Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama's Nuclear Challenge


Obama waves to the crowd in Prague (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

Was it good timing or bad timing?

Hours before President Obama delivered an apparently long-planned speech embracing the goal of total nuclear disarmament, North Korea's rogue nuclear regime provocatively fired off a new rocket.

Critics say it was terrible timing, calling attention to just how unrealistic Obama's ambitions are.

But it may instead be good timing, as North Korea presents something of a case study in how Bush bombast didn't reduce a nuclear threat. In this case, it arguably created it.

In his speech in Prague yesterday, Obama made clear that he foresees disarmament as the work of decades, not years. And he called for greater focus on the danger of a nuclear weapon getting into terrorist hands. But his broader argument was that, as the U.S. reduces its arsenal, it will be easier to generate a stronger international consensus against proliferation.

Michael D. Shear and Colum Lynch write in The Washington Post: "Speaking in Hradskany Square, a hilltop plaza outside Prague Castle, just hours after the launch, Obama announced that he would immediately seek U.S. ratification of a ban on nuclear testing, convene a summit in Washington to stop the spread of nuclear material within four years and advocate for a nuclear fuel bank to allow peaceful development of nuclear power."

Helene Cooper and David E. Sanger write in the New York Times: "Mr. Obama said that his administration would 'reduce the role of nuclear weapons' in its national security strategy, and would urge other countries to do the same. He pointed to the agreement he reached last week with President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia to begin negotiations on reducing warheads and stockpiles, and said the two countries would try to reach an agreement by the end of the year. He also promised to aggressively pursue American ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which in the past has faced strong opposition in Congress.

"It is a strategy based on the idea that if the United States shows it is willing to greatly shrink the size of its atomic arsenal, ban nuclear testing and cut off the worldwide production of bomb material, reluctant allies and partners around the world will be more likely to rewrite nuclear treaties and enforce sanctions against North Korea and Iran."

From Obama's speech: "In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black market trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered on a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold...

"Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. (Applause.) And as nuclear power –- as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.

"So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly –- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, 'Yes, we can.' (Applause.)"

Jonathan Martin and David S. Cloud write for Politico on the neocon reponse: "'Especially in light of the North Korean launch, I thought his speech was otherworldly,' said John Bolton, the conservative former Ambassador to the United Nations under President Bush. 'What is he saying about the real, concrete threat from proliferant states like North Korea and Iran? We'll take you to the Security Council. Say, there's a threat! That has had no practical impact on either Pyongyang or Tehran before and will not in the future.'"

But Martin and Cloud quote a "senior administration official" as saying conservatives "also are missing the fundamental impact America's moving away from nuclear weapons would have....

"As for the politics of appearing weak, the official suggested tough talk toward Pyongyang and Tehran by Bush proved ineffective. 'We've tried that and we made no progress [toward non-proliferation],' said the source."

Martin and Cloud point out, quite correctly, that "the rocket launch hardly qualifies as a full-on, round-the-clock international crisis. Firing off a missile has become the regime in Pyongyang's standard way of interacting with Washington whenever it wants to extract more economic aid for its tottering economy or feels it would serve its purposes to alarm U.S. allies in Asia."

Nevertheless, there is a hysterical quality to some of the coverage so far.

Rick Klein blogs for ABC News: "Whether or not the North Koreans put anything into orbit over the weekend, President Obama's perfectly executed foreign trip was launched into a different layer of the atmosphere -- one where the president's words may not matter after all.....

"With the president's trip continuing through Turkey Monday and Tuesday... this marks perhaps the best early chance for Obama to define his own doctrine. The world is watching."

Thomas M. DeFrank writes in the New York Daily News: "North Korea's rocket launch is the early diplomatic challenge Vice President Biden famously warned about last fall."

And ABC's Jake Tapper blogs about how the "3 a.m. phone call" turned out to be a "4:30 a.m. knock on the door."

By Dan Froomkin  |  April 6, 2009; 3:05 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Not-Bush Tour in Turkey
Next: Cartoon Watch

Comments

But it may instead be good timing, as North Korea presents something of a case study in how Bush bombast didn't reduce a nuclear threat. In this case, it arguably created it.

