Scott's Soapbox

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

The North Korea Arms Deal

The new deal with North Korea- where it would agree to freeze its nuclear program (including shutting down its main production plant within 60 days) in return for economic aid from the other countries involved in the six-party talks seems like it has the possibility of success. In fact, the Administration has even suggested it be seen as a model for dealing with Iran's nuclear program. (Interesting that there exists a model on which to base negotiations, when we are unwilling to have these negotiations with Iran in the first place.) The devil will be, of course, in the details- particularly in the portion about inspections- and North Korea has gone back on its word before. I remember Reagan famously saying about the then Soviet Union that we would "trust but verify" when it came to arms-control treaties. With North Korea, we trust them about as far as we can throw them, so full and open access (the type they have been loathe to give) for the inspectors will be paramount. But the main problem I have with this deal lies with its familiar framework- Fred Kaplan writes extensively about this here, pointing out:
A constant mantra for the past dozen years—chanted by Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney on several occasions—is that the Agreed Framework, which the Clinton administration signed with North Korea in 1994, was a naive and disastrous failure.

And yet the deal that Bush's diplomats just negotiated is very similar to Clinton's accord in substance—and nearly identical in its approach to arms control.
So the big question is seems to me is: if we could have gotten this same agreement 6 years ago, why are we taking it now? Wouldn't we have been better off taking this deal before North Korea advanced its program further and completed its nuclear test last year? While we may be suggesting this as a model for Iran and other nations with nuclear ambitions- I think we've sent them the wrong message. Keep working on your nuclear programs, and once you get far enough along, we'll give you some concessions. If anything, this framework seems to me to incentivize
Iran to ramp up its production, as it faces many of the same economic problems as North Korea, albeit on a less drastic scale. North Korea only has weapons and illegal drugs to export; Iran only oil. Without the world as a marketplace for these goods, in both countries the people suffer. Restrictions on trade through economic sanctions may result in increased domestic pressures and a willingness to negotiate by these regimes.

Shouldn't the lesson learned from the new North Korea agreement be this- that sanctions do work, and nations which reform their behavior get the economic benefits of trade? Instead, I fear we send a different message- get a functioning nuclear weapons program, and only then will the US come to the table. Another reason why we should be negotiating with Iran (and others) now, before their program moves along any farther. The closer they are to a nuclear weapon, the less strong our hand becomes, and the more unsafe the Middle East (and our world) is.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home