Bush Gave the Norks Nukes, pt II

(Pt. 1 here) File this under Unbelievable:

"From our investigations it is apparent that ... the Bank did not introduce counterfeit U.S. currency notes into circulation," the Ernst & Young audit said, noting that large cash deposits from North Korea were routinely screened for counterfeits by the Hong Kong branch of an unidentified bank with U.S. operations.

The audit's conclusions about the laundering of counterfeit currency are significant because they cast doubt on Bush administration claims that North Korea has engaged in state-sponsored counterfeiting and introducing these fake bills via Banco Delta.

What's the most important national security goal America has? To stifle the proliferation of nuclear weapons as a bulwark against the day when a bomb will go off in one of our cities. Well, in this case we had come to an agreement for exactly that - the much ballyhooed September 19 2005 Agreement, wherein the North Koreans would return to the requirements of the Non Proliferation Treaty. The day after announcing that agreement, a different division of the US Government accused the North Koreans of counterfeiting billions of dollars and being a "criminal state." They froze the Nork's international accounts - quite the blow for an already poverty-stricken nation - driving the Norks from the agreement, and guaranteeing that this "terrorist madman" acquire a half-dozen nuclear weapons.

That, of course, is the charitable interpretation. There's an increasing chance that this counterfeited blow-up was manufactured for the express purpose of derailing progress, as part of a "spread the chaos" grand strategy. This cynicism is supported by the fact that this is an exact repeat of the uranium enrichment fabrication that destroyed Clinton's Agreed Framework in the first place. The failure of Bush's policy could not be more clearly demonstrated. It begins to amount to a dereliction.

North Korea's Nonexistent Uranium

What is the preeminent goal of our national security policy? Nuclear Nonproliferation, right? Everyone talks about it in the debates and on TV shows, and these are serious people, mind you, so I'm sure their actions will be in line with their rhetoric about this most serious of all topics - national security. Hold your breath with me...

Clinton's Agreed Framework achieved an excellent victory in the battle to decrease the ultimate security threat we face - that of loose nukes in the hands of incredibly hostile regimes. Through an agreement that was essentially a bribe, we achieved our goal of completely stopping the enrichment of plutonium inside North Korea. We stopped the North Koreans from making nuclear weapons with the Agreed Framework - an achievement to be celebrated.

Instead, it was alleged by the Bush Administration that the North Koreans were cheating on the agreement by enriching uranium - much more difficult to manufacture a bomb with - and using that uranium for a clandestine program. Incensed that America would be taken in by this "thug," the Bush Administration pulled out of the Agreed Framework entirely, rather than trying to ratchet this uranium program into the existing framework. The rest (including the half-dozen nuclear weapons the North Koreans now possesses) is history.

Now we find out that the straw that broke the camel's back wasn't even a real straw. From the Washington Post:

The Bush administration is backing away from its long-held assertions that North Korea has an active clandestine program to enrich uranium, leading some experts to believe that the original U.S. intelligence that started the crisis over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions may have been flawed.

....The administration's stance today stands in sharp contrast to the certainty expressed by top officials in 2002, when the administration accused Pyongyang of running a secret uranium program -- and demanded it be dismantled at once.

Or from the NY Times:

For nearly five years, though, the Bush administration, based on intelligence estimates, has accused North Korea of also pursuing a secret, parallel path to a bomb, using enriched uranium. That accusation, first leveled in the fall of 2002, resulted in the rupture of an already tense relationship: The United States cut off oil supplies, and the North Koreans responded by throwing out international inspectors, building up their plutonium arsenal and, ultimately, producing that first plutonium bomb.

But now, American intelligence officials are publicly softening their position, admitting to doubts about how much progress the uranium enrichment program has actually made. The result has been new questions about the Bush administration’s decision to confront North Korea in 2002.

“The question now is whether we would be in the position of having to get the North Koreans to give up a sizable arsenal if this had been handled differently,” a senior administration official said this week.

"The Question now is whether we would be in" a better position now if we had followed a sane policy not based on machismo, but on pursuing the desired results. Heaven help me, what a question.

