Remind me again what Bush's options were?
If nothing was done, no pressure on China was applied, then why did Kim not just go on doing what he was doing? Why do an about-face, just to start playing games with their [now] only benefactor China? China didn't mind Kim being a thorn in our side for awhile, but now that Kim is a bigger thorn in their side, his games are becoming their problems - they don't need him anymore, this "useful idiot" has outlived his usefulness to them and became a burden. They can't milk him anymore, like they used to. The point was to impress on China that Kim's games were more dangerous to her than they are to us. He might still try and play games but the result of the endgame is now understood. That's the success of our strategy.
Again, Kim is "contained" for the moment, any wrong move now and they risk alienating the only hope he has of surviving. He can have no assurances now that China doesn't just cut his lights out. NoKo has nothing to offer to buy anybody else's loyalty or devotion in sufficient numbers to go on for a long time. He has nothing to sell that China can't sell more and better.
As a result, we now have partners who are finally "involved" and have a self-interest and responsibilities to keep NoKo in check and step-by-step process of distributing flow of aid from them - substantially different from what we had before. I didn't expect at any time Kim signing terms of unconditional surrender on the deck of USS Reagan.
We now have time to concentrate on real pressing issue at hand - Iran. Once Iran is resolved, and if we are still unhappy with how NoKo is going, we can then start tightening the screws there. Priorities are important, and you have to give a little to get most of what you want, but it will take time. Soviet Union didn't fall apart in one day, no matter how abrupt it seemed at the time.
Condi has political perspective to understand that :
Condi Rice speech at Princeton University September 30, 2005
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/54176.htm
(there is also a link to video)
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.