BCT Editorial – 2/15/07

This page was last updated on February 21, 2007.

First step; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 15, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Sometimes you have to take what you can get and go from there.

“That’s the way to look at the far-from-perfect deal to begin dismantling North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

“The bargain among six nations - the United States, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and North Korea - gives North Korea energy, food and other aid in exchange for shuttering its main nuclear reactor.

“The Associated Press reported it does not expressly require the North to give up existing weapons or testing, and the agreement does not spell out how negotiators will resolve issues that have derailed previous pacts.

“As the Bush administration has acknowledged, the deal leaves a lot to be desired. It could send the wrong message to countries that are developing nuclear programs or are thinking about starting one.

“There’s no guarantee that North Korea won’t renege on the deal after it has received the aid it so desperately needs. It does not require North Korea to give up the nuclear weapons it now has or to forego further testing.

“The conditions of the accord were condemned almost immediately. Those on the right said North Korea was being rewarded for bad behavior, while those on the left slammed the administration for wasting valuable time by not agreeing to virtually the same conditions in 2002.

“But what other options does the United States have? It can’t threaten North Korea with its ground forces because they’re bogged down in Iraq. Aerial bombing is virtually impossible because of how well protected North Korea’s sites are. Using its nuclear weapons is a nonstarter.

“Like it or not, this accord is a first step in the right direction, nothing more and nothing less.”

[RWC] What’s missing from this editorial? Any acknowledgement the Clinton administration – with “help” from Jimmy Carter – worked out a similar agreement with North Korea. As a reminder, according to the 1994 treaty, North Korea wouldn’t build nuclear weapons in return for economic aid. In other words, we agreed to pay blackmail. As we know, North Korea began ignoring their commitments before the ink was dry on the treaty. Perhaps the Times editorial board can explain why we should expect a different outcome this time around.