Media uncritically covered McCain attack on Clinton's North Korea policy, ignored its apparent effectiveness
SUMMARY: The Washington Post, NBC, and ABC all uncritically covered Sen. John McCain's attack on the Clinton administration's North Korea policy, in which he argued that the 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and North Korea had been a "failure." All of these outlets ignored the fact, however, that the Clinton White House successfully prevented North Korea from producing any plutonium for eight years.
On October 10, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) responded to criticism of the Bush administration's treatment of North Korea by assailing former President Clinton's North Korea policy. McCain argued that the Agreed Framework, a 1994 agreement between the United States and North Korea, had been a "failure" and claimed that every time the Clinton White House "warned the Koreans not to do something -- not to kick out the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor -- they did it" and "were rewarded ... with more talks." But in an article on these remarks, The Washington Post entirely ignored the fact that the Agreed Framework apparently prevented the North Koreans from producing any plutonium until the Bush administration abandoned the Framework in 2002 -- a point Clinton made in a statement responding to McCain's criticism. In an interview on the October 11 edition of NBC's Today, McCain repeated, without challenge, his misleading criticism of the Clinton administration's policy. Additionally, CNN host Wolf Blitzer repeated McCain's argument on the October 11 edition of CNN's The Situation Room.
Following a claim on October 8 by North Korea that it had tested a nuclear weapon, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) issued a statement calling the situation "extremely serious." Sen. Clinton asserted, "Some of the reasons we are facing this dangerous situation is because of the failed policies of the Bush Administration. I regret deeply their failure to deal with the threat posed by North Korea." Appearing at an October 10 campaign event in Southfield, Michigan, for Republican Senate candidate Mike Bouchard, McCain responded to Sen. Clinton's criticism of the Bush administration by "remind[ing]" her that the Clinton administration's policy toward North Korea "was a failure." In an October 11 article, Post staff writer Charles Babington reported the back-and-forth between the two senators:
In what sounded to many Washington ears yesterday like an early shot in the 2008 presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) singled out Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he denounced the Clinton administration's policies toward North Korea.
"I would remind Senator Clinton and other Democrats critical of Bush administration policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure," McCain said in a speech near Detroit, where he was campaigning for a Republican Senate candidate. "Every single time the Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something -- not to kick out the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor -- they did it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with further talks."
Babington went on to quote from a statement issued by Sen. Clinton's spokesman in response to McCain's remarks:
Philippe Reines, spokesman for Hillary Clinton, said of McCain's remarks: "Now is not the time to play politics of the most dangerous kind. ... President Bush has been in charge of North Korea policy for six years, and two days ago we saw the brazen result."
He said the New York senator "supports an approach that protects us from the threat of North Korean nuclear weapons, as the Clinton administration successfully did for eight years."
Further, Babington noted that McCain's criticism of the Agreed Framework echoed that put forth by the Bush administration in 2003:
McCain's remarks echo those made by Bush administration officials in early 2003. Abandoning a previous insistence that only North Korea was to blame for the brewing nuclear crisis, Bush allies then began arguing it was the predictable result of a flawed 1994 agreement between the Clinton administration and Pyongyang. The pact, they contended, granted benefits to North Korea while leaving until later the threat of sanctions.
But while Babington's article included Reines's statement that Sen. Clinton "supports" her husband's approach, he did not inform readers of the apparent results of that policy. Indeed, under the Agreed Framework -- which the Bush administration abandoned in 2002 -- North Korea did not produce any plutonium for eight years, as noted in a separate statement released on October 10 by Ben Yarrow, a spokesman for President Clinton:
For eight years during the Clinton Administration, there was no new plutonium production, no nuclear weapons tests and therefore no additional nuclear weapons developed on President Clinton's watch. President Clinton's policy toward the North was strong and effective, pairing clear red lines with tough, smart engagement. Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed President Clinton's policy toward the North in 2001. The Clinton Administration's approach has been turned on its head and North Korea now has demonstrated its nuclear weapons capability to the world. It is unfortunate that anyone would attempt to rewrite history to score political points at a time when we need to address this serious threat.
Indeed, signed on October 21, 1994, the agreement stipulated that North Korea would halt its plutonium production and lock up its stockpile of spent fuel rods (used to make weapons-grade plutonium). In return, the United States, along with the European Union, Japan, and South Korea, would assist with the country's energy needs. During the next eight years, North Korea abided by the agreement and its plutonium-based facilities and materials remained under constant United Nations surveillance, as an October 10 Los Angeles Times article described:
Little more than four years ago, the North Korean nuclear weapons program was largely under lock and key, the threat seen as a fleeting crisis of a previous decade.
North Korea's main nuclear center at Yongbyon, 60 miles north of Pyongyang, was monitored 24 hours a day by U.N. surveillance cameras. International inspectors lived near the site. Seals were in place over key nuclear installations and a nuclear reactor at Yongbyon was gathering dust.