The Blogosphere has been all over this one. This revelation catapults this failure from disqualifying to intentional. We weren't even sure about the uranium program, so we let them open the plutonium program again for no reason! Given how much greater a threat a plutonium program is than a uranium, this is an absolutely unbelievable mistake. In no way could such a trade-off ever make sense.

North Korea Wins?

So we've achieved a deal with the North Koreans addressing their nuclear program, eh? I wonder where 6 years of our President's steely resolve have gotten us...

The deal is simple: We give North Korea massive energy supplies in the form of heavy fuel oil and they suspend all nuclear activities - even "peaceful" civilian energy initiatives. The Bush Administration is eager to emphasize the fact that all nuclear activities are suspended, not even allowing light water reactors, even though they pose no military threat whatsoever. This meaningless restriction is meant to be the defining difference between this agreement and the Clinton Administration's Agreed Framework, showing that the hard nosed hawkishness of our President Bush has paid dividends. If you ignore this hogwash, the deal is essentially Clinton's Agreed Framework - a gain of nothing after 6 years of inaction.

On the other side of the scale, of course, is the new existence of around a dozen nuclear weapons in the hands of the North Korean government, a "terrorist state." Weigh that against light water reactors and come to your own conclusion about whether this is a victory or defeat for George W. Bush's America.

Predictably, Tony Snow received the following question during the White House press briefing:

There seems to be some conservative push back, I guess, about the North Korea deal. Wall Street Journal editorial page called it the "faith-based nonproliferation." What's your sense about that?

The conservative push back was lead by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, of all people:

Bolton said the accord "contradicts the President's policy" of past years.

Further, he said the deal sends a "terrible signal to would-be proliferators," and "for a variety of reason I hope we are able to rethink this."

His criticism, and that from other conservatives is essentially a reaction against Clintonism. We've allowed the North Koreans to build a dozen plutonium-based weapons, and we're dealing with it by going back to the same bribe that Bill Clinton thought was the appropriate response. Needless to say, acknowledgements that Clinton was right incense conservatives. They spout the "critics-just-hate-George-W-Bush" rhetoric so fluently because of the animus in their heart towards Clinton.

Looking back at my jotted working title, I have a thought: Am I "blaming America first" here? Am I delighting in our abject failure? Of course not. What has happened with our North Korean policy has made me and my family less safe. I would never root for such an outcome, but it illustrates nicely the depths of incompetence dominating our times.

Bush Flips on North Korea

From today's Times:

The United States has offered a detailed package of economic and energy assistance in exchange for North Korea’s giving up nuclear weapons and technology, American officials said Tuesday.

This is rank, Clintonian appeasement! I thought my President was steadfast in his steely resolve to never be wrong about anything? Go figure.

Of course, this does mean that we're back to the policy Clinton established and Bush dropped - paying off the North Koreans to abandon their program. Those of us in the real world always knew this particular problem would be solved with a bribe, since the neoconservatives' other always-ready option - blowing stuff up - isn't exactly operative on China's doorstep. Of course, we did gain something in exchange for our President's Axis-of-Evil Policy - a nuclear armed North Korea! Good trade.

via Josh Marshall.

Which was the Greater Threat?

Q: In 2002, which was the greater threat to America, North Korea or Iraq?

Clinton's Agreed Framework was unraveling. The light-water reactors, it was clear, were never going to be built. Normalization of relations was another non-starter. The CIA got wind that North Korea may have been acquiring centrifuges for enriching uranium since the late 1990s, most likely from Pakistan. By September 2002, the conclusion was inescapable. It was debatable whether this literally violated the Agreed Framework, which dealt with the manufacturing of plutonium, but it was a sneaky end run and a violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

On Oct. 4, Kelly flew to Pyongyang to confront North Korean officials with the evidence. The North Koreans admitted it was true. For almost two weeks, the Bush administration kept this meeting a secret. The U.S. Senate was debating a resolution to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. The public rationale for war was that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. If it was known that North Korea was also making WMDs--and nuclear weapons, at that--it would have muddied the debate over Iraq. Some would have wondered whether Iraq was the more compelling danger--or asked why Bush saw a need for war against Iraq but not against North Korea. The Senate passed the Iraqi war resolution on Oct. 11. The Bush administration publicly revealed what it had known for weeks about North Korea's enriched-uranium program on Oct. 17.

