In a sign of potential problems to come, North Korea's state news agency said the country was receiving 1 million tons of oil for a "temporary suspension" of its nuclear facilities — and failed to mention the full disarmament for which the agreement calls.
It wasn't clear if the report represented an attempt by the government to backtrack on the deal, or was simply a statement of bluster for a deeply impoverished domestic audience that Pyongyang has rallied around the nuclear program as a cause for national pride.
And by tackling so many issues in a process likely to take years, the deal could unravel, pulled apart by differing agendas of its six signers, which also include China,
South Korea, Russia and Japan.
John Bolton isn't impressed with the deal:
This is in many respects simply a repetition of the agreed framework of 1994. You know, Secretary Powell in 2001 started off the administration by saying he was prepared to pick up where the Clinton administration left off. President Bush changed course and followed a different approach. This is the same thing that the State Department was prepared to do six years ago. If we going to cut this deal now, it's amazing we didn't cut it back then. So I'm hoping that this is not really what's going to happen.
I'm not sure I'm happy with it. I will say that even if it is just the 1994 deal or the 2001 approach, North Korea is much weaker now after years of our pressure.
And I've mentioned before that I'm not opposed to giving North Korea aid if it is insufficient to save them but enough to string them along on a path to collapse while they believe we are giving in. Remember, while we'd like North Korea to collapse we don't want them to lash out with their residual military power. Are we buying time for the North Koreans to crumble?
Remember, North Korea did not decide to hold out for two more years to get a more compliant regime--even after the results of the 2006 mid-terms here show how a change in party can affect our debate. How desperate might they be to end our sanctions and get aid? And are they getting enough aid to make a difference?
Did President Bush cement into place a process that provides some aid to North Korea but establishes requirements that are better than a successor American administration might require?
And perhaps Japan, China, South Korea, or Russia will pull the plug on the deal in the years ahead leaving North Korea worse off and we will escape blame.
I'm just speculating here. Many seem ready to charge the Bush administration (or at least the State Department) with surrendering to the North Koreans. I find it hard to believe President Bush would do that.
Am I giving him too much credit?