In October 2002, however, North Korea admitted to having operated a clandestine uranium enrichment program. While the Agreed Framework covered only the North Korean plutonium-based nuclear facilities, the Bush administration considered its newly disclosed uranium program a violation of the "spirit" of the agreement. In response, the Bush administration announced (subscription required) in November 2002 that it would eliminate funding for, and ultimately end, fuel oil shipments to North Korea, an act that went contrary to the terms of the Agreed Framework. North Korea subsequently began producing plutonium (subscription required) in early 2003. The country has since accumulated 20-43 kilograms of the fissile material, enough for two to 12 nuclear weapons. But the fact remains that during years the Agreed Framework was in force, North Korea produced no plutonium, as Yarrow's statement asserted. Nonetheless, Babington left out this fact in his article.
Moreover, Babington uncritically reported McCain's misleading claims that, under the Agreed Framework, North Korea "kick[ed] out the IAEA inspectors" and "remove[d] the fuel rods from their reactor." In fact, during the eight years the Agreed Framework was in place, IAEA inspectors remained in the country. They were expelled in December 2002 after the Bush administration abandoned the agreement. Further, while the 8,000 fuel rods in North Korea's possession in 1994 were indeed moved from the nuclear facility at Yongbyon, this action was taken by the IAEA in order to store them under the terms of the Agreed Framework and was not in violation of the agreement, as McCain appeared to suggest. The IAEA began transporting the rods in 1996 and announced that it had completed the storage process in 2000.
By contrast to the Post, Associated Press staff writer Sarah Karush noted Yarrow's response in her October 10 AP article on McCain's remarks:
A spokesman for President Clinton, Ben Yarrow, said in a statement that it was "unfortunate that anyone would attempt to rewrite history to score political points at a time when we need to address this serious threat."
"For eight years during the Clinton administration, there was no new plutonium production, no nuclear weapons tests and therefore no additional nuclear weapons developed on President Clinton's watch," said Yarrow, who added that Colin Powell, Bush's secretary of State, endorsed Clinton's policy toward North Korea in 2001.
Karush further noted Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) statement that, while the Agreed Framework was not "a perfect agreement ... [a]t least we had inspectors going in and we knew where the (nuclear fuel) rods were":
"He must be trying to burnish his credentials for the nomination process," said Kerry, who labeled McCain's comments "flat politics and incorrect."
"The truth is the Clinton administration knew full well they didn't have a perfect agreement. But at least they were talking. At least we had inspectors going in and we knew where the (nuclear fuel) rods were. This way, we don't know where the rods are, the rods are gone. There are no inspectors. Ask any American which way is better," Kerry said.
On the October 11 editions of Today and ABC's Good Morning America, McCain repeated his criticism of the Clinton administration's North Korea policy. On Today, he stated that North Korea violated the Agreed Framework "time after time, and we never did anything about it," describing this account as "a matter of history." But during the interview, co-host Meredith Vieira did not press McCain on the basis for this claim, nor did she note the overarching point that the agreement successfully halted North Korea's plutonium production for eight years.
Similarly, McCain argued on Good Morning America that the Agreed Framework allowed North Korea to "keep plutonium rods" and stated that they were "enriching uranium in violation" of the "spirit" of the treaty. But in this case, co-host Diane Sawyer responded by paraphrasing Kerry's statement, saying, "[H]owever they may have cheated, at least we were talking; at least we knew where the fuel rods were. There were inspections. There were 8,000 fuel rods, and they knew where they were; and that even if they were cheating on the margins that it deterred perhaps as many as 80 bombs." After McCain dismissed Kerry's defense, Sawyer went on to note that Powell endorsed the Agreed Framework, as Yarrow noted in his statement. Indeed, Powell said in 2003, "The previous administration I give great credit to for freezing that plutonium site. ... Lots of nuclear weapons were not made because of the Agreed Framework and the work of President Clinton and his team."
In an interview with Scott Ritter, a former intelligence officer and United Nations weapons inspector, on the October 10 edition of The Situation Room, Blitzer strongly echoed McCain's misleading remarks in response to Ritter's criticism of the Bush administration's North Korea policy. Blitzer stated that "the Clinton administration gave the North Koreans basically everything: a lot of assistance, promises of light-water reactors for peaceful purposes, but they were lying and cheating throughout those entire years, developing, on a separate track, a nuclear bomb." But Blitzer did not mention the fact that the Clinton administration's policy had apparently halted the North Korea's plutonium production for eight years. And Blitzer overlooked this fact despite having conducted an interview with Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) a day earlier, during which Richardson made clear that, under the Agreed Framework, North Korea "did not develop any nuclear weapons."
From the October 11 edition of NBC's Today:
VIEIRA: You have said -- you said yesterday that you believe the Clinton administration and its failed policy was responsible for the -- for the mess that we're in now. And Senator Clinton said quite the opposite -- she said that Bush lost the opportunity that had been presented to him under the Clinton administration, going one-on-one with North Korea, and created this -- this problem. So, who's missing the point here?
McCAIN: Let me just make it very, very clear. I would not have said anything if the Democrats -- Mrs. Clinton, Senator Kerry, [Senate Democratic Leader] Senator [Harry] Reid [NV] and others -- had not attacked the Bush administration. I said this in response to their attacks on President Bush. I think this is the wrong time for us to be engaging in finger-pointing, when this crucial time we need the world and Americans united in going to the United Nations bringing about sanctions and action -- meaningful action against North Korea.