A: Obviously, Iraq. If you said North Korea was the bigger threat, then clearly you have forgotten the lessons of September 11. We were invading Iraq to rid Saddam of shadowy , putative weapons of mass destruction, and everyone knows that mysterious weapons people might have are more dangerous than ones you know people possess. After all, knowing is half the battle...

By the way, if not wanting to "muddle the debate over Iraq" seems like a familiar construction, that was the justification we used not to kill Zarqawi in the months before the invasion. Think about how many Iraqi civilians and American servicemen died because of these decisions.

To have so much on one man's conscience... So many rust colored stains. It must be a truly terrible burden.

The History of the Nork's Nukes

This, from Obsidian Wings, is the best, most comprehensive view of the North Korea problem I've yet read. Check it out if you want a full history, from the late 1980's onwards.

Bush's Presser on North Korean Nukes

I'm watching Bush's press conference, and amongst the many interesting topics, the North Korean nuclear test deserves the most play. In defense of his patented "Stand By and Do Nothing while the Norks get Nukes" strategy, he keeps referencing the September 2005 "Joint Statement" Agreement which the "North Korean's abandoned."

And frankly I was quite optimistic that we had succeeded last September when we had this joint statement which... you [in the press] adequately covered. And yet he walked away from it. He decided well maybe his word doesn't mean anything.

But Bush only pays attention to Article 1 of the September Agreement. No heed is paid to Article 2, which stipulates nonaggression against the North Korean regime, food and economic aid, and an increased normalization of relations between the US, Japan, and North Korea. Needless to say, by declaring North Korea a criminal regime and instituting sanctions, only 2 months after the agreement was signed, North Korea feels that America violated this Second Accord - before the North Korean's broke Article 1 by continuing their nuclear program. They have a legitimate claim that we violated that agreement, giving them rhetorical cover for this obvious act of provocation. It is one more instance that illustrates this Administration's constant attempt to steer situation towards crisis and conflagration. A wise strategy, indeed, since within every crisis is "opportunity." Excuse me while I gag on the cliche. How much of Bush's "opportunity" can the world take?

He also reiterates that he considers "all options available" to him in response to questions about the possible use of military force. Please. There is no prospect for military action against North Korea. We are not in the business of starting fights we know we will lose. Plus, with air power - the only option even the most feverish of war supporters consider - what do we hit? What target? The last time the North's nuclear stockpile was in one place was back when they gave us the bird in 2003.

Ha! President Bush just said, "We don't shift our goals." Yes... even when Iran and North Korea march their programs forward, were warned again and again that there is a red line they cannot cross, our goals do no shift. The remaining members of the Axis of Evil were warned that pursuing nuclear weapons "was unacceptable to America." Yet, have they slowed? Have there been the dire consequences for their actions that our leaders have threatened? How is the current round of rhetoric any different than the others? Why should their fear it? Line after line has been crossed, and we are entirely powerless to put bite to our bark.

We look like impotent fools, thanks to Bush's failed policy. But then again, at least we aren't trying to "negotiate with evil"... we're just letting "evil" walk all over us.

The Nork's Nukes and Clinton's Agreed Framework

Condi Rice... what a dishonest woman.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday defended the Bush administration's refusal to hold bilateral talks with North Korea in the face of Pyongyang's claim of a successful nuclear test. She told CNN the Clinton administration tried that approach in the 1990s and it had failed.

Josh Marshall:

"Failure" =1994-2002 -- Era of Clinton 'Agreed Framework': No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.

"Success" = 2002-2006 -- Bush Policy Era: Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated.

Face it. They ditched an imperfect but working policy. They replaced it with nothing. Now North Korea is a nuclear state.

Facts hurt. So do nukes.

North Korea's Fizzle

This shouldn't be too much of a surprise for a first test, but it is embarrassing for the Norks all the same:

France increased its estimate of the blast Monday in North Korea to 1 kiloton or less, but experts still have not confirmed that the explosion was nuclear.

