Breaking Out the Bush Playbook on Korea

In the current crisis on the Korean peninsula, the Obama administration is virtually repeating the 2004 Bush playbook, one that derailed a successful diplomatic agreement forged by the Clinton administration to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. While the acute tensions of the past month appear to be receding—all of the parties involved seem to be taking a step back— the problem is not going to disappear, and unless Washington and its allies re-examine their strategy, another crisis is certain to develop.

A little history. 

In the spring of 1994, the Clinton administration came very close to a war with North Korea over Pyongyang’s threat to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, expel international inspectors, and extract plutonium from reactor fuel rods. Washington moved to beef up its military in South Korea, and according to Fred Kaplan in the Washington Monthly, there were plans to bomb the Yongbyon reactor.

Kaplan is Slate‘s War Stories columnist and author of The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War.

“Yet at the same time,” writes Kaplan, “Clinton set up a diplomatic back-channel to end the crisis peacefully.” Former President Jimmy Carter was sent to the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of North Korea (DPRK) and the Agreed Framework pact was signed, allowing the parties to back off without losing face. 

In return for the North Koreans shipping their fuel rods out of the country, the United States, South Korea, and Japan agreed to finance two light-water nuclear reactors, normalize diplomatic relations, and supply the DPRK with fuel. Washington pledged not to invade the North. “Initially, North Korea kept to its side of the bargain,” say Kaplan, “The same cannot be said for our side.”

The reactors were never funded and diplomatic relations went into a deep freeze. From North Korea’s point of view, it had been stiffed. The North reacted with public bombast and a secret deal with Pakistan to exchange missile technology for centrifuges to make nuclear fuel. 

However, the North was still willing to deal, and DPRK leader Kim Jong-il told the Clinton administration that, in exchange for a non-aggression pact, North Korea would agree to shelve its long-range missile program and stop exporting missile technology. North Korea was still adhering to the 1994 agreement not to process its nuclear fuel rods. But time ran out and the incoming Bush administration torpedoed the talks, instead declaring North Korea, along with Iran and Iraq, a member of an “axis of evil.”  

Nine days after the U.S. Senate passed the Iraq war resolution on October 11, 2002, the White House disavowed the 1994 Agreed Framework, halted fuel supplies, and sharpened the economic embargo the United States had imposed on the North since the 1950-53 Korean War. It was hardly a surprise when Pyongyang’s reaction was to toss out the arms inspectors, fire up the Yongbyon reactor, and take the fuel rods out of storage.

Kaplan points out, however, that even when Pyongyang withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in early 2003, the North Koreans “also said they would reverse their actions and retract their declarations if the United States resumed its obligations under the Agreed Framework and signed a non-aggression pledge.”

But Bush, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and Vice President Dick Cheney, banking that increased sanctions would eventually bring down the Kim regime, were not interested in negotiations.

Ignoring North Korea, however, did not sit well with Japan and South Korea. So the White House sent U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly to Pyongyang, where the North Koreans told him they were willing to give up nuclear weapons development in return for a non-aggression pact. Bush, however, dismissed the proposal as “blackmail” and refused to negotiate with the North Koreans unless they first agreed to give up the bomb, a posture disturbingly similar to the one currently being taken by the Obama administration.

But “the bomb” was the only chip the North Koreans had, and giving it up defied logic. Hadn’t NATO and the United States used the threat of nuclear weapons to checkmate a supposed Soviet invasion of Europe during the Cold War? Wasn’t that the rationale behind the Israeli bomb vis-à-vis the Arabs? Pakistan’s ace in the hole to keep the vastly superior Indian army at bay? Why would Pyongyang make such an agreement with a country that made no secret of its intention to destabilize the North Korean regime?

North Korea is not a nice place to live and work, but its reputation as a nuclear-armed loony bin is hardly accurate. Every attempt by the North Koreans to sign a non-aggression pact has been either rebuffed or come at a price—specifically giving up nuclear weapons—Pyongyang is unwilling to pay without such a pledge. The North is well aware of the fate of the “axis of evil”: Iraq was invaded and occupied, and Iran is suffocating under the weight of economic sanctions and facing a possible Israeli or U.S. attack. From North Korea’s point of view, the only thing that Iraq and Iran have in common is that neither of them developed nuclear weapons. 

Indeed, when the United States and NATO overthrew the Gadaffi regime in Libya, a North Korean Foreign Ministry official told the Korean Central News Agency that the war had taught “the international community a grave lesson: the truth that one should have the power to defend peace.” Libya had voluntarily given up nuclear weapons research, and the North Koreans were essentially saying, “We told you so.”

There are a number of dangers the current crisis poses. The most unlikely among them is a North Korean attack on the U.S. mainland or South Korea, although an “incident” like the 2010 shelling of Yeonpyeong Island and the sinking of South Korean warship, the Cheonan, is not out of the question. More likely is a missile test. 

All of the parties—including China and Russia—know that North Korea is not a serious danger to the United States or its allies, Japan and South Korea. Which is why China is so unhappy with Washington’s response to Pyongyang’s bombast: deploying yet more anti-missile systems in the U.S. and Guam, systems that appear suspiciously like yet another dimension of Washington’s “Asia pivot” to beef up America’s military footprint in the region. Russia and China believe those ABM systems are aimed at them, not North Korea, which explains an April 15 accusation by the Chinese Defense Ministry that “hostile western forces” were using tensions to “contain and control our country’s development.”

While the western media interpreted a recent statement by Chinese President Xi Jinping as demonstrating China’s growing impatience with North Korea, according to Zackary Keck, assistant editor of the Asia-Pacific-focused publication The Diplomat, the speech was more likely aimed at Washington than at Pyongyang. Keck argues that China is far more worried about growing U.S. military might in the region than rhetorical blasts from North Korea. 