VIEIRA: But, you still said that --
McCAIN: So, I responded to attacks, yes --
VIEIRA: Right, but you still said that the --
McCAIN: And I responded -- I responded to those attacks by pointing out my longstanding opposition to the agreed on framework, which I opposed at the time, because it was unverifiable, unenforceable. The North Koreans violated it time after time, and we never did anything about it. That's a matter of history.
From the October 11 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
McCAIN: During the Clinton administration years, we concluded an unenforceable and un-transparent agreement, which allowed them [North Korea] to keep plutonium rods in a reactor, which they could, at any time that they chose to, to start conversion in order to make the nuclear material, and at the same time, the evidence is very strong that they were enriching uranium in violation -- not at least the letter of the treaty -- but certainly the spirit of it, because that material could be used to make nuclear weapons as well.
SAWYER: But this is an important question about what works and does not work in this region of the world -- this very difficult region of the world. Senator Kerry has said, "Look, whatever they were doing, however they may have cheated, at least we were talking; at least we knew where the fuel rods were. There were inspections. There were 8000 fuel rods, and they knew where they were; and that even if they were cheating on the margins that it deterred perhaps as many as 80 bombs."
McCAIN: Well, we were talking to Adolph Hitler right up until the moment when he annexed Czechoslovakia. I think that unless there is some positive response on the part of the people you're talking to, that it's not a very useful exercise.
SAWYER: But the former Secretary of State, Colin Powell said, "The previous administration I give credit to for freezing that plutonium site. ... Lots of nuclear weapons were not made because of the Agreed Framework and the work of President Clinton and his team." That's Colin Powell.
McCAIN: Yes, and I respectfully disagree. At the time that the agreement was made, I disagreed with it. I said they would break it. I said that it would -- this would put them on the path to developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them and that is exactly what happened; and they crossed red lines during that period of time, and we did nothing but more talk.
From the October 9 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: You served in the Clinton administration. With hindsight, was that a huge blunder to offer the North Koreans that kind of assistance -- nuclear assistance, humanitarian assistance, economic assistance -- given their track record as a Stalinist regime?
RICHARDSON: No, it was not a blunder. In fact, it was a success for eight years because of the Agreed Framework agreement negotiated by the Clinton administration. The North Koreans did not develop any nuclear weapons.
From the October 10 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
RITTER: Look, North Korea was a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And there was a period of time where there were weapons inspectors in North Korea doing a job. The Bush administration, again, because it seeks to isolate and destabilize the North Korean regime --
BLITZER: But the Clinton administration gave the North Koreans basically everything: a lot of assistance, promises of light-water reactors for peaceful purposes, but they were lying and cheating throughout that -- those entire years, developing, on a separate track, a nuclear bomb.
RITTER: I'm not here to either praise, you know, praise the Clinton administration's policies or condone the North Korean activities. I think we need to talk about the Bush administration because they're in power today.
Sandy Berger's claims that the North Koreans did not produce any amount of plutonium during the Clinton Administration defies reason and is simply not credible. Does Mr Berger believe the word of a dictator who starves his own people and builds nuclear weapons? Did time stop for 8 years, where the world existed as if the view through rose-colored glasses was real?
I understand MediaMatters exists to refute Conservative and Republican assertions and statements. But it undermines your credibility to accept such an absurd statement by Berger. The Clinton Administration, Secretary Albright, and President Carter all trusted Kim Jong-Il to follow the agreement. He did not. And it was hopelessly and recklessly naive for them to expect him to.
The Bush Administration has not done any better, basically ignoring North Korea entirely. But the majority of progress in their nuclear program happened in the 1990's and with great assistance provided by President Clinton & Co.
It was a mistake. I don't expect Berger to admit that. I would expect more from a "watchdog" like MediaMatters.
people who have a political agenda as the "truth" and assert that the Clinton claims cannot be prooven despite teh fact the data to support thier calims comes from inspectors and operatives who duiring hte clinton adminstratration where able to keep an eye on what NK was up to. Now we know nothing and you will throw out everything that those inspectoers and operatves assigned this task in the 1990's. They had no politival agenda. Just a job to do. What--thier word is not reliable but by goerge we can believe everything old MCCAIN says. Pardon me BUT BULLSH___ YOur arguement unfortuately will be beleived by those who are warped enough to ignore simple logic in order to push political agendas but the rest of us are samrt enough to use COMMON SENSE> The information was there in black and white at the time. It was perfect no but at least it was somewaht effective-- which is a lot better than Bush's inore all policy.
It is convienient for rightwing propaganda is your ONLY evidence. You believe it because you WANT to. Plutonium enrichment is very technical, and even if there were a secret plant the production of Plutonium produces Krypton 85. A gas you can bet we are looking for and monitering. We dont need to trust what anyone says, we have our ways, and no one not even the CIA says N Korea was developing Plutonium during Clintons term. I know it would be good for the rightwings blame Clinton for everything including killing Elvis, especially anything BUSH has screwed up that HAS to be Clintons fault. However unless you have some evidence you can cough up I think we will take the CIA's word for it. You need the fuel rods from nuclear power plants to make Plutonium. THOSE WERE UNDER SEAL AND MONITERED. Every indication is that N Korea did NOT make Plutonium during the Clinton Administration.
