Rice helped unfreeze N Korean funds (Condi=Maddie)

FT ^ | 03/21/07 | Demetri Sevastopulo & Andrew Yeh

[CutePuppy]

I already explained how this is so very different from bilateral "kick the can" Maddie deal. I don't know what kind of multi-party agreement you imagine we could ever eventually reach with NoKo (via China, who we really negotiated with, not Kim) that would satisfy these same intractable questions in it -

"What about N. Korea's not-yet-detected secret facilities and bombs? Are you going to take N. Korea's words on it?"

Maybe we can put some language into an agreement along the lines of "and no cheating this time, like you did with Maddie and Bill last time, or we are going to get very angry with you and cut off your energy and food supply except humanitarian aid for North Korean children" ?

Silly Condi, she probably didn't think of that.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #18

Yes, we have. I was referring to Bush admin's actions about N. Korean nuke test, not sorry-ass Clinton's escapade. Bush and China appeared to draw the line on the nuke test, but when it happened, China did not do much, and let it slide.

Remind me again what Bush's options were?

Now you were talking about options. So you admit that I was right on this point.

then why did Kim not just go on doing what he was doing?

With or without agreements, Kim has done what he wanted. What we have to do is to deny him the resource to continue his projects. Not another agreement he would not keep, unless his life literally depends on it. In all likelihood, he is working hard at his projects right now, at the places not known to the West.

Again, what is the price N. Korea has to pay for not keeping the promise? Probably mild rebuking statements from China, even milder one from Russia. A few days of cutting down some key supplies. Some gestures just enough to show that NK's behaviors are not to their liking. However, they would not go ahead and shut down the spigot altogether. N. Korea knows it can still go forward, even if the schedule is delayed a few months.

So tell me, if China repeats the same response for another NK mendacity, what price does China has to pay? After all, Kim was able to set off his nuke despite torrents of criticism from all sides. Even PLA is quiet. If you think Kim would behave, you are really naive. If he is so receptive, we have already accomplished our objective a long time ago.

What is happening now is at best a punt-fake for striking Iran. If U.S. cannot resolve Iran crisis, we can kiss the resolution of NK problem a good bye.

Japan has more leverage to impress China than U.S.. Belligerent posturing by Japan will do much more than U.S. diplomatic initiative, even though U.S. likes to take credit if Japan's posturing works.

[PhilDragoo]

What is happening now is at best a punt-fake for striking Iran.

Yipee ei-yo, mullah-flackers

[ntnychik]

Condi's mentor was Maddie's dad.

[CutePuppy]

http://archive.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/03/20/rice/print.html

---

"A gifted student who skipped two grades, Rice enrolled at the University of Denver when she was 15, and graduated when she was 19. She gave up on a career as a pianist midway through, and eventually wound up falling under the spell of Josef Korbel, a former Czech diplomat best known for being the father of Madeleine Albright. Rice sometimes dined at the Korbel home, along with the future secretary of state -- but emerged with views much more in line with Korbel's than Albright's.

"I am a realist," she told the National Review. "Power matters. But there can be no absence of moral content in American foreign policy, and, furthermore, the American people wouldn't accept such an absence. Europeans giggle at this and say we're naive and so on, but we're not Europeans, we're Americans -- and we have different principles."

---

[gogogodzilla]

Free and unfettered access for nuclear weapons inspectors would be a good yardstick as the whether the Norks are really fulfilling their end of the bargain.

IE - if they refuse inspectors access to a site, they are in violation of treaty - ergo: no more fuel oil, etc, etc, etc.

[PhilDragoo]

we're not Europeans, we're Americans

That kind of American exceptionalism was never heard from Albright who lamented our being the sole superpower.

[CutePuppy]

IE - if they refuse inspectors access to a site, they are in violation of treaty - ergo: no more fuel oil, etc, etc, etc

Exactly! And nuke programs like these can not be entirely separate and standalone, so even access to known sites can shed info on some possible others, plus energy use monitoring and other things when inside.

Implementation and execution, not alone and subject to antics and charges and accusations, but with self-interested partners, all (or most) on one side of equation, with the other side isolated and no room for "mistakes". We are the "good guys" now. We can only do what's required of us to make this happen and make sure others are held accountable for their part of an agreement.

Like Reagan said after agreement with Soviets : "Doveryay, no proveryay" "Trust, but verify".

[potlatch]

[potlatch]

That's interesting Nit, you always know these things!!

[ntnychik]

See post #25.

[ntnychik]

Thanks for the link. Interesting information.

[potlatch]

Yes, I saw it, thanks nit!

[CutePuppy]

Glad you liked it. You may also find interesting a link in post #18. It's a transcript of her speech I saw on C-SPAN, and there's also a video link on that page.