The Russians have also complained about “unilateral actions…being taken around North Korea.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, “We believe it is necessary for all not to build up military muscle and not to use the current situation as an excuse to solve certain geopolitical tasks in the region through military means.” 

Tension between nuclear powers is always disconcerting, but the most immediate threat is the possibility of some kind of attack on North Korea by the United States or South Korea. Conservative South Korean President Park Geun-hye told her military to respond to any attack from the North without “political considerations,” and the United States has reaffirmed that it will come to Seoul’s defense in the event of war. It is not a war the North would survive, and therein lays the danger. 

According to Keir Lieber of Georgetown University and Daryl Press, coordinator of Dartmouth’s War and Peace Studies, current U.S. military tactics could trigger a nuclear war. “The core of U.S. conventional strategy, refined during recent wars, is to incapacitate the enemy by disabling its central nervous system…leadership bunkers, military command sites, and means of communication.” While such tactics were effective in Yugoslavia and Iraq, they could prove counterproductive “if directed at a nuclear-armed opponent.” Faced with an overwhelming military assault, there would be a strong incentive for North Korea to try and halt the attacks, “a job for which nuclear weapons are well suited.”

Council of Foreign Relations Korea expert Scott Snyder says, “The primary danger is really related to the potential for miscalculation between the two sides, and in this kind of atmosphere of tensions, that miscalculation could have deadly consequences.” 

The demand by the Obama administration that North Korea must denuclearize before serious talks can begin is a non-starter, particularly when the Washington and its allies refuse to first agree to a non-aggression pledge. And the White House will have to jettison its “strategic patience” policy, a fancy term for regime change. Both strategies have been utter failures. 

There are level heads at work.

South Korea recently praised China for helping to manage the crisis, and Seoul has dialed back some of its own bombast. The United States canceled a military maneuver, and a “senior administration” official warned about “misperception” and “miscalculation,” remarks that seemed aimed more at South Korea than at the North. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry also says Washington is open to talks with China and North Korea.

But such talks are predicated, according to the U.S. State Department, on Pyongyang proving “its seriousness by taking meaningful steps to abide by its international obligations.” In short, dismantling its nuclear program and missile research. Neither of those will happen as long as the North feels militarily threatened and economically besieged.

In a way, the Korean crisis is a case of the nuclear powers being hoisted on their own petard. The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was not aimed at just stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, but, according to Article VI, at eliminating those weapons and instituting general disarmament. But today’s world is essentially a nuclear apartheid, with the nuclear powers threatening any countries that try to join the club—unless those countries happen to be allies. North Korea should get rid of its nuclear weapons, but then so should China, Russia, the United States, Britain, France, Israel, Pakistan, and India.

As far as ending the current crisis, one could do worse than follow up on what basketball great Dennis Rodman said North Korean leader Kim Jong-un told him: “Obama should call me.”

Good place to start.

This article was originally published at Foreign Policy in Focus.

Read more by Conn Hallinan

• Four More Years: The Asia Pivot – December 26th, 2012


• Turkey Haunted by Hubris – November 1st, 2012


• Syria and the Dogs of War – September 28th, 2012


• Iran Sanctions: War By Other Means – July 15th, 2012


• Syria and the Phantom – June 27th, 2012

Print This | Share This | Send a letter to the editor | Letters

Antiwar.com Original

Breaking Out the Bush Playbook on Korea

Breaking Out the Bush Playbook on Korea

In the current crisis on the Korean peninsula, the Obama administration is virtually repeating the 2004 Bush playbook, one that derailed a successful diplomatic agreement forged by the Clinton administration to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. While the acute tensions of the past month appear to be receding—all of the parties involved seem to be taking a step back— the problem is not going to disappear, and unless Washington and its allies re-examine their strategy, another crisis is certain to develop.

A little history. 

In the spring of 1994, the Clinton administration came very close to a war with North Korea over Pyongyang’s threat to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, expel international inspectors, and extract plutonium from reactor fuel rods. Washington moved to beef up its military in South Korea, and according to Fred Kaplan in the Washington Monthly, there were plans to bomb the Yongbyon reactor.

Kaplan is Slate‘s War Stories columnist and author of The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War.

“Yet at the same time,” writes Kaplan, “Clinton set up a diplomatic back-channel to end the crisis peacefully.” Former President Jimmy Carter was sent to the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of North Korea (DPRK) and the Agreed Framework pact was signed, allowing the parties to back off without losing face. 

In return for the North Koreans shipping their fuel rods out of the country, the United States, South Korea, and Japan agreed to finance two light-water nuclear reactors, normalize diplomatic relations, and supply the DPRK with fuel. Washington pledged not to invade the North. “Initially, North Korea kept to its side of the bargain,” say Kaplan, “The same cannot be said for our side.”

The reactors were never funded and diplomatic relations went into a deep freeze. From North Korea’s point of view, it had been stiffed. The North reacted with public bombast and a secret deal with Pakistan to exchange missile technology for centrifuges to make nuclear fuel. 

However, the North was still willing to deal, and DPRK leader Kim Jong-il told the Clinton administration that, in exchange for a non-aggression pact, North Korea would agree to shelve its long-range missile program and stop exporting missile technology. North Korea was still adhering to the 1994 agreement not to process its nuclear fuel rods. But time ran out and the incoming Bush administration torpedoed the talks, instead declaring North Korea, along with Iran and Iraq, a member of an “axis of evil.”  

