February 14, 2007
North Korea - talking to the Coke machine
During the cold war, western diplomats told a joke about the frustrations of negotiating with the Soviet Union. It was like putting your money into a Coke machine and finding that the machine had not delivered you a Coke. At that point you had three options: you could put some more money in and hope that the machine delivered the second time around; you could try and break into the machine and get the Coke you had paid for; or you could give up and decide you didn’t want a Coke after all. But the one thing that was not going to work was trying to talk to the machine.
For hardliners in the Bush administration, trying to negotiate with the "axis of evil" is like trying to talk to a Coke machine - an exercise in futility.
Given this deep scepticism about the utility of chat, the North Korean nuclear deal announced yesterday represents a remarkable change of strategy. It has involved two things that are traditionally anathema to the Bushies: tortuous multilateral negotiations and compromise. As Gary Samore of the Council on Foreign Relations, who negotiated with the North Koreans for the Clinton administration, explains, the Bush administration has effectively abandoned its insistence on complete North Korean disarmament. Samore says -
I think this was available at least three years ago when the North Koreans indicated that they were prepared to accept a freeze on their plutonium production. At that time, the Bush administration was insisting on complete disarmament. And unfortunately, that just wasn’t an attainable objective. And I think the Bush administration recognized that it wanted to stabilize the situation on the Korean peninsula and avoid the danger that North Korea would walk away from the talks and resume nuclear testing. It was better to accept a more limited practical agreement to freeze and engage in subsequent negotiations, because insisting on total disarmament was simply not attainable.
Following the North Korean deal, the Bush administration finds itself in the unusual position of being condemned by neo-conservatives and praised by the editorial pages of the New York Times.
The obvious question is whether this new spirit of compromise in Washington will be extended to Iran.
The Bush administration’s critics have long argued that America should open talks with the Iranians without pre-conditions; and that those talks should aim at a "grand bargain" - dealing not just with the Iranian nuclear issue, but also with Iran’s other concerns about regional security and diplomatic recognition.
There are clear parallels with what has just been agreed with North Korea. The United States did not set tough conditions before agreeing to talk. And, as the FT noted this morning, the deal contains many elements of a "grand bargain" - for example in the promise to negotiate a final peace settlement on the Korean peninsula.
But it would be distinctly unwise to assume that the Bush administration will now extend the same approach to Iran. On the contrary, America’s position on Iran has been getting steadily more hardline - witness this week’s accusations that the Iranians have been supplying weapons to kill Americans in Iraq, reiterated by President Bush today.
It is possible that the advocates of diplomacy in the Bush administration will be strengthened by the North Korean deal - and seek to extend the same approach to Iraq. But it seems just as plausible that President Bush will see a North Korean deal as clearing the decks, for a single-minded focus on the third member of the axis of evil - Iran.
I do hope I am wrong, but I seriously doubt Washington’s interest and/or generosity in extending this policy towards Iran. Unlike North Korea, Iran does not have a functioning nuclear weapon to threaten the US with and force it into dialogue. If (nuclear) power is what buys immunity from attack and attempts at regime-change, can we blame Iran for wanting one of those toys too?
Posted by: Anonymous | February 15th, 2007 at 12:21 am | Report this commentMr Rachman’s final hunch was IMO correct: the Bush admin is simply ‘housekeeping’–cleaning out N Korea–which was a diversion really–for a final assualt on Iran. The North Korea deal was so out of character, so full of diplomatic finesse: it could have been negotiated by Bill Clinton.
I respect GR’s articles & I like this blog. But global politics is currently so frustrating! The US: a fading hyperpower that refuses to recognize he is losing his, well, hyper at least, but still powerful enough to be dangerous
Confident upstarts on the rise: India & China.
An isolationist EU.
Latin America swinging left.
A Middle East in chaos.
Did lame ducks like Blair & Bush *want* to undoubtedly leave such a dog’s dinner for their successors, to mix the metaphor as well as to split the infinitive?
Posted by: Mary Seaton | February 15th, 2007 at 9:00 am | Report this commentPS In an interview early in 2004, before the project went spiralling out of control, a confident David Frum–the writer of the axis-of-evil speech–said that the original terrible trio were “Iran, Iraq & *Syria*”. The last was removed because Mr Bush wanted to show (the reality was otherwise) that he & his neocon. advisors were not fixated on the Middle East.
So North Korea was always an afterthought.
Posted by: Mary Seaton | February 15th, 2007 at 9:31 am | Report this commentWhilst it would be delightful to think that the current regime in Washington has seen the light and the limits of using brute force as the primary means of conflict resolution, I am afraid that I share Mr. Rachman’s pessimism about the US-Iran relations.
It is interesting to note the oft-reported perspective of the Iranian elite that Washington’s chief desire is for regime change and a break up of the Iranian nation state along the lines desired by the Israeli rightwing (some of whom masquerade as “American” NeoCons).
They perceive (quite rightly imho) that the exaggerated fuss about Iran’s nuclear research is simply a convenient way for Washington to pursue its (and Israel’s) ulterior motives and even if that is resolved, the Zionist-dominated Washington will find other issues such as what they refer to as Iran’s support for “terrorism” by Hezbollah and Hamas (heck we could argue over terrorists and freedom fighters another time) or shed floods of crocodile tears over Human Rights of the Iranian people (the same people whom the US would not hesitate to subject to “shock and awe” carpet bombing!!).
