When the North Korean dictator says jump (this time in the form of lobbing missiles) many Clintonites ask, "how high?" Bill Richardson, Madeleine Albright, Wendy Sherman, etc. have been all over the media pushing for direct talks with Pyongyang. They believe the U.S. can strike a deal with the North the same way the Clinton administration did in the 1990s. And we know that approach worked well. From today's Wall Street Journal editorial:
Kim is at it again because his previous provocations have typically been rewarded. The most famous example is the 1994 Agreed Framework in which the Clinton Administration responded to Kim's nuclear threats by offering aid and the promise of nuclear energy plants. That deal collapsed in 2002 when Kim repudiated it, announced a secret nuclear program and kicked out U.N. inspectors. Or consider what happened the last time Kim launched a missile, sending the Taepodong-1 over Japan in 1998. The Clinton Administration went back to the negotiating table and came close to concluding a missile version of the 1994 nuclear agreement. As part of that deal--negotiated by then-State Department Counsellor Wendy Sherman--the U.S. would launch North Korean satellites in return for the North's pledge to stop developing long-range missiles. Given Pyongyang's abysmal record at keeping its promises, the more likely outcome would have been the theft of U.S. technology and the strengthening of the North's missile program.
And Sen. McCain had this to say yesterday:
It would be the height of folly to reward this lawless rogue regime with diplomatic benefits, including the bilateral talks it seeks. In the 1990s we nurtured Kim Jong-il's expectation that threats of attack will garner benefits, when the United States agreed to provide fuel oil and construct two civilian nuclear reactors in return for a freeze on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programs. Mr. Kim cheated on that agreement, and now the world faces a nuclear-armed North Korea. While the U.S. and our allies have presented incentives within the context of the six party talks, these can only go forward if North Korea gives up its nuclear program completely and verifiably. In the meantime, the world has seen the course Mr. Kim prefers, and we must respond accordingly.
Of course, despite the best efforts of UN Ambassador Bolton, I doubt the Security Council will do much beyond passing a resolution with a few tough words in it. One person suggested to me that the US should go ahead and let Russia or China veto a resolution with teeth to expose to everyone just what enablers they are of the North Korean dictatorship -- and the regime in Khartoum for that matter. After that, go ahead with the weaker resolution. Interesting thought but it won't happen in this go around.