Nine days after the U.S. Senate passed the Iraq war resolution on October 11, 2002, the White House disavowed the 1994 Agreed Framework, halted fuel supplies, and sharpened the economic embargo the United States had imposed on the North since the 1950-53 Korean War. It was hardly a surprise when Pyongyang’s reaction was to toss out the arms inspectors, fire up the Yongbyon reactor, and take the fuel rods out of storage.

Kaplan points out, however, that even when Pyongyang withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in early 2003, the North Koreans “also said they would reverse their actions and retract their declarations if the United States resumed its obligations under the Agreed Framework and signed a non-aggression pledge.”

But Bush, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and Vice President Dick Cheney, banking that increased sanctions would eventually bring down the Kim regime, were not interested in negotiations.

Ignoring North Korea, however, did not sit well with Japan and South Korea. So the White House sent U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly to Pyongyang, where the North Koreans told him they were willing to give up nuclear weapons development in return for a non-aggression pact. Bush, however, dismissed the proposal as “blackmail” and refused to negotiate with the North Koreans unless they first agreed to give up the bomb, a posture disturbingly similar to the one currently being taken by the Obama administration.

But “the bomb” was the only chip the North Koreans had, and giving it up defied logic. Hadn’t NATO and the United States used the threat of nuclear weapons to checkmate a supposed Soviet invasion of Europe during the Cold War? Wasn’t that the rationale behind the Israeli bomb vis-à-vis the Arabs? Pakistan’s ace in the hole to keep the vastly superior Indian army at bay? Why would Pyongyang make such an agreement with a country that made no secret of its intention to destabilize the North Korean regime?

North Korea is not a nice place to live and work, but its reputation as a nuclear-armed loony bin is hardly accurate. Every attempt by the North Koreans to sign a non-aggression pact has been either rebuffed or come at a price—specifically giving up nuclear weapons—Pyongyang is unwilling to pay without such a pledge. The North is well aware of the fate of the “axis of evil”: Iraq was invaded and occupied, and Iran is suffocating under the weight of economic sanctions and facing a possible Israeli or U.S. attack. From North Korea’s point of view, the only thing that Iraq and Iran have in common is that neither of them developed nuclear weapons. 

Indeed, when the United States and NATO overthrew the Gadaffi regime in Libya, a North Korean Foreign Ministry official told the Korean Central News Agency that the war had taught “the international community a grave lesson: the truth that one should have the power to defend peace.” Libya had voluntarily given up nuclear weapons research, and the North Koreans were essentially saying, “We told you so.”

There are a number of dangers the current crisis poses. The most unlikely among them is a North Korean attack on the U.S. mainland or South Korea, although an “incident” like the 2010 shelling of Yeonpyeong Island and the sinking of South Korean warship, the Cheonan, is not out of the question. More likely is a missile test. 

All of the parties—including China and Russia—know that North Korea is not a serious danger to the United States or its allies, Japan and South Korea. Which is why China is so unhappy with Washington’s response to Pyongyang’s bombast: deploying yet more anti-missile systems in the U.S. and Guam, systems that appear suspiciously like yet another dimension of Washington’s “Asia pivot” to beef up America’s military footprint in the region. Russia and China believe those ABM systems are aimed at them, not North Korea, which explains an April 15 accusation by the Chinese Defense Ministry that “hostile western forces” were using tensions to “contain and control our country’s development.”

While the western media interpreted a recent statement by Chinese President Xi Jinping as demonstrating China’s growing impatience with North Korea, according to Zackary Keck, assistant editor of the Asia-Pacific-focused publication The Diplomat, the speech was more likely aimed at Washington than at Pyongyang. Keck argues that China is far more worried about growing U.S. military might in the region than rhetorical blasts from North Korea. 

The Russians have also complained about “unilateral actions…being taken around North Korea.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, “We believe it is necessary for all not to build up military muscle and not to use the current situation as an excuse to solve certain geopolitical tasks in the region through military means.” 

Tension between nuclear powers is always disconcerting, but the most immediate threat is the possibility of some kind of attack on North Korea by the United States or South Korea. Conservative South Korean President Park Geun-hye told her military to respond to any attack from the North without “political considerations,” and the United States has reaffirmed that it will come to Seoul’s defense in the event of war. It is not a war the North would survive, and therein lays the danger. 

According to Keir Lieber of Georgetown University and Daryl Press, coordinator of Dartmouth’s War and Peace Studies, current U.S. military tactics could trigger a nuclear war. “The core of U.S. conventional strategy, refined during recent wars, is to incapacitate the enemy by disabling its central nervous system…leadership bunkers, military command sites, and means of communication.” While such tactics were effective in Yugoslavia and Iraq, they could prove counterproductive “if directed at a nuclear-armed opponent.” Faced with an overwhelming military assault, there would be a strong incentive for North Korea to try and halt the attacks, “a job for which nuclear weapons are well suited.”

Council of Foreign Relations Korea expert Scott Snyder says, “The primary danger is really related to the potential for miscalculation between the two sides, and in this kind of atmosphere of tensions, that miscalculation could have deadly consequences.” 

The demand by the Obama administration that North Korea must denuclearize before serious talks can begin is a non-starter, particularly when the Washington and its allies refuse to first agree to a non-aggression pledge. And the White House will have to jettison its “strategic patience” policy, a fancy term for regime change. Both strategies have been utter failures. 

There are level heads at work.

South Korea recently praised China for helping to manage the crisis, and Seoul has dialed back some of its own bombast. The United States canceled a military maneuver, and a “senior administration” official warned about “misperception” and “miscalculation,” remarks that seemed aimed more at South Korea than at the North. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry also says Washington is open to talks with China and North Korea.

But such talks are predicated, according to the U.S. State Department, on Pyongyang proving “its seriousness by taking meaningful steps to abide by its international obligations.” In short, dismantling its nuclear program and missile research. Neither of those will happen as long as the North feels militarily threatened and economically besieged.