"Sandy Berger's claims that the North Koreans did not produce any amount of plutonium during the Clinton Administration defies reason and is simply not credible." --reformedliberal
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually your own statement is logically flawed. You need to produce actual evidence (and not speculation) to support your own point. I don't see anything like that from you thus far.
Again, you have the affirmative claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence that NK was indeed enriching plutonium on Clinton's watch as Berger cannot logically be expected prove a negative.
Bottom line:
In 2002, the United States released $95 million to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace its nuclear program.
"In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors," the BBC reported in 2002.
Bush's Presidential determination said that the decision was "vital to the national security interests of the United States."
The directive said that the United States was "continuing to make significant progress on eliminating the North Korean ballistic missile threat, including further missile tests and its ballistic missile exports."
Like they say at Think Progress,
Bush I: 1-2 bombs worth of plutonium Clinton: Zero plutonium Bush II: 10-11 bombs worth of plutonium and counting, first nuclear test
I would expect more from someone claiming to be "fair and balanced".
But the majority of progress in their nuclear program happened in the 1990's and with great assistance provided by President Clinton & Co. .........
You must be joking! You're trying to say that during Clinton's term was when the real progress was made by NK in developing nuclear weapons????? So, let me guess - do you think that Kim Jong Il just sat on his weapons for six years before deciding to test? Did you not hear the various experts warning in the lead up to the Iraq war that it would spur NK on to speed up its development? Do you really believe that??? Do you think that Bob Woodward is lying when he recounts the early point in Bush's Presidency when Bush spoke with the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S and asked him "why should i care about North Korea?" Whatever it is that you don't like about Clinton, please don't insult everyone's intelligence by suggesting that Clinton does anything other than tower over Bush and co. when it comes to diplomacy and foreign policy. Face it - Bush is a dangerously ignorant fool who needs his dads friends to help him run things. I can see the scene from inside Kims palace in 2000 "aaahhh finally Clinton is out of the White House!!! Now all i must do is wait for about six years to unveil my nuclear bomb to the world - after all, what's the rush?" The reality is that this president is a total fool - he hasn't been advised what to do, because there is no advice - the plan is "we don't know what to do!!!!" Until that is, NK becomes a big enough threat to scare the American people into voting for a crackpot missile defence system that should prove a nice little earner for some "friends" in the industry. One last bit of advice - if you want to deal with the nuclear threat - LEARN HOWE TO PRONOUNCE IT YOU DANGEROUS IDIOT!!!!!
He reformed by denouncing the reality based universe and accepting the it must be true because I want it to be true school of wingnut thought.
I think it's a re-formed liberal like a toilet's clogged up with a re-formed gourmet meal.
NK PRODUCED NO PLUTONIUM FOR 8 YEARS. How can you compare that to Bush's record? Although I have heard too often that both Clinton and Bush failed. What a joke. Poll most americans and I am sure they would agree with that conventional wisdom. Inspectors were there, the plant was closed. I am sure they would know if the plant started up, I assume the leave a large signature that a satellite could pick up. Also have a problem with this from Blitzer" those entire years, developing, on a separate track, a nuclear bomb." He must be talking about the uranium enrichement. This is a much more technical route to a much weaker bomb. In fact experts believe NK didnt even have enough energy to even produce a uranium bomb and bc of the technical aspects NK was years away from developing a uranium bomb. From what I have read NK could enrich uranium but would face severe obstacles in converting that into a weapon. Why no dinstinction between uranium and plutonium bomb? It is crucial to understanding this crisis.
and to believe that North Korea wasn't monitored takes a lot of Sannitizing.
You guys beat me to it, but just have to thank deformed liberal for the laugh of the night.
Clinton's administration, U.S. intelligence and the inspectors apparently couldn't possibly know anything about NK's program, yet this mighty righty poster has the full 1990's progress report.
I'm sure it's busy linking to all it's sources right now. Har.
MB you make the correct distinction with the type of system, but it could be done. Here are some links:
"The program is based on the process of uranium enrichment, in contrast to North Korea’s pre-1995 nuclear program based on plutonium reprocessing. North Korea began a secret uranium enrichment program after 1995 reportedly with the assistance of Pakistan. North Korea provided Pakistan with intermediate range ballistic missiles in the late 1990s. The Central Intelligence Agency issued a statement in December 2002 that North Korea likely could produce two or more atomic bombs annually through uranium enrichment after 2004. In admitting to the secret program, Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sok-ju (an important figure in the North Korean regime) declared to Kelly that North Korea also possesses “more powerful” weapons. North Korea proposed a new U.S.-North Korean negotiation of a bilateral non-aggression pact and an agreement for the United States to cease “stifling” North Korea’s economy. The North Korean proposal, which Pyongyang reiterated at the Beijing talks in April 2003" -Larry A. Niksch Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
[link to fas.org]
And this:
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Hearing Siegfried S. Hecker Senior Fellow, Los Alamos National Laboratory University of California January 21, 2004
"We were shown what was claimed to be a sample of plutonium metal product. I was not able to definitively confirm that what we saw was actually plutonium metal, but all observations I was able to make are consistent with the sample being plutonium metal.
