In the early 1990s, the Clinton Administration became aware that the North Koreans were operating a Soviet-style so-called heavy-water nuclear reactor (and constructing two much bigger ones) with the intention of using it to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons as well as (supposedly) civilian electricity. The United States and North Korea struck a deal, the so-called Agreed Framework. Under the terms of this deal, the North Koreans would halt operations of their heavy water reactor and place around 8000 previously irradiated, plutonium-laden fuel rods in storage under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision. In return, the U.S. promised to provide 500,000 metric tons per year of fuel oil and begin construction in North Korea of replacement light (normal) water nuclear reactors like those commonly used in the United States. (Interestingly, before he left to become President Bush’s Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of the company who made $200 million on the sale of these light-water reactors). Such a light-water system produces far less plutonium in the generation of electricity than a heavy-water one, and so it was seen to be a much lower nuclear proliferation risk. The Agreed Framework was by far the most significant working relationship between these two technically-still-at-war countries and was widely seen as the primary vehicle available to bring North Korea into good diplomatic standing with the rest of the international community. Initial construction on U.S. sponsored light-water reactors began with joint American-North Korean concrete poured in a cooperative effort at Kumho, North Korea in August 7, 2002.
The kimchee hit the fan only two months later. After President Bush branded North Korea an “Axis of Evil” country in January 2002, in his post-9/11 State Of The Union Address, the Bush Adminstration announced on October 16, 2002, that North Korea had broken the Agreed Framework (note the report at this link is dated incorrectly as January 7,2002, instead of its actual publication date of January 7, 2003). The North Korean transgression was basically a secret experimental program to test prototypes of gas centrifuge machines which could enrich naturally-mined uranium to weapons-grade levels. The CIA had detected efforts by the North Koreans to purchase large amounts of special high-strength aluminum on the international market which could be used to build a gigantic production plant based on their experiments, requiring at least five more years of construction. Under the worst case scenario, then, a North Korean uranium-based nuclear weapon was a threat at least a half-decade away.
The Bush Adminstration chose not to use this five years of breathing room to attempt a diplomatic solution which might salvage the Agreed Framework. Instead, work on the light water reactor at Kumho was immediately halted. Perhaps more importantly to the North Koreans, in the dead of winter on November 19, 2002, the Bush Adminstration halted U.S. shipments of fuel oil to North Korea.
This not-so-subtle attempt by the United States to strong-arm North Korea into backing down on its nuclear program was a gamble that failed and is now in danger of spiraling out of control. Rather than kowtow to American wishes, the North Koreans promptly withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, kicked the IAEA out of their country, have apparently completed recovering the plutonium from their previously stored fuel rods, and are now rumored to be preparing for a December 2003 nuke test. The U.S. has never been in a declared state of war with a demonstrated nuclear power. Considering the 1950s Korean War fighting stopped with what was only supposed to be a temporary wartime cease-fire, we may in a few months be faced with that nightmare.
So…instead of trying diplomacy first to avoid possible Korean uranium bombs in 2008, in less than a year we’ve spiraled down to facing actual Korean plutonium bombs RIGHT NOW. And we have people saying national security is too important to be handled by anybody but the Bush Administration and other conservatives? Folks, this isn’t a conservative crisis or liberal crisis – it’s an American crisis. We could sure use the wisdom of America’s greatest diplomat in the months to come on this one…
I agree that this is an American and a world issue, not a Republican or Democrat issue. However the story (and others you have previously posted) come across as extremely anti-Bush. While being anti-Bush is quite fine, it is not my opinion that a science site (which is otherwise very well done) is the place to promote it.
In your article above for example there are several slants that reveal such bias.
When you talk of the Clinton Administration deal, you talk as if it was a good thing. However you then proceed to point out that that Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of a company that made $200 million from implementing the Clinton framwork. By presenting him as profiting by building nuclear reactors in North Korea, you present Donald Rumsfeld in a negative light while you present the program directing such reactors to be built in a positive light. This is hypocritical if intentional and if unintentional it is poor journalism by presenting such facts in ways that cause our human nature to jump to a “good” or a “bad” comclusion. The Rumsfeld tidbit could have been presented equally factually only in a positive light by stating that before leaving for politics he was on the board of a company that helped to implement the Clinton agreed framework.
If this was an isolated incident, it would be quite monor, but it reflects a pattern of any stories here that oculd be even slightly political in nature.
Further in your article, you continue this trend. It sounds like things were perfectly fine until Bush confronted them. That N. KLorea admitted to running a secret nuclear program in violation to the Clinton Administration agreements is glossed over. What good are these agreements if they are only one sided and N. Korea isn’t following them anyway? This Clinton agreement sounds like a wonderful thing from the N. Korean’s perspective. They get heating oil and light water nuclear reactors and get to keep working on their nuclear weapons without being bothered since they have a “deal.” Of course that was not Clinton’s intention with the deal, but it didn’t exaclty work out how he wanted it to either.
Similarly Bush confronted N. Korea on blatently violating the deal at which point they admitted that they had a secret program and essentually never intended to keep the deal anyway, and Bush’s accusations were proof that they were wise not to ever stop making nukes. To accept this explanation and blame Bush for this would be like saying the N. Koreans can predict the future and knew Bush would become president and they would need nukes ready for when he did. That is the only way Bush could be responsible for the N. Koreans developing nuclear weapons while Clinton was president in violation of the agreement that was in place.
As for their move to openly develop the weapons instead of doing it secretly, I guess may be Bush’s fault. They were caught lying and Bush called them on it. Should he have just pretended like he didn’t catch them lying andthey weren’t doing anything they shouldn’t have been? That’s hard to say. maybe if he had they would still be making their nukes in secret and it might have bought a couple more years until they were done. Does putting off the problem help things? Debatable.
It’s not my intention to argue politics with you. Personally I think Bush did handle much of the situation wrongly but it is complex and when one way doesn’t work out how you wanted it to it doesnt automatically mean the other way was better. Ignoring the problem could have been even worse, but we won’t know since it didn’t happen. However, I don’t think such biased and slanted political opinions belong on an otherwise great science news site.
My suggestion would be to keep the science stories here and open a seperate politics page where you can post your opinions on politics. Keep up the good work with the site, but consider keeping your personal political opinions somewhere else.
Excellent analysis and I agree with all you’ve said. I have been much more politically outspoken in the past week than usual and upon reflection I think it stems from the Orwell Birthday story and some serious thinking I did about that. I’ve vented and my blood pressure is returning to normal – tho the stress America is under remains. As you point out, the focus of THIS site is science. Back to that.
And, standard pitch – somebody who writes as well and clearly as you do, in such a level-headed manner…do us the honor of registering for a user name and post / submit stories more often!