In a way, the Korean crisis is a case of the nuclear powers being hoisted on their own petard. The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was not aimed at just stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, but, according to Article VI, at eliminating those weapons and instituting general disarmament. But today’s world is essentially a nuclear apartheid, with the nuclear powers threatening any countries that try to join the club—unless those countries happen to be allies. North Korea should get rid of its nuclear weapons, but then so should China, Russia, the United States, Britain, France, Israel, Pakistan, and India.

As far as ending the current crisis, one could do worse than follow up on what basketball great Dennis Rodman said North Korean leader Kim Jong-un told him: “Obama should call me.”

Good place to start.

This article was originally published at Foreign Policy in Focus.

Read more by Conn Hallinan

• Four More Years: The Asia Pivot – December 26th, 2012


• Turkey Haunted by Hubris – November 1st, 2012


• Syria and the Dogs of War – September 28th, 2012


• Iran Sanctions: War By Other Means – July 15th, 2012


• Syria and the Phantom – June 27th, 2012

Print This | Share This | Send a letter to the editor | Letters

Antiwar.com Original

Breaking Out the Bush Playbook on Korea

Breaking Out the Bush Playbook on Korea

In the current crisis on the Korean peninsula, the Obama administration is virtually repeating the 2004 Bush playbook, one that derailed a successful diplomatic agreement forged by the Clinton administration to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. While the acute tensions of the past month appear to be receding—all of the parties involved seem to be taking a step back— the problem is not going to disappear, and unless Washington and its allies re-examine their strategy, another crisis is certain to develop.

A little history. 

In the spring of 1994, the Clinton administration came very close to a war with North Korea over Pyongyang’s threat to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, expel international inspectors, and extract plutonium from reactor fuel rods. Washington moved to beef up its military in South Korea, and according to Fred Kaplan in the Washington Monthly, there were plans to bomb the Yongbyon reactor.

Kaplan is Slate‘s War Stories columnist and author of The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War.

“Yet at the same time,” writes Kaplan, “Clinton set up a diplomatic back-channel to end the crisis peacefully.” Former President Jimmy Carter was sent to the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of North Korea (DPRK) and the Agreed Framework pact was signed, allowing the parties to back off without losing face. 

In return for the North Koreans shipping their fuel rods out of the country, the United States, South Korea, and Japan agreed to finance two light-water nuclear reactors, normalize diplomatic relations, and supply the DPRK with fuel. Washington pledged not to invade the North. “Initially, North Korea kept to its side of the bargain,” say Kaplan, “The same cannot be said for our side.”

The reactors were never funded and diplomatic relations went into a deep freeze. From North Korea’s point of view, it had been stiffed. The North reacted with public bombast and a secret deal with Pakistan to exchange missile technology for centrifuges to make nuclear fuel. 

However, the North was still willing to deal, and DPRK leader Kim Jong-il told the Clinton administration that, in exchange for a non-aggression pact, North Korea would agree to shelve its long-range missile program and stop exporting missile technology. North Korea was still adhering to the 1994 agreement not to process its nuclear fuel rods. But time ran out and the incoming Bush administration torpedoed the talks, instead declaring North Korea, along with Iran and Iraq, a member of an “axis of evil.”  

Nine days after the U.S. Senate passed the Iraq war resolution on October 11, 2002, the White House disavowed the 1994 Agreed Framework, halted fuel supplies, and sharpened the economic embargo the United States had imposed on the North since the 1950-53 Korean War. It was hardly a surprise when Pyongyang’s reaction was to toss out the arms inspectors, fire up the Yongbyon reactor, and take the fuel rods out of storage.

Kaplan points out, however, that even when Pyongyang withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in early 2003, the North Koreans “also said they would reverse their actions and retract their declarations if the United States resumed its obligations under the Agreed Framework and signed a non-aggression pledge.”

But Bush, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and Vice President Dick Cheney, banking that increased sanctions would eventually bring down the Kim regime, were not interested in negotiations.

Ignoring North Korea, however, did not sit well with Japan and South Korea. So the White House sent U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly to Pyongyang, where the North Koreans told him they were willing to give up nuclear weapons development in return for a non-aggression pact. Bush, however, dismissed the proposal as “blackmail” and refused to negotiate with the North Koreans unless they first agreed to give up the bomb, a posture disturbingly similar to the one currently being taken by the Obama administration.

But “the bomb” was the only chip the North Koreans had, and giving it up defied logic. Hadn’t NATO and the United States used the threat of nuclear weapons to checkmate a supposed Soviet invasion of Europe during the Cold War? Wasn’t that the rationale behind the Israeli bomb vis-à-vis the Arabs? Pakistan’s ace in the hole to keep the vastly superior Indian army at bay? Why would Pyongyang make such an agreement with a country that made no secret of its intention to destabilize the North Korean regime?

North Korea is not a nice place to live and work, but its reputation as a nuclear-armed loony bin is hardly accurate. Every attempt by the North Koreans to sign a non-aggression pact has been either rebuffed or come at a price—specifically giving up nuclear weapons—Pyongyang is unwilling to pay without such a pledge. The North is well aware of the fate of the “axis of evil”: Iraq was invaded and occupied, and Iran is suffocating under the weight of economic sanctions and facing a possible Israeli or U.S. attack. From North Korea’s point of view, the only thing that Iraq and Iran have in common is that neither of them developed nuclear weapons. 

Indeed, when the United States and NATO overthrew the Gadaffi regime in Libya, a North Korean Foreign Ministry official told the Korean Central News Agency that the war had taught “the international community a grave lesson: the truth that one should have the power to defend peace.” Libya had voluntarily given up nuclear weapons research, and the North Koreans were essentially saying, “We told you so.”