Accordingly, the Iranian clerical-political elite have chosen the nuclear issue as the one to take a stand on, since they perceive that legally, under international law, they are in the right and that they can mobilise a wide cross-section of Iranians who patriotically feel that Iran is being discriminated against and treated as a second-class citizen of the world.
So, there you have it. A Washington regime that is not primarily motivated by the interests of the average American but by the machinations of its army of NeoCon-Zionist advisers and also by the millenarian Christian Fundamentalist, Rapture-Ready nuts who positively desire war and slaughter in the Middle East and a religious-nationalist elite in Iran that is taking its last stand against annihilation.
Depressing, isn’t it?
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 15th, 2007 at 12:04 pm | Report this commentLet’s see if it lasts. Clinton negotiated the same in 1994 - stuck in 38th parallel. The Bush admin only made one mistake for now, not spinning and trumpeting this deal as a massive foreign policy victory.
Posted by: ahim | February 16th, 2007 at 7:55 pm | Report this comment“DEVELOPMENT INERTIA” NEEDED FOR NORTH KOREA & IRAN”
Actively facilitating North Korea’s (& Iran’s) constructive, cohesive incorporation into the main streams of the developed world’s political, technological & economic structures would be a far more likely to be successful strategy to deal with them-> & the nuclear-proliferation issues they’re connected to, OVER THE LONG TERM, than imposing destructive sanctions &/or facilitating massively costly military campaigns.
The main policy objective of leading-world-nations like the United Kingdom, ought to be the planned, comprehensively “assisted-by-the-developed-world development” of these troubled countries… in ways & in directions that enables their productively interfacing with the world.
This requires setting a “direction of development”, or “development-inertia”.
Setting a “direction of development” for North Korea & similar failing states like Iran, necessitates significant events &/or national plans or multi-national projects that either directly or implicitly create political & economic inertia in a particular direction…
Underpinning such with structures/international-agreements that mandate the state to work towards WELL DEFINED LONG TERM OBJECTIVES, with the extensive participation of developed world countries, is vital.
Here’s a few possibilities:
Lead by the UK + USA & perhaps Japan/China-> the developed world ought to:
- offer both North Korea & Iran the rights to be exclusive locations for the International Thermonuclear Energy Research project (ITER, www.iter.org , in planning stages, recently awarded to Cadarache, France).
Publicly, & open-handedly offering Iran & N korea the ITER project would, in effect, “call-their-bluff” about needing secretive nuclear technology development programmes.
It would also neutralize their basis for alleging many developed-world nations’ harbouring unseemly motives for being against their development of advanced nuclear technology;
The ITER project is, by its design & nature, international in function, thereby enabling competent oversight-> precluding mischief by North korea or Iran by their misuse of the project’s resources.
- offer Iran the 2012 Olympics, with guaranties of significant logistical & financial support.
Other Arab states in the region could be approached for participation, with an Arab League/ “middle east” Olympic games the optimal objective. Recently progressing states like the UAE, Dubai & Saudi Arabia would make good locations for certain events;
- Additionally, offer to pay for, & partner-in-the-building-of significant infrastructure for North Korea, & possibly Iran, of a type that will instill national-prestige, as well as facilitating an improved connectedness- both physical & psychological- to the outside world.
Japan’s new Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, advocates more assertiveness & a greater global role for his country.
These objectives could be amply accomplished, productively, by Japan supporting strategies like ITER & the 2012 Olympics, & substantially paying for & assisting in the construction of economic infrastructure for North Korea.
The many hundreds of scientists, technicians & staff (originating conceivably, from dozens of disparate nations) based & working at a North Korean ITER project site would need & want the ability to travel efficiently to & from sea/air ports + among the 2 koreas. A pan-korean peninsula high-speed “bullet” train rail link could only contribute to, & make more permanent the existent but very limited, trade & industry connections between these two culturally similar states.
If accepted by N Korea & Iran, altruistic overtures such as the ITER project, the 2012 Olympics & high-tech transportation infrastructure mega-projects, would enable global stages where these 2 egotistically defensive country’s (+ many Islamic nation’s) could feel that they can show their positive potential & achievements & as well- meeting the developed world’s political objectives- would effectively require these countries to “fit”, & “work with”, the world community.
Furthermore, & most importantly, offering North Korea & Iran the ITER project & the 2012 Olympics + simultaneously committing to pay-for & partner in the building of much needed infrastructure would go a long way to eliminating their (+ many Islam nations/people’s) perceptions of threat from developed world & “Judeo Christian” country’s- removing their leaders’ main argument for alleging a requirement for nuclear weapons & long-range missile programmes.
Doesn’t the 21st century warrant a more sophisticated approach to international diplomacy by the developed world than what has been evidenced during the last over 4-years?
Mr. Roderick V. Louis,
Posted by: Mr. Roderick V. Louis | March 8th, 2007 at 4:28 am | Report this comment(near) Vancouver, Canada,