My sister sent me an email last week asking why I do a Fax from Babs every week, but only do a Molly Ivins fisk once a month. It's not that Molly Ivins fisks are hard to write. On the contrary, they write themselves. I've even done one or two when I was under the influence of an adult beverage, which is probably the best way to read Molly's bullshit. No, the reason I only do them once a month is because it involves reading a Molly Ivins column all the way through. And I have to read it more than once. Do you realize what damage that can do to one's brain? Anyway, let's see what Molly has to say about North Korea.
When we need a laugh in grim times, we count on our Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Whoopi Goldberg of the Bush administration.
And when we need a laugh anytime, all we have to do is read a column by Molly Ivins, the Robert Fisk of American journalism.
Last week, Ashcroft took time off from tracking down terrorists in order to bust 55 people for selling rolling papers, pipes and other drug paraphernalia.
They were probably preparing to read a Molly Ivins' column. They make more sense if you're stoned.
Nice to see a man who's got his priorities straight.
Friends don't let friends read Molly Ivins.
Onward. Let's review the bidding on North Korea. "Review the bidding" is a bridge term for "How did we get into this mess?"
Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter?
In 1994, the Clinton administration came to something called the Agreed Framework with North Korea, under which Pyongyang agreed to put its 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods -- which can be easily converted into weapons-grade plutonium -- into storage, watched over by U.N. inspectors and cameras. In return, the North Koreans were supposed to get two light-water nuclear reactors and economic and diplomatic relations.
Sounds good on paper. How did it work out?
Unfortunately, we didn't quite live up to our end of the bargain.
Huh? We didn't live up to our end of the bargain? Hey John, when you were bustin' the stoners, you should have dropped by Molly's place. I think she's been doin' a little tokin' herself. I can't wait to read her explanation of this.
As usual, the Republicans had a cow and decided that anything agreed to by Bill Clinton (not to mention the dread Jimmy Carter) must be a sellout.
Well, yeah, what's your point? How did we not live up to our end of the bargain?
We did, however, provide a substantial amount of food and fuel aid over the years, and in 2000 the Swiss company ABB agreed to deliver equipment and services for two nuclear power stations at Kumho. Interestingly enough, Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of ABB at the time, though a Pentagon spokeswoman says the secretary does not recall the $200 million deal ever having been brought before the board.
OK, we gave 'em fuel and food. How did we not live up to our end of the bargain?
So in comes George W. Bush, and six weeks into his term, March 2001, Bush humiliates President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea during his visit to Washington by announcing that we would not support his "sunshine initiative" to improve relations between the Koreas, for which Kim Dae Jung won the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize.
Yeah. Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994. Jimmy Carter won one, too. BFD! Chirac has even been nominated for one. How did we not live up to our end of the bargain?
North Korea had been sending lots of signals that it was ready to deal, ready to open up and to make concessions. But the Bush administration denounced it as a "rogue state" and used it as a prime excuse to promote the national missile defense system.
It is a rogue state. It's run by a crazy loony. But I still want to know how did we not live up to our end of the bargain?
Bush, ever the soft-spoken diplomat, told a reporter that he "loathes" Kim Jong Il on a "visceral level" and also called the dictator "a pygmy." True, Kim Jong Il is vertically challenged and a repellent dictator, but insulting paranoiacs with nukes is not smart.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But I still want to know, how did we not live up to our end of the bargain?
Then came the "axis of evil" speech in 2002. According to Bush's speech writer David Frum, North Korea got thrown into the axis as an afterthought, apparently for rhetorical purposes. Unfortunately, Kim Jong Il, like, kind of took it personally. Then the Bush doctrine of "pre-emptive war" was announced, along with the policy of using nuclear weapons to maintain American hegemony.
American hegemony? Jesus Molly, you sound like a Red Chinese propagandist. Who's more likely to use nukes? North Korea or us? Oh, and how did we not live up to our end of the bargain? I'm starting to get a little pissed here.
In October, North Korea admitted that it was running a secret uranium enrichment program, so Bush promptly renounced the Agreed Framework and cut off the food and fuel oil supplies we had agreed to. (Don't ask me to explain this, but apparently an enriched-uranium program is not nearly as dangerous as making plutonium.)
I'm still waiting to hear you explain how the fuck did we not live up to our end of the fucking bargain? And it doesn't matter what the difference is between enriched uranium and plutonium. You can make nukes with both. What does matter is your bullshit about us not living up to our end of the bargain, which you have never bothered to explain in this entire bullshit column and how the North Koreans snookered Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter from the get go. I'd like to hear you explain that also.
The North Koreans said they would drop the uranium enrichment and allow inspections to continue in return for a promise of no pre-emptive strike from us and a normalization of relations.
GMAFB! And they have such credibility. I'm sure both you and Jimmy Carter believe 'em dontcha? Oh, and how did we not live up to our end of the bargain?
Bush refused.
Wonder why?
A few months later, the North Koreans kicked out the U.N. inspectors and announced that it would begin making plutonium from the spent fuel rods.
Which they would have done anyway.
Bush then announced that we absolutely would not negotiate with the North Koreans. Then, in January, he announced again that we would not negotiate but would "talk."
It's called diplomacy. Sumpin' Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter aren't very good at. (See original deal where they got snookered.) Just go over in the corner and play Molly, while the grownups deal with the evil North Koreans. Don't let it bother your silly little head.
The North Koreans want direct talks with the United States, while we want multilateral talks -- Bush endorses multilateralism at last!
That's what you wanted. You should be happy. But, nooooo! Now you want unilateralism. Make up your mind!
-- with Japan, China and South Korea, and possibly Russia, Australia and the European Union. China, Australia and South Korea have all urged us to have direct talks.
But whose problem is it? Japan and South Korea will be affected most of all. We will be affected if the North Koreans sell or give nukes to terrorists. If North Korea nukes one of our cities, there will be no more North Korea.
Meanwhile, the South Koreans have elected Roh Moo Hyun to succeed Kim Dae Jung, and he, like his predecessor, favors the sunshine policy.
Well, fine. No one's stopping him from talking to North Korea.
(Before you start on the "How dare they?," "Those ingrates!" and "Worse than the French," please recall that for 25 years the United States supported a military dictatorship in South Korea, so they tend not to take our rhetoric about "democracy" really seriously).
We supported a lot of dictatorships during the Cold War. And isn't it amazing that many of them are now democracies? Y'know, the eastern European countries take our rhetoric about democracy very seriously.
All in all, a nasty situation. Colin Powell has just returned from a trip to South Korea and may be able to work out some straddle on the direct-talks issue. Meanwhile, it looks as though the North Koreans are busily building nuclear bombs, and no one doubts that they'd sell a little spare plutonium to anyone who paid them enough. Oy gevalt.
Your heroes, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter created this situation. Do you think Bush can fix it just like that? I don't know what the solution is either. But I know whatever solution you would think up would be worse than what we have now.
I'm for lettin' 'em starve.
Oh, and how did we not live up to our end of the bargain?