There are a number of dangers the current crisis poses. The most unlikely among them is a North Korean attack on the U.S. mainland or South Korea, although an “incident” like the 2010 shelling of Yeonpyeong Island and the sinking of South Korean warship, the Cheonan, is not out of the question. More likely is a missile test. 

All of the parties—including China and Russia—know that North Korea is not a serious danger to the United States or its allies, Japan and South Korea. Which is why China is so unhappy with Washington’s response to Pyongyang’s bombast: deploying yet more anti-missile systems in the U.S. and Guam, systems that appear suspiciously like yet another dimension of Washington’s “Asia pivot” to beef up America’s military footprint in the region. Russia and China believe those ABM systems are aimed at them, not North Korea, which explains an April 15 accusation by the Chinese Defense Ministry that “hostile western forces” were using tensions to “contain and control our country’s development.”

While the western media interpreted a recent statement by Chinese President Xi Jinping as demonstrating China’s growing impatience with North Korea, according to Zackary Keck, assistant editor of the Asia-Pacific-focused publication The Diplomat, the speech was more likely aimed at Washington than at Pyongyang. Keck argues that China is far more worried about growing U.S. military might in the region than rhetorical blasts from North Korea. 

The Russians have also complained about “unilateral actions…being taken around North Korea.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, “We believe it is necessary for all not to build up military muscle and not to use the current situation as an excuse to solve certain geopolitical tasks in the region through military means.” 

Tension between nuclear powers is always disconcerting, but the most immediate threat is the possibility of some kind of attack on North Korea by the United States or South Korea. Conservative South Korean President Park Geun-hye told her military to respond to any attack from the North without “political considerations,” and the United States has reaffirmed that it will come to Seoul’s defense in the event of war. It is not a war the North would survive, and therein lays the danger. 

According to Keir Lieber of Georgetown University and Daryl Press, coordinator of Dartmouth’s War and Peace Studies, current U.S. military tactics could trigger a nuclear war. “The core of U.S. conventional strategy, refined during recent wars, is to incapacitate the enemy by disabling its central nervous system…leadership bunkers, military command sites, and means of communication.” While such tactics were effective in Yugoslavia and Iraq, they could prove counterproductive “if directed at a nuclear-armed opponent.” Faced with an overwhelming military assault, there would be a strong incentive for North Korea to try and halt the attacks, “a job for which nuclear weapons are well suited.”

Council of Foreign Relations Korea expert Scott Snyder says, “The primary danger is really related to the potential for miscalculation between the two sides, and in this kind of atmosphere of tensions, that miscalculation could have deadly consequences.” 

The demand by the Obama administration that North Korea must denuclearize before serious talks can begin is a non-starter, particularly when the Washington and its allies refuse to first agree to a non-aggression pledge. And the White House will have to jettison its “strategic patience” policy, a fancy term for regime change. Both strategies have been utter failures. 

There are level heads at work.

South Korea recently praised China for helping to manage the crisis, and Seoul has dialed back some of its own bombast. The United States canceled a military maneuver, and a “senior administration” official warned about “misperception” and “miscalculation,” remarks that seemed aimed more at South Korea than at the North. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry also says Washington is open to talks with China and North Korea.

But such talks are predicated, according to the U.S. State Department, on Pyongyang proving “its seriousness by taking meaningful steps to abide by its international obligations.” In short, dismantling its nuclear program and missile research. Neither of those will happen as long as the North feels militarily threatened and economically besieged.

In a way, the Korean crisis is a case of the nuclear powers being hoisted on their own petard. The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was not aimed at just stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, but, according to Article VI, at eliminating those weapons and instituting general disarmament. But today’s world is essentially a nuclear apartheid, with the nuclear powers threatening any countries that try to join the club—unless those countries happen to be allies. North Korea should get rid of its nuclear weapons, but then so should China, Russia, the United States, Britain, France, Israel, Pakistan, and India.

As far as ending the current crisis, one could do worse than follow up on what basketball great Dennis Rodman said North Korean leader Kim Jong-un told him: “Obama should call me.”

Good place to start.

This article was originally published at Foreign Policy in Focus.

Read more by Conn Hallinan

• Four More Years: The Asia Pivot – December 26th, 2012


• Turkey Haunted by Hubris – November 1st, 2012


• Syria and the Dogs of War – September 28th, 2012


• Iran Sanctions: War By Other Means – July 15th, 2012


• Syria and the Phantom – June 27th, 2012

Print This | Share This | Send a letter to the editor | Letters

Antiwar.com Original

Breaking Out the Bush Playbook on Korea

Breaking Out the Bush Playbook on Korea

In the current crisis on the Korean peninsula, the Obama administration is virtually repeating the 2004 Bush playbook, one that derailed a successful diplomatic agreement forged by the Clinton administration to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. While the acute tensions of the past month appear to be receding—all of the parties involved seem to be taking a step back— the problem is not going to disappear, and unless Washington and its allies re-examine their strategy, another crisis is certain to develop.

A little history. 

In the spring of 1994, the Clinton administration came very close to a war with North Korea over Pyongyang’s threat to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, expel international inspectors, and extract plutonium from reactor fuel rods. Washington moved to beef up its military in South Korea, and according to Fred Kaplan in the Washington Monthly, there were plans to bomb the Yongbyon reactor.

Kaplan is Slate‘s War Stories columnist and author of The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War.

“Yet at the same time,” writes Kaplan, “Clinton set up a diplomatic back-channel to end the crisis peacefully.” Former President Jimmy Carter was sent to the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of North Korea (DPRK) and the Agreed Framework pact was signed, allowing the parties to back off without losing face. 