- In the foreseeable future, the DPRK can produce 6 kg of plutonium per year in its 5 MWe reactor. It easily has the capacity to reprocess the spent fuel at any time to extract the plutonium. It also has the capacity to reload the reactor with fresh fuel for a second and subsequent reloading"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I think it's safe to say that trusting a communist dictator to play by the rules has not panned out in any endeavor the US has tried in the past. What makes us think this event would be any different?
The document you link to highlites the difficulties in dealing with NK. NK has behaved like this for decades. NK can not be trusted. What is interesting is that NK threatened with uranium bomb ( tech from Pakistan in exchange for missile tech, its a lovely world we live in huh) to get more concessions. NK was very upset with the loss of fuel/agreed framework (which makes me question McCain bc withdrawal of agreed framework is the stick) NK screwed up bad. Still I stand by my assertion, plutonium was under lock and key, plutonium reactor not running for 8 years. With plutonium NK able to produce weapons every 6 months, recent reports I have read still question feasibility of uranium bomb for NK. Your link cites CIA report stating uranium bomb feasable in2004. But apparently experts question whether NK has the massive amounts of energy needed to convert uranium. Also your link notes that you have Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bolton advocating for isolating/sanctioning NK leading to collapse and regime change on one side and Colin Powell advocating for further diplomacy (which side would you like to be on today?). Powell arguing, quite rightfully, that NK would not collapse (China definitely wouldnt allow this and would provide necessary assistance). I didnt read all 18 pages, will continue to read. I think it highlite the great quandry that is NK. Good solutions, there are none. I still believe Clinton/albright performed well and achieved limited sucess along with failures. Bush has seen 4-13 plutonium bombs produced on his watch.
MB posted:
"Still I stand by my assertion, plutonium was under lock and key, plutonium reactor not running for 8 years. "
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The agreed framework tried to move the plutonium rods to a third country, but NK would not agree to it. This left them with rods that weapons could be made from. We know the NK's tampered with the containers we just can't confirm when. If you have evidence that they did not in fact tamper with them over the eight year period, please share.
You are correct the reactor was shut down for eight years. Our problem was trusting the NK's to abide by the agreed framework. Just some thoughts to ponder from Larry A. Niksch,Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division. He has been working on intelligence from NK since at least '92:
"a plutonium reprocessing building about 600 feet long and several stories high: Hans Blix, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said after his visit to North Korea in May 1992 that the facility fit the definition of a plutonium reprocessing plant where weapons grade Plutonium-239 is separated from a reactor's spent fuel. North Korea completed one reprocessing line in 1993. IAEA inspectors in March 1994 saw evidence that North Korea was constructing a second reprocessing system in the building, which would double plutonium production capacity. Satellite photographs reportedly also show that the atomic reactors have no attached power lines, which they would have if used for electric power generation. Some experts and reports from North Korean defectors point to possibilities that North Korea also may have other, hidden nuclear weapons facilities. Bakchon, 60 miles north of Pyongyang, has been cited as one such site. Hans Blix and a number of U.S. and South Korean experts have speculated that North Korea might have built a hidden "pilot" plutonium reprocessing laboratory as a prototype for the large reprocessing installation. Persons interviewed for this study believe that North Korea has been constructing the two reactors and the apparent reprocessing plant with its own resources and technology. It is believed that Kim Chong-il, the son and successor of President Kim Il-sung who died in July 1994, directs the program, and that the military and the Ministry of Public Security (North Korea's version of the KGB) implement it. North Korea reportedly has about 3,000 scientists and research personnel devoted to the Yongbyon program. Many have studied nuclear technology (though not necessarily nuclear weapons production) in the Soviet Union and China and reportedly Pakistan. The training of nuclear scientists at North Korean universities reportedly is intense. North Korea has uranium deposits, estimated at 26 million tons. North Korea is believed to have one uranium producing mine. "
Here is one of his latest reports: [link to www.gwu.edu]
In addition, the Agreed Framework called on the US to help North Korea to ‘stabilise’ the 8,000 spent-fuel rods discharged from the 5MW(e) reactor in May–June 1994, pending their eventual removal from North Korea when the first unit of the Light Water Reactor (LWR) project (see below) was completed. After their removal from the reactor, these rods had been stored in a spentfuel pond next to the reactor building for over two years, during which time a considerable amount of corrosion had occurred. As a result, much of the magnesium cladding and some of the uranium metal had broken loose from the fuel rods themselves, posing a safety risk. Over the course of the next few years, under IAEA monitoring, the spent fuel rods were placed in 400 stainless-steel canisters, each containing approximately 20 rods or fragments. These canisters were filled with inert gas and sealed by US contractors on-site in North Korea, and then placed in underwater racks under IAEA seal. From Washington’s perspective, the canning operation helped to prepare the fuel for eventual shipment out of the country because the canisters were designed to be fitted inside shielded shipping casks. From Pyongyang’s standpoint, however, canning prevented further corrosion and helped to preserve a reprocessing option if the Agreed Framework failed. ----This was from International Institute for Strategic Studies. In fact IAEA tried to examine and measure fuel rods but NK was playing games and mixing them. However once they went into the pond they were under camera surveillance and IAEA surveillance. The bigger concern was NK getting plutonium from them prior to them being buried in the pond. So for 7 plus years no plutonium was gotten from them. Again from what I have read.