Xavier Clement of France's Atomic Energy Commission estimated the blast at "about or less than a kiloton."

And, should you scoff at the Frenchyness of my sourcing, Jane's Weekly must be right up your alley:

Although details are tentative, initial and unconfirmed South Korean reports indicate that the test was a fission device with a yield of .55 kT. By comparison the nuclear bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima yielded approximately 12.5 kT. The figure of .55 kT, however, seems too low given the 4.2 register on the Richter scale. This could suggest - depending upon the geological make-up of the test site - a yield of 2-12 kT. If, however, the lower yield is correct, it would suggest that the test had been a "pre- or post-detonation" event (ie a failure), as it had been anticipated that North Korea's first nuclear test would have a significantly higher yield.

.55 kT? That's a small explosion. There have been non-nuclear explosions as big as 2-5 kilotons, I believe. So, either the North Korean scientists are quite skilled in their enrichment process and lens shaping, or the weapon fizzled. They may have achieved a limited fission event, but if it went off without a hitch they should have hit around 10 kilotons.

If it were a full, to-spec fission explosion, then the amount of nuclear material used would be much lower than is usual for a first attempt. The less fissile material, the tighter a space you have to compress it into in order to achieve a critical mass, and thereby a self-sustaining nuclear reaction. Compressing the fissile material is accomplished by first creating a very homogeneous and precise starting sphere, then compressing it quickly and evenly from all sides with high explosives - the exact kind stolen from the Al Qaqaa weapons facilities in Iraq after the invasion, in fact. There is very little chance the North Koreans are skilled enough to achieve such a feat on their first attempt.

Bush's North Korea Failure

From the 2002 State of the Union:

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. . . .

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. . . .

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

And yet, "stand[ing] by as peril draws closer and closer" is exactly what President Bush has done. Now we live in a world with a nuclear armed North Korea, and we have President Bush to thank.

Via Glenn Greenwald:

Independent of all of that, we have plainly created an incentive system where every rational leader -- not crazed, Hitleresque, world-domination-seeking leaders -- but every rational leader, would assess that it is in his country's interest to acquire a nuclear capability. Of the three "axis of evil" members, the one which was, by far, the weakest militarily was the one we invaded and shattered. But with the strongest of the three, North Korea, we have proceeded very gingerly, issuing plainly empty threats and bellicose rhetoric but doing little else.

The message we have sent with our foreign policy is clear -- if you are a militarily weak nation, we may invade you or bomb you at will, but if you arm yourselves or, better still, acquire nuclear capability, we will not. That has become the incentive scheme produced by having the world's only superpower announce to the world that it has the right to preemptively invade other countries.

I have been saying that for years. Go read the whole thing... it's only ten paragraphs or so.

North Korea's Nuclear Test

"I love the Financial Times. The financial papers actually tell the truth." That's one of Chomsky's common refrains. It makes sense, since, if you're making decisions that will make or lose money, you need to be dealing with the most faithful representation of reality you can come by.

Here, the Financial Times tells it like it is:

North Korea's probable test of a nuclear weapon on Monday has triggered the second nuclear crisis in 13 years on the Korean peninsula.

In 1993, North Korea announced it would pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, leaving it free to divert nuclear material from its energy reactors to make a nuclear weapon and setting off a round of crisis diplomacy led by the Clinton administration. The result was the so-called agreed framework, which - in return for supplies of fuel oil to North Korea - froze most aspects of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programme for the rest of the decade.

The agreed framework was in effect consigned to history when the Bush administration came to power in 2001. The new administration argued that although the road to a plutonium-based nuclear bomb had been frozen, the North Koreans were cheating by attempting to develop a uranium-based bomb that was not explicitly addressed by the agreement.

That five years later, North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon will be widely interpreted as a sign of the failure of the tougher approach favoured by the Bush team.

North Korea told the Security Council that it tested a weapon over the weekend. It must have been an underground test, which means every advanced nation on the earth heard the rumble. It's not exactly a claim the North Koreans can fake.