In return for the North Koreans shipping their fuel rods out of the country, the United States, South Korea, and Japan agreed to finance two light-water nuclear reactors, normalize diplomatic relations, and supply the DPRK with fuel. Washington pledged not to invade the North. “Initially, North Korea kept to its side of the bargain,” say Kaplan, “The same cannot be said for our side.”

The reactors were never funded and diplomatic relations went into a deep freeze. From North Korea’s point of view, it had been stiffed. The North reacted with public bombast and a secret deal with Pakistan to exchange missile technology for centrifuges to make nuclear fuel. 

However, the North was still willing to deal, and DPRK leader Kim Jong-il told the Clinton administration that, in exchange for a non-aggression pact, North Korea would agree to shelve its long-range missile program and stop exporting missile technology. North Korea was still adhering to the 1994 agreement not to process its nuclear fuel rods. But time ran out and the incoming Bush administration torpedoed the talks, instead declaring North Korea, along with Iran and Iraq, a member of an “axis of evil.”  

Nine days after the U.S. Senate passed the Iraq war resolution on October 11, 2002, the White House disavowed the 1994 Agreed Framework, halted fuel supplies, and sharpened the economic embargo the United States had imposed on the North since the 1950-53 Korean War. It was hardly a surprise when Pyongyang’s reaction was to toss out the arms inspectors, fire up the Yongbyon reactor, and take the fuel rods out of storage.

Kaplan points out, however, that even when Pyongyang withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in early 2003, the North Koreans “also said they would reverse their actions and retract their declarations if the United States resumed its obligations under the Agreed Framework and signed a non-aggression pledge.”

But Bush, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and Vice President Dick Cheney, banking that increased sanctions would eventually bring down the Kim regime, were not interested in negotiations.

Ignoring North Korea, however, did not sit well with Japan and South Korea. So the White House sent U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly to Pyongyang, where the North Koreans told him they were willing to give up nuclear weapons development in return for a non-aggression pact. Bush, however, dismissed the proposal as “blackmail” and refused to negotiate with the North Koreans unless they first agreed to give up the bomb, a posture disturbingly similar to the one currently being taken by the Obama administration.

But “the bomb” was the only chip the North Koreans had, and giving it up defied logic. Hadn’t NATO and the United States used the threat of nuclear weapons to checkmate a supposed Soviet invasion of Europe during the Cold War? Wasn’t that the rationale behind the Israeli bomb vis-à-vis the Arabs? Pakistan’s ace in the hole to keep the vastly superior Indian army at bay? Why would Pyongyang make such an agreement with a country that made no secret of its intention to destabilize the North Korean regime?

North Korea is not a nice place to live and work, but its reputation as a nuclear-armed loony bin is hardly accurate. Every attempt by the North Koreans to sign a non-aggression pact has been either rebuffed or come at a price—specifically giving up nuclear weapons—Pyongyang is unwilling to pay without such a pledge. The North is well aware of the fate of the “axis of evil”: Iraq was invaded and occupied, and Iran is suffocating under the weight of economic sanctions and facing a possible Israeli or U.S. attack. From North Korea’s point of view, the only thing that Iraq and Iran have in common is that neither of them developed nuclear weapons. 

Indeed, when the United States and NATO overthrew the Gadaffi regime in Libya, a North Korean Foreign Ministry official told the Korean Central News Agency that the war had taught “the international community a grave lesson: the truth that one should have the power to defend peace.” Libya had voluntarily given up nuclear weapons research, and the North Koreans were essentially saying, “We told you so.”

There are a number of dangers the current crisis poses. The most unlikely among them is a North Korean attack on the U.S. mainland or South Korea, although an “incident” like the 2010 shelling of Yeonpyeong Island and the sinking of South Korean warship, the Cheonan, is not out of the question. More likely is a missile test. 

All of the parties—including China and Russia—know that North Korea is not a serious danger to the United States or its allies, Japan and South Korea. Which is why China is so unhappy with Washington’s response to Pyongyang’s bombast: deploying yet more anti-missile systems in the U.S. and Guam, systems that appear suspiciously like yet another dimension of Washington’s “Asia pivot” to beef up America’s military footprint in the region. Russia and China believe those ABM systems are aimed at them, not North Korea, which explains an April 15 accusation by the Chinese Defense Ministry that “hostile western forces” were using tensions to “contain and control our country’s development.”

While the western media interpreted a recent statement by Chinese President Xi Jinping as demonstrating China’s growing impatience with North Korea, according to Zackary Keck, assistant editor of the Asia-Pacific-focused publication The Diplomat, the speech was more likely aimed at Washington than at Pyongyang. Keck argues that China is far more worried about growing U.S. military might in the region than rhetorical blasts from North Korea. 

The Russians have also complained about “unilateral actions…being taken around North Korea.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, “We believe it is necessary for all not to build up military muscle and not to use the current situation as an excuse to solve certain geopolitical tasks in the region through military means.” 

Tension between nuclear powers is always disconcerting, but the most immediate threat is the possibility of some kind of attack on North Korea by the United States or South Korea. Conservative South Korean President Park Geun-hye told her military to respond to any attack from the North without “political considerations,” and the United States has reaffirmed that it will come to Seoul’s defense in the event of war. It is not a war the North would survive, and therein lays the danger. 

According to Keir Lieber of Georgetown University and Daryl Press, coordinator of Dartmouth’s War and Peace Studies, current U.S. military tactics could trigger a nuclear war. “The core of U.S. conventional strategy, refined during recent wars, is to incapacitate the enemy by disabling its central nervous system…leadership bunkers, military command sites, and means of communication.” While such tactics were effective in Yugoslavia and Iraq, they could prove counterproductive “if directed at a nuclear-armed opponent.” Faced with an overwhelming military assault, there would be a strong incentive for North Korea to try and halt the attacks, “a job for which nuclear weapons are well suited.”

