Home  >  Appeasement / Uncategorized / Washington Views

Bolton Speech Conspicuously Silent on N. Korea

The Friday event, at the Washington  Omni Shoreham, was by invitation only.  My friend, a very experienced news correspondent, forwards these notes in exchange for a promise of anonymity.  I edited slightly  for spelling and grammar:

Bolton sounded fine, convincing enough, on the need for UN reform. I kept waiting for mention of N. Korea, thought it might be coming when he touched on Iran, but no. Wonder whether it was deliberate —  [the Administration]  or State Dept saying, “Don’t tread on that sensitive topic when we’re trying to get six-party talks restarted while also dealing with counterfeit issue.”

That’s consistent with what I’ve heard before.  It’s hard to top “hellish nightmare,” my best efforts to encourage it notwithstanding.  Amb. Bolton certainly had something to do with this resolution, but he hasn’t been vocal on the North Korea issue during his tenure.  One hopes that will change before much more time passes.

0Shares

6 Responses

  1. I’m glad that Bolton is keeping quiet on North Korea, because Vershbow has caused enough trouble. Bolton’s “hellish nightmare” rantings almost prevented the 6-Party Talks from starting, because NK threatened to walk out. Bolton had to be removed from the negotiating team, in order to get the talks started.

    Bolton has a track record of disrupting important negotiations. According to Newsweek :

    The Libya deal succeeded only after British officials “at the highest level” persuaded the White House to keep Bolton off the negotiating team.

    There’s a great website called Bolton Watch . They mentioned that Bolton is unfairly trying to shut out the New York Times.

  2. So how do you explain North Korea’s failure to negotiate in good faith before that, or ever since? Or their repudiation of the September statement less than a day after signing it?

    You’re attributing a lot to one man, and one speech.

  3. Joshua: Regarding the end of the Agreed Framework, some analysts think that the Bush Administration did not hold up its end of the bargain. As soon as Bush took office, he made clear that he totally disdained the Agreed Framework. The North Koreans may have gotten the impression that Bush was not going to honor the agreement, especially after the “Axis of Evil” speech.

    The main problem holding back the Talks now is the financial sanctions. America has the right to stop counterfeiting, but even Asia Times criticizes the timing of the sanctions.

    But why is Washington suddenly pushing decades-old suspicions at this particular time?

    In September, … a breakthrough in the negotiations …
    In October came the sanctions against the eight North Korean trading companies.
    …
    Yet the highest figure I have seen for the North Korean counterfeiting is the $45 million (over a decade) reported in the Washington Times, which is nothing set against the vast sums of dollars sloshing around Asia. Indeed, I’ve never heard even a whisper that North Korean counterfeits were affecting world currency markets or the value of the dollar in the slightest way.

  4. “Or their repudiation of the September statement less than a day after signing it?”

    North Korea did not completely repudiate the September agreement. The disagreement is only about when North
    Korea can get light-water reactors. North Korea has still agreed in principle to disarming its nuclear weapons.

  5. North Korea will always find new excuses to delay, walk out, renegotiate or repudiate. At least I give the Bushies credit for understanding that and not panicing.

  6. Regarding the end of the Agreed Framework, some analysts think that the Bush Administration did not hold up its end of the bargain. As soon as Bush took office, he made clear that he totally disdained the Agreed Framework.

    The only problem with that theory is that the Norks were violating the Agreed Framework even before the Bush administration took office.