Two years ago, I posted a diary on John McCain's naked political ambition extending to the point of the asburd accusation that the Clinton administration was responsible for North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons, even though Korea had acquired them five years into the Bush administration.
I was reminded of this in the context of the debate between Hillary Clinton and Obama last night on the subject of when, and whether, to negotiate with hostile foreign governments. I sort of wished at the time McCain was in on the conversation, so we could see exactly how illogical and dangerous a thinker he is in contrast to our two leading Democrats.
Follow the link to my original post above for full context, and more on the contrast to the Democrats on the flip.
McCain's version of events is as follows:
(1) Clinton administration negotiates a containment agreement with North Korea in 1994.
(2) According to McCain, every time there was some kind of violation, we "rewarded" North Korea after this agreement by talking with them. Look at the video: he views contact with adversaries as a reward for them, not a tool for our own interests, as if it was some kind of Skinnerian experiment.
(3) Magically, after five years of the Bush administration, when North Korea has a single and rather unspectactular nuclear test in 2006, this is because the Clinton administration rewarded North Korea with treats.
As my original post discussed, what actually happened under the Bush administration was as follows.
(1) On Sept. 19, 2005, the US was party to a six-way agreement that called for an abandonment of all nuclear programs by North Korea in exchange for a recognition of North Korea's sovereignty, a pledge of peace, and a program to gradually normalize relations. In terms of quid pro quo, this was a pretty decent step.
(2) But...on Sept. 23, 2005, the Bush Treasury department imposed "sweeping financial sanctions" on the North Korean government (the infamous "no iPods for Kim" policy), branded it a "criminal state", and cut it off from the international banking system -- thereby losing the leverage we did have with North Korean elites in the process of poking our fingers in their eyes right after promising a more rational (not friendly, mind you, simply respectful) relationship.
(3) North Korea, unsurprisingly, as we now know resumed its nuclear program.
Now, I don't know anybody who wouldn't consider the North Korean regime to be among the most extreme in the world. They're unpredictable, dangerous, hostile, and mercurial. I wonder if McCain ever understood Don Corleone's dicta about keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer? Because his take on the North Korean nuclear affair was that keeping your enemies beaten down with a stick and at arm's length is the way to go about getting them to do what's in America's best interest.
Now let's revisit what H. Clinton and Obama said last night on the subject of an arguably less-dangerous, but still quite hostile power, Cuba:
MR. RAMOS: Very simply, would you meet with him or not, with Raul Castro?
SEN. CLINTON: I -- I would not meet with him until there was evidence that change was happening because I think it's important that they demonstrate clearly that they are committed to change the direction.
Then I think, you know, something like diplomatic encounters and negotiations over specifics could take place.
But we've had this conversation before, Senator Obama and myself, and I believe that we should have full diplomatic engagement, where appropriate. But a presidential visit should not be offered and given without some evidence that it will demonstrate the kind of progress that is in our interest and, in this case, in the interest of the Cuban people. (Applause.)
MS. BROWN: Senator Obama, just to follow up, you had said in a previous CNN debate that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, among others. So presumably you would be willing to meet with the new leader of Cuba.
SEN. OBAMA: That's correct. Now, keep in mind that the starting point for our policy in -- in Cuba should be the liberty of the Cuban people. And I think we recognize that that liberty has not existed throughout the Castro regime. And we now have an opportunity to potentially change the relationship between the United States and Cuba, after over half a century.
I would meet without preconditions, although Senator Clinton is right that there has to be preparation. It is very important for us to make sure that there was an agenda and on that agenda was human rights, releasing of political prisoners, opening up the press. And that preparation might take some time.
But I do think that it is important for the United States not just to talk to its friends but also to talk to its enemies.
In fact, that's where diplomacy makes the biggest difference. (Applause.)
One other thing that I've said as a show of good faith, that we're interested in pursuing potentially a new relationship, what I've called for is a loosening of the restrictions on remittances from family members to the people of Cuba as well as travel restrictions for family members who want to visit their family members in Cuba. And I think that initiating that change in policy as a start and then suggesting that an agenda get set up is something that could be useful, but I would not normalize relations until we started seeing some of the progress that Senator Clinton talked about.