Council of Foreign Relations Korea expert Scott Snyder says, “The primary danger is really related to the potential for miscalculation between the two sides, and in this kind of atmosphere of tensions, that miscalculation could have deadly consequences.” 

The demand by the Obama administration that North Korea must denuclearize before serious talks can begin is a non-starter, particularly when the Washington and its allies refuse to first agree to a non-aggression pledge. And the White House will have to jettison its “strategic patience” policy, a fancy term for regime change. Both strategies have been utter failures. 

There are level heads at work.

South Korea recently praised China for helping to manage the crisis, and Seoul has dialed back some of its own bombast. The United States canceled a military maneuver, and a “senior administration” official warned about “misperception” and “miscalculation,” remarks that seemed aimed more at South Korea than at the North. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry also says Washington is open to talks with China and North Korea.

But such talks are predicated, according to the U.S. State Department, on Pyongyang proving “its seriousness by taking meaningful steps to abide by its international obligations.” In short, dismantling its nuclear program and missile research. Neither of those will happen as long as the North feels militarily threatened and economically besieged.

In a way, the Korean crisis is a case of the nuclear powers being hoisted on their own petard. The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was not aimed at just stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, but, according to Article VI, at eliminating those weapons and instituting general disarmament. But today’s world is essentially a nuclear apartheid, with the nuclear powers threatening any countries that try to join the club—unless those countries happen to be allies. North Korea should get rid of its nuclear weapons, but then so should China, Russia, the United States, Britain, France, Israel, Pakistan, and India.

As far as ending the current crisis, one could do worse than follow up on what basketball great Dennis Rodman said North Korean leader Kim Jong-un told him: “Obama should call me.”

Good place to start.

This article was originally published at Foreign Policy in Focus.

Read more by Conn Hallinan

• Four More Years: The Asia Pivot – December 26th, 2012


• Turkey Haunted by Hubris – November 1st, 2012


• Syria and the Dogs of War – September 28th, 2012


• Iran Sanctions: War By Other Means – July 15th, 2012


• Syria and the Phantom – June 27th, 2012

Print This | Share This | Send a letter to the editor | Letters

Antiwar.com Original

Breaking Out the Bush Playbook on Korea

Rubio goes all in on immigration, NEWTOWN VICTIMS BECOME POWERFUL LOBBY, Lamborn spills bean on N. Korea nukes, Progress Ky. official resigns, Walden faces backlash

(swong@politico.com or @scottwongDC)

RUBIO GOES ALL IN ON IMMIGRATION – POLITICO’s Manu Raju has a preview of the Florida Republican’s game plan: “Marco Rubio is preparing to go all in to support sweeping immigration legislation, offering himself up as the public face of a bill that will split the Republican Party — but that his allies hope will propel him to the front of the GOP presidential sweepstakes. After offering lukewarm support until now, Rubio is preparing to fully embrace a measure that is the most significant of his political career so far. The gambit could pay off in spades by crowning a leading presidential contender in 2016, or it could permanently damage the Republican’s brand with conservatives.

– “Rubio is planning a media blitz to promote the bill — which is expected to be released early next week — making the rounds on all of the Sunday political talk shows starting this weekend, wooing skeptical conservative radio hosts and pitching the plan to Spanish-language news outlets. The campaign is aimed at building public support for the far-reaching immigration bill that will dominate Capitol Hill’s attention for much of the year. …

– “Behind the scenes, the potential 2016 aspirant has already launched a lobbying campaign to convince conservatives that the plan will be tough on the border. The goal is to assuage GOP concerns over the pathway to citizenship that would be offered to the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants, allowing them to apply for citizenship after 13 years as the new enforcement measures take effect. The Florida Republican has privately briefed individual GOP senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee — including conservative skeptics John Cornyn of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah — about the soon-to-be-unveiled proposal, according to sources familiar with the matter. His staff has pitched the plan to conservative thought leaders, including at the National Review and Wall Street Journal editorial board as well as the columnist Charles Krauthammer, sources say.” http://politi.co/Zknfly

THE GANG’S immigration bill will include a new merit-based program for foreigners to become permanent legal residents based on their work skills, the NYT’s Julia Preston and Ashley Parker report. http://nyti.ms/ZlgS1q

NEWTOWN VICTIMS BECOME POWERFUL LOBBY, MOVE SENATE – Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen write in their latest “Behind the Curtain” column:  “When a lobbyist for families of Newtown shooting victims called the office of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to set up a meeting, the first response was a standard D.C. offer. They could get a meeting with her staff, and a quick and simple ‘hello’ from Collins herself, they were told. The families’ answer: Not good enough. According to their lobbyists, the families have a rule against staff-only meetings: they won’t do them. They insist on sitting down with the senators themselves.