The most immediate threat is from the roughly 8,000 spent fuel rods from the 5MW(e) reactor, which the IAEA estimates contain about 25–30kg of plutonium, enough for between two and five nuclear weapons, assuming a reprocessing loss range of 10–30% and that 5–8kg of plutonium is required for each weapon. The status of this plutonium is unknown. North Korea reportedly began reprocessing this fuel in June 2002. ---Again this states that the rods were not reprocessed until 2002.
n 1989, the reactor (the 5mw) was shut down for a period variously estimated at between 70 and 100 days, and this would have provided enough time for North Korea to unload some or all of the fuel for reprocessing. By this time, the total production could have been somewhere between 8 and 15 kilograms of plutonium. North Korea claims that it only removed a few damaged fuel rods, which were reprocessed in the Radiochemical Laboratory in 1990. According to the North, these contained about 0.13 kilograms of plutonium, of which only a 0.09 kilograms were extracted.(prior to Clinton)
When the reactor was shut down for refueling in April 1994, it was variously estimated that the unloaded spent fuel contained 17 to 33 kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium. The 8,000 spent fuel rods at the Yongbyon facility are in special canisters, under the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency 24 hours a day.
1992 and 1993 but the agreement went into effect in 1994. After that the rods were under seal and MONITERED. The IAEA never said they were tampered with so, if we are talking about the time frame the agreement was in effect we do NOT know the rods were tampered with. IF they had been it would have been KNOWN.
"IAEA inspectors in March 1994 saw evidence that North Korea was constructing a second reprocessing system in the building, which would double plutonium production capacity. Satellite photographs reportedly also show that the atomic reactors have no attached power lines, which they would have if used for electric power generation. Some experts and reports from North Korean defectors point to possibilities that North Korea also may have other, hidden nuclear weapons facilities. Bakchon, 60 miles north of Pyongyang, has been cited as one such site. Hans Blix and a number of U.S. and South Korean experts have speculated that North Korea might have built a hidden "pilot" plutonium reprocessing laboratory as a prototype for the large reprocessing installation. " """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Hans Blix seems to disagree with your point. He in fact is on the record stating that we're not sure what the NK's had in the way of plutonium during this time frame.
Are you asserting that the NK's were on the up-and-up with this? If so, you are the worlds biggest optimist.
This is what you wrote-"This left them with rods that weapons could be made from. We know the NK's tampered with the containers we just can't confirm when". My point was that once the 8000 rods went into the ground in 94 they were not tampered with, the IAEA had them under 24-7 surveillance. Now the 5mw reactor was shut down for 70-100 days in 89(NK stated that it removed 80 defective rods). There has always been suspicion that NK had small amount of plutonium, even before Clinton, enough for 1 or 2 weapons. Possibly from 89 shut down, even suspicion that a few grams was smuggled from soviet union collapse. There was even suspicion of another reactor buried in a vast tunnel (smoke seen from satellite photo-NK let inspectors check out source embarrassingly for us it was nothing). Again this is all speculation that NK had other plutonium, NK is notoriously squirrelly. NK felt it added to their bargaining position to have all this suspicion. But a 2nd plutonium reprocessing plant is much different than actually being able to produce plutonium. Which leads to original point- Clinton was able to keep NK from producing plutonium for 8 years. I believe you know about a waste site NK tried to hide as well.
If you go CJR.org, article titled "The devil is in the Details", it links to several good synopsis by reporters doing their job.
Once upon a time, even being the democrat that I am, I had high hopes for McCain, and that he might make a good President. Now, after his outright pandering to the religious right, and of course now starting to play the "blame Clinton" game like all of the other good talking heads, my hope has been dashed, and is long gone.
Hey, what's going on over here? Wait! Look! Clinton, Clinton, Clinton...
Freakin' pathetic really. It always makes me laugh when conservatives tell liberals that we blame everything on Bush and co, which is rather easy to do when they're driving the bus. But of course, they don't realize how ignorant they sound when blaming Clinton, 6+ years after he left office, about things going on today.
I am a lifetime Democrat, but had a lot of respect for McCain because he fought the War and stood up to Bush during the 2000 Election. To me, he now is another Rove Parrot.
I don't get it why all those Democrats and independents have or had "respect" for McCain. He stood up to Bush in 2000 because he wanted to be president! Now (and in 2004) he keeps on brown-nosing Bush for the exact same reason. So maybe we can all stop pretending he's some kind of higher lifeform. He's just your ordinary Republican on his way to the White House. Don't think for a second that his administration will look any different from the current one.