-------

Really? Bush created North Korea’s nuclear program because he wasn’t nice enough to Lil Kim? That must explain that during the 90’s when we bent over backwards (when we should have been rolling across the DMZ while the DPKR was gripped by its famine) to play nice with Lil Kim he simply directed his resources away from the plutonium bomb to the means to deliver it and an enriched uranium weapons design.

Our problem with Pyongyang is that we have used too many carrots and not enough real sticks. Our best chance to settle the issues on the peninsula ended the mid 90’s and we are never going to get those days back again. We have a poor ally with the South Koreans who are far too willing to stick a knife in our backs to appease the left wing agitators in Seoul and should leave them to deal with this on their own.

If Obama thinks that Americas nuclear disarmament will persuade anyone to act more rationally he is even more delusional and dangerous that I could have ever anticipated.

Posted by: SharpshootingPugilist | April 6, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"Less taxes, more carnage"

©2009 GOP

Posted by: BigTunaTim | April 6, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

China is the dominant power in that region and they haven't been quite in lockstep with us, to say the least, in their eagerness to rein in North Korea. Much like how sanctions against Iran have been irregular, and much like how Saddam used the little money he received to his own benefit, Jong Il has proven largely oblivious to coercion.

Cheney's idea of cowing bad guys around the world by going after the weakling prompted the rest with any real hopes of making a bomb--Iran and N Korea, specifically, as opposed to thugs like Mugabe or Kaddafi--to double down on their military strategy. If the bar even to negotiating was impossibly high, then why not continue to develop a nuke, and call the superpower's bluff? Whaddaya know, their strategy was effective. Eight years later, they're closer to bombs and still standing.

Because plainly, increasing our nuclear arsenal above the several thousand warheads we already possess will cow third-world dictators like Il. Or perhaps we should send in a division of Marines. Shouldn't be too hard to clean that country up.

Posted by: whizbang9a | April 6, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

SharpshootingPugilist:

I don't imagine that you have powers of logic, but just in case you do, I will point out that while the Bush administration was dicking around the North Koreans used the opportunity to take the plutonium which had been under guard during the Clinton years. With this plutonium they can build 6-8 nuclear weapons. They even tested one, apparently. North Korea may or may not be enriching uranium with centrifuges, but it took the Iranians more than 20 years to perfect that technique. But not to worry, Bush gave them the excuse and opportunity to sieze all of the plutonium that they would need to be a serious threat.

Posted by: dickdata | April 6, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

whizbang9a says that China hasn't "been quite in lockstep with us."

China has, in fact, been playing a quite different game. The goals are the same as our goals. When the other members of the "gang of 6" (Russia, the US, South Korea and Japan) tell North Korea that North Korean behavior has been unacceptable, North Korea goes to China and weeps on China's shoulders. China tries to be in the middle, to help North Korea see alternatives to the behavior that the rest of the gang finds unacceptable.

If China did not play that role, North Korea would not talk to ANYBODY, and there would be NO bounds to its unacceptable behavior.

Posted by: michael_chaplan | April 6, 2009 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Hysteria rules. Paranoia rocks. Glenn Beck sobs in front of full screen film footage of Nazi stormtroopers goosing stepping in grainy black and white as he rings the rightwing Pavlovian call to be afraid, very afraid of "them". Michelle Bachman stokes the insanity with fearful fantasies of Youth Indoctrination Camps funding hidden in the budget bill. Or FEMA trailers as preludes to establishing concentration camps for conservatives or the secret liberal fascist cabal to establish a one world currency and turn us over the control of the UN. Hysteria indeed sells very well amongst the rabid right.

Posted by: mickster1 | April 6, 2009 10:07 PM | Report abuse

back in '06 the UN blew the whistle
and decided any shot was cool except missiles
Pyongyang tends to forget what was said
and recently threw a missile right over Japan's head

and Japan called a timeout to avoid fighting
Obama came in and said "rules must be binding"
China and Russia said "you might be right
but that wasn't a missile, that was just a satellite"

To listen to the song I wrote about this news story, visit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT2qkITBHaE

Posted by: unojklhh1 | April 7, 2009 2:15 AM | Report abuse

People in other nations see quite clearly the hypocrisy of condemning North Korea as "evil" for aspiring to what the US has more of than anyone else. Think of Obama's statements as a counter to this - "Everyone must disarm, starting with North Korea and Iran".

Posted by: skeptonomist | April 7, 2009 8:37 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company