– “That rule is just one of the ways that the Newtown families, political novices just a few months ago, are proving to be savvy, effective advocates as they promote the gun legislation that has finally begun to move through the Senate. The families are well-educated, and many are well-off. They have been polished and sharp on TV. They’re mostly non-political, but quite accomplished in their own fields. With access to money and media, they’re using persistence, visibility — and, most all, their unique moral authority — to help prod Senate action. They also have their own lobbyists — several of them, in fact. …

–“What started as a support group is now a lobbying force unlike any other to descend on Capitol Hill. The family members typically begin their pitch to senators softly, telling the story of the child that they lost. They gently say they could not have imagined themselves in this position, but they’re doing it to honor the memory of their children. They say they’re supporters of the Second Amendment, and just want to have a conversation. But there’s nothing subtle about the way some of them conclude their visits: by leaving behind a color card with a photo of their slain relative. Nicole Hockley, who introduced President Barack Obama in Hartford this week, hands senators a card with three photos of her son Dylan, who was 6 when he was gunned down. One frame shows him grinning, in a Superman shirt. ‘Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06 – 12/14/12,’ the card says. ‘Honor his life. Stand with us for change. NOW IS THE TIME.’” http://politi.co/10SJDFr

– More than a dozen family members of Newtown victims sat in the gallery and looked on as the Senate voted 68-31 to begin debate on a gun-control measures, beating back a GOP-led filibuster, Kasie Hunt reports for NBC News.  http://nbcnews.to/157VnZ8

TWO DEMOCRATS broke with their party and voted to filibuster the gun legislation: Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor.

SIXTEEN REPUBLICANS voted to begin debate on the bill: Lamar Alexander of Tennessee; Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire; Richard Burr of North Carolina; Saxby Chambliss of Georgia; Tom Coburn of Oklahoma; Susan Collins of Maine; Bob Corker of Tennessee; Jeff Flake of Arizona; Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; John Hoeven of North Dakota; Johnny Isakson of Georgia; Dean Heller of Nevada; Mark Kirk of Illinois; John McCain of Arizona; Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania; Roger Wicker of Mississippi. http://politi.co/155XEE3

– Thursday’s vote could be just the first of many on gun legislation, POLITICO’s John Bresnahan reports: “A vote could come as soon as Tuesday on the bipartisan proposal by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) that would expand background checks to all commercial gun sales and close the so-called gun-show loophole, said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a key player in the gun bill debate. … But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have yet to reach an agreement laying out all the conditions for the gun debate, including how long the fight could go on and how many amendments — and what type — can be offered. The Manchin-Toomey proposal will actually be offered as an amendment to an underlying Democrat-only gun bill, and without agreement from McConnell, it will be hard for Reid to get to a final vote on the gun package.” http://politi.co/1525UVv

– Roll Call’s John Gramlich has five gun-control amendments to watch next week, including measures on concealed carry, mental-health records and high-capacity magazines: http://bit.ly/Zlk6Sw

SUBURBAN GROWTH in states like Pennsylvania, Georgia and Virginia is forcing lawmakers to consider a new political calculus in the gun debate, Philip Rucker and Paul Kane write on A1 of the Washington Post: http://wapo.st/10YqS0J

LAWMAKER: NORTH KOREA CAN MAKE NUCLEAR WEAPON MOUNTED ON BALLISTIC MISSILE – The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and L.A. Times all front stories about Rep. Doug Lamborn’s surprising revelation about Pyongyang’s nuclear capabilities. Thom Shanker, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt write for the NYT: “A new assessment by the Pentagon’s intelligence arm has concluded for the first time, with “moderate confidence,” that North Korea has learned how to make a nuclear weapon small enough to be delivered by a ballistic missile. The assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which has been distributed to senior administration officials and members of Congress, cautions that the weapon’s ‘reliability will be low,’ apparently a reference to the North’s difficulty in developing accurate missiles or, perhaps, to the huge technical challenges of designing a warhead that can survive the rigors of flight and detonate on a specific target.

– “The assessment’s existence was disclosed Thursday by Representative Doug Lamborn, Republican of Colorado, three hours into a budget hearing of the House Armed Services Committee with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey. General Dempsey declined to comment on the assessment because of classification issues. But late Thursday, the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., released a statement saying that the assessment did not represent a consensus of the nation’s intelligence community and that ‘North Korea has not yet demonstrated the full range of capabilities necessary for a nuclear armed missile.’” http://nyti.ms/16RtqCR

– Defense hawk Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called the North Korean dictator a “clown” and a “fool” on Fox News Thursday night, saying the U.S. can “take out” his nuclear capabilities if he fires a test missile. http://politi.co/ZlawyS

** On the Hill? Then join the Susan G. Komen Global Race for the Cure ‘State of Pink’ Challenge, a little friendly competition to support the fight against breast cancer. Just form a team in your office and then come celebrate with us on Saturday, May 11. Winning teams will be recognized on Race Day. Learn more. http://globalrace.info-komen.org/site/PageServer?pagename=hq_gr_2012_about_hill_teams   

GOOD FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL 12, 2013, and welcome to The Huddle, your play-by-play preview of the day’s congressional news. Send tips, suggestions, comments, complaints and corrections to swong@politico.com. If you don’t already, please follow me on Twitter @scottwongDC.

My new followers include @Katy_Brock and @Cabananatuan.

A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO ANITA FORD, a senior web producer at POLITICO who’s endured countless early morning wake-up calls and worked behind the scenes to produce The Huddle each day since I took over a year and a half ago. Today marks her final Huddle as she moves on to bigger things, and we wish her the best! Email her at: aford@politico.com

TODAY IN CONGRESS – The Senate is out today. The House meets at 10 a.m. with first and last votes expected between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. on a bill requiring the National Labor Relations Board to halt all activity until the legal issues surrounding the legitimacy of President Obama’s recess appointments are resolved.

AROUND THE HILL — Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform holds a Countdown-to-Tax-Day press conference at 10 a.m. in H-137, featuring speakers House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Sen. Orrin Hatch, and Reps. Kevin Brady, Devin Nunes, Tom Price and Reid Ribble.

Sen. Ben Cardin holds a town hall with employees at 11:15 a.m. at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. The Cato Institute hosts a Capitol Hill briefing titled “After the Arguments: What’s Next for Marriage Equality?” at noon in Rayburn B-369.

