wrong with what Clinton and Carter did, whether you imagine the gangsters could be permanently appeased or not, it is WRONG to pay tribute to thuggish murderers. How utterly bereft of conscience do you have to be not to see that?

[danking70]

The NK cheaters wouldn't have detonated a bomb if we didn't confront them on their cheating.

Agreed Framework 1993-2000: "All Sweetness and Light"

Nice Fantasy

[Semanticleo]

"Jimmy Carter {also worried about his legacy as the worst President ever}"

Soon to be eclipsed by 'you know who'.

Ever seen a hostage negotiator at work
when the guy with the gun is a nutjob?

Think he say's things like 'Hey, nutbag.
We're coming in there to get you shortly'?

Yeah, you probably WOULD approach a volatile
situation with a similar attitude.

A xenophobic national paranoia needs to
be ratcheted up to the next DEFCON, don't
it? It's the only way to deal with a psychopath with a gun.

Or maybe you might starve him out. You know, BUY TIME?

Nah, maybe not.

[Pofarmer]

I'm assuming that this turn of events will change that

I wouldn't assume that at all. This event has been a long time coming, and really isn't all that much of a surprise. I think the powers that be would rather not have our troops as sitting ducks to a NK nuclear attack.

[Pofarmer]

Or maybe you might starve him out. You know, BUY TIME?

Too bad the past presidents didn't really do that. We gave them heating oil and food aid. In return they continued clandestine nuclear programs. Do you think taking the fuel rods out of storage was one of the first steps or one of the last steps in a nuclear weapons program?

Will be interesting to see if a blockade can be made and held. If China is in on it, it won't take too long.

By the way. This isn't a hostage negotiation. The guy has a gun pointed at you!! Makes the situation a little different, don't it?

[NeilS]

"...our troops as sitting ducks to a NK nuclear attack."

US troops are already sitting ducks for conventional attacks. North Korea doesn't need atomic weapons to be threat.

"...This has got to end, and it has got to end now, before it goes too far. We do not seek a modus vivendi - we seek the end of this odious regime. "

This is just a lot of hot air, and if you ask me, its just what Bush has been doing: speaking loudly and carrying a little stick.

[Semanticleo]

"The guy has a gun pointed at you!! Makes the situation a little different, don't it?"

Nope, the metaphor still applies. He's a nut with a gun and it would behoove me to humor him until he can be taken so that I don't get
my testosterone bloated carcass blown away because I was too cavalier about the drama.

[Bill Arnold]

Reid:
The libs just don't get it. We do not want to be paying protection money to prolong the abomination that is the DPRK.
What's your alternative? Seriously? We are all agreed here about the nature of the NK regime. (of the members of the "Axis of Evil", it was the only one that was truly to the core evil.) How would one have handled it differently? At worst, the Clinton/Carter initiative delayed the NK bomb program by 10 years. With careful care and feeding, the delay could have lasted a lot longer than it did. (and perhaps with occasional sabotage; I've often wondered about the couple of large Mystery Explosions in NK in the last several years.)

Now there are no good solutions. Blockade, and/or freezing and starving the population by cutoff of energy/food aid, and perhaps talking the Chinese into cutoff of all trade, are the reasonable alternatives. Once they get bombs-that-work and long-range-missiles-that-work (neither of which they have now) blockade will be a practical necessity, even though it is an act of war. The regime has nothing else to sell, except counterfeit U.S. currency.

MayBe: But it has never been just our decision to make. We've agreed to protect Japan and S Korea, who not only have very different ideas on how N Korea should be handled, but also don't really care for each other. Whatever we would have done, or do in the near future, affects them much more than it affects us.
I agree. Though we may underestimate how much wrecked SK/Japanese economies would affect us.

[SteveMG]

Toast:
If you, by chance, get to this.

Tu quoque is not an argument.

Try again.

SMG

[Pofarmer]

He's a nut with a gun and it would behoove me to humor him until he can be taken

Whether the metaphor is apt or not, we've been hooven for 50 years. It's time to take him already. Face it, the road we were on wasn't getting us any closer to getting rid of the Norks. Change isn't always bad.

[Bill Arnold]

PoFarmer:
Do you think taking the fuel rods out of storage was one of the first steps or one of the last steps in a nuclear weapons program?
If they bought a decent design or two, then several years is plenty of time to assemble plutonium weapons.

The expertise gained in a uranium-enrichment-based program is related, but only some of it would be transferable.

[Pofarmer]

At worst, the Clinton/Carter initiative delayed the NK bomb program by 10 years. With careful care and feeding, the delay could have lasted a lot longer than it did.

So what? What did the delay's get us? We got to spend billions on a couple reactors, fuel and food aid. During this time the Norks were secretly working on the technical aspects of their nuke and missle programs and working on enriching uranium, in direct violation of the treaties. I ask again. Do you think taking the Plutonium was one of the first or last steps to building a working bomb?

[Pofarmer]

Sorry Bill

I posted right after you posted your answer.

[danking70]

"He's a nut with a gun and it would behoove me to humor him until he can be taken"

Meanwhile, this nut is selling missle and nuke tech to other crazys and counterfeiting our currency.

Kimmie's not starving.

[MayBee]

Whatever we would have done, or do in the near future, affects them much more than it affects us.
I agree. Though we may underestimate how much wrecked SK/Japanese economies would affect us.

I don't underestimate that at all. I do think it's easier to recover from financial ruin than death, however.
I admit I'm a bit biased, as I currently live in Tokyo.

[JM Hanes]

Bill Arnold:

"Now there are no good solutions."

There are no fast solutions. In this case, as Bush realized almost from the start, there are also no unilateral solutions which can be implemented by the U.S. alone; there never were. It's quite inaccurate to say that we are not negotiating with N.Korea. We have refused to enter into two-party talks, because they would severely undercut everything we're working for in a six party context. I'm not sure why so many people fail to grasp that concept -- especially those who seem to be hot for multi-party solutions everyelse (apparently with the mind boggling exception of Iran as well). I commented on the Administration's regional strategy at some length in a post to D. Maxwell on the previous thread.

I believe you've left a key player out of your vague "if only" list of folks who might have negotiated the problem of NK differently. If you haven't already seen it, Quando has a fairly succinct timeline of the IAEA engagement which preceded N.Korea's renunciation of the NPT. (Scroll past the first couple of excerpts.)

The effect of Bush's rhetoric is dramatically overstated by folks who are really working from western assumptions without realizing how fundmentally Chinese & N.Korean negotiating styles & tactics differ from our own (and yet again, from that of the Japanese as well). They also tend to leave Colin Powell out the equation. I don't think he was quite as lousy a Secretary of State as M. Albright, but he came pretty darn close.

Apologies if the thread has covered any of the above, I'm just now reading through it and posting as I go.