The sad thing is – and this particular episode shows it – that the media just adore him. McCain's word is THE TRUTH. 2008 will be another sad year of journalists rolling over before a Republican. Remember, it was Rove's dirty tricks that did him in last time not the media. Two years from now he'll have a free path to nr. 1600...
I do believe, before 2004, that he was different, and actually did things that were fruitful, and he wasn't a Bush lackey/cronie, and didn't roll over for the administration. As 2008 draws closer though, he starts to roll more and more. Whereas before, I think that he actually did things that would be good for America, and good for his constituents, whereas now, he's running early for '08, and doing what he can to gain political capital. I just think before 2004, he had a lot more clout, and was a decent legislator. That's all.
I'm pretty certain we could have a full-blown arms race again if we choose. All we have to do is have G.W. declare other nations (say Venezuela or perhaps Syria) to be new members of the infamous 'Axis of Evil' (bwoo-ha-ha-ha), then just sit back and watch the nuclear fun. It is amazing that our imbecilic chief-of-state sees no connection between his insulting, sword-rattling threats and the defensive response of those nations threatened (no matter how onerous the regime). And just why is the United States (or any other nation for that matter) entitled to nuclear weapons in the first place? Am I the only one who is scared s**tless that Bush, of all deranged people, has his finger on the trigger?
Is this now an official part of the right-wing spin field manual to play the "Hitler card" whenever backed into a corner? What a load of crap! The Bush administration has time and time again upheld a policy of isolationism and military action over diplomacy, so what did they expect? Of course Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and many others are railing against the U.S.! Don't be surprised to have ten more countries go nuclear in the next 5-10 years...it's an inevitable course that can only be changed by a U.S. administration that actually uses intelligence and logic in it's approach to foreign affairs. Until then whack-jobs like Kim Jong-Il will be crawling out from every corner of the world!
...except for a few apologist above... most of the responses above are entirely reasonable.
If you have a brain... all you have to do is look at what Bush has done in regard to North Korea over the past 6 years (not even 'accomplished' ... another iffy word the neocons seem to have adopted and now 'own').
Bush and his camp have done NOTHING in regard to North Korea. Nothing except a lot of toughguy soundbites by a seemingly disinterested Bush... McCain is a whore. And he knows better, too... but, there are no lengths HE will go to in order to follow that 'carrot' of the 2008 election. Very sad and embarrassing for us as a country. Especially for McCain.
When does results matter when discussing policy with Republicans???
Answer: When the rare moment comes they get it right!
The difference the two administrations is that we were respected as a good steward of democracy and freedom in the world. We were taken seriously, and weren't considered a rogue nation by the rest of the world, and nukes were in check under the Clinton Admin, and running amok under Bush.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Is the media ever going to ask itself about its failure to live up to the responsibilities of the Fourth Estate? Its failure to ask the tough questions of our leaders, and follow up when fed a trough full of crap? One wonders about the future of our democracy when these lame "journalists" roll over and beg for scraps from our elected officials and political figures.
Why should the U.S. provide any support whatsoever to those murderous thugs in NK?
Below is from Amnesty International regarding NK.
Opposition of any kind is not tolerated. According to reports, any person who expresses an opinion contrary to the position of the ruling party faces severe punishment, and so do in many cases their families.
The domestic news media is strictly censored and access to international media broadcasts is restricted.
Any unauthorized assembly or association is regarded as a "collective disturbance", that is punishable. Religious freedom, although guaranteed by the constitution, is in practice sharply curtailed. There are reports of severe repression of people involved in public and private religious activities, through imprisonment, torture and executions. Many Christians are reportedly being held in labour camps.
Reports from a variety of sources suggest that torture and ill-treatment are widespread in prisons and labour camps, as well as in detention centres where North Koreans who have been forcibly returned from China are held for interrogation pending transfer to other places. Conditions in prisons and labour camps are reported to be extremely harsh. Inmates are made to work from early morning till late at night in farms or factories, and minor infractions of rules can be met with severe beatings. According to some reports, however, more deaths are caused by lack of food, harsh conditions and lack of medical care than by torture or ill-treatment.
Many North Koreans continue to cross the border into China. Some sought asylum in diplomatic compounds and foreign schools in China and were allowed to leave, travelling to South Korea via third countries. Hundreds of others were reportedly apprehended in north east China and forcibly returned to North Korea.
Those forcibly returned are held for interrogation in detention centres or police stations operated by North Korean security agencies. Depending on who they are and the result of interrogation, they may be sent back to their home province, or to labour camps for up to six months. A few, particularly former officials or returnees found with religious literature, are assigned long terms of imprisonment with hard labour or in some cases face execution. Those sent back to their home province are ostracised within their community and subjected to surveillance. Many flee the country again. Some have fled and been returned several times, reportedly facing increasingly severe punishments with each failed escape attempt.
[link to www.amnestyusa.org]
Any option is going to have positives and negatives. The current policy and our international policies in general have resulted in our bargaining from a weaker position.
We are not as much of a threat of attack NK because our resources are stretched thinner and because NK now has nuclear weapons and medium/long range missiles.
NK clearly doesn't care much for the welfare of their people and will rely on China to bail them out when necessary so sanctions aren't as devastating as they should be.
Our current policy is gettin us nowhere and I would argue we are weakening by the day. It's time for a new policy.
The main question is this: Which is more important: not supporting a ruthless dictator to any degree or decreasing the potential of nuclear proliferation?
Once you have decided which one is more in the interest of US foreign policy, you are on your way to an answer.
No one I know has said anything different. However we were asking them to close down their source of power. It is only reasonable to replace that power. That is the support we were offering. On what planet are we supposed to reasonably say, we know you have few natural resourses, we know that a huge source of your electric power is this heavy water nuclear powerplant. We are saying close it down, and suffer the economic consequenes of not having a huge source of power, we arent going to do anything to help with that but we think you ought to do it anyway. That would be reasonabe HOW?
Perhaps your premise is false. Is there any evidence that " the Clinton White House successfully prevented North Korea from producing any plutonium for eight years." I believe the evidence is to the contrary.
Do you have facts to contradicting every report out there including reports to congress? NK has one reactor, it is 5mw and was shut down from 94 until feb 2003. You need to shut it down to remove fuel rods to collect the plutonium. Its where the fuel rods came from. The IAEA had them under lock and key and actually under AF were to be transported to 3rd country. Clinton was able to keep 5mw reactor shut down through agreed framework deal, NK reopened reactor after Bush walked away from AF. NK was also constructing 2 larger reactors, 50 and 200 megawatts respectively. Construction was stopped under AF/Clinton. Once the 2 lite water reactors were complete, estimated in 2003, $500 million was to be set aside to deconstruct the 2 large reactors (together the reactors could produce 30 plutonium bombs). Also the plutonium reprocessing plant (quite large) was shut down under AF. It reopened in March 2003. Do you have other info?
Evidence again?
Because AA, truly competent leadership has the ability to see beyond the governmet of a foreign state and see people being governed. Do you think that food and fuel shipments to the DPRK were for Kim Jung IL's comfort?? No. It was because to the Clinton administration "compassion" was more than just a word insert into political speeches. In the current administration's black and white, flat world view of reality, if you don't like a leader, the suffering of his citizens is inconsequential.
I understand the need for humanitarian aid, but by so doing, the U.S. is propping up what is arguably the world's most repressive regime. I'll admit it is a moral problem, and I grieve for the suffering being imposed by the murderous dictator. I have heard that much of that aid went to the Army and not the people. To prop up this regime only makes the U.S. an enabler.. and all this was done as appeasement to keep the NK's from building nuclear weapons.
Clinton's policy with NK failed because they didn't get rid of the plutonium enriching plants... all they did is delay the use of it.. as others have suggested... kicked the problem down the road. The NK's cheated on the agreement. They lied and deceived and continued their weapons program. One could argue that is not very competent, as the Clinton Administration did, to let that happen.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if the NKs weren't using the spent rods to make plutonium, the NKs still would made nuclear weapons from uranium all the while.
I only hope that the Chinese finally realize how dangerous NK is to them as well as SK and Japan and go in and replace Kim Il Sung and his government.
I meant Kim Jung Il.
My apologies.
I think that has crossed their minds more than once. The problem is that NK has a formidable military. You are talking causalties in the millions. If you want precision strike against facilities, NK can respond with its own precision missiles tipped with chemical munitions. S Korea would see its mighty infrastructure reduced to ashes. You think they would ok a strike? Easy for us to do it we wont receive the retaliation. Also under agreed framework once lite reactors were online the plutonium reprocessing plant and 2 heavy reactors were to be deconstructed. Also uranium bomb doesnt compare to plutonium bomb. It takes years longe, yeild is fractionally lower (if this gives you any comfort) and unclear if NK could build one. Bush let 5 mw reactor start up, plutonium plant start up and let NK unlock the fuel rods. Again I challenge anyone to come up for a good solution for NK. What would you do? *listens to crickets chirping*
First and foremost China, and to a lesser degree S Korea, would not let the regime collapse no matter what we did. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bolton wanted to isolate and sanction NK way back in 2003. They wanted regime collapse or regime change. Colin Powell pointed out that it would not happen. China would provide assistance. China doesnt want millions of refugees flooding over its borders. The only reason NK agreed to diplomacy with Clinton is bc China threatened to agree to minimal economic sanctions agianst NK. Today China and Russia rejected Bolton's sanctions despite NK's actions. You have a better idea for helping NK's civilians? First and foremost our policy should be shutting down NK's nuclear program. S Korea and China have humanitarian missions in NK.
We will however never know since we NEVER held up OUR end of the agreement. Had we done so, had we come across with normalization of relations, had we signed a non aggession pact, had we gotten out of the way of the Sunshine policy with South Korea and allowed economic ties between the countries. It would have done two things, 1) lessened any reasonable basis for their paranoia, and 2) given them something to lose, something we could have used as leverage to get them to dismantle the heavy water reactor, as soon as we came across with the light water reactors, which we also failed to do. Since the agreement was NEVER implimented on OUR part we will never know where the agreement COULD have gone or what it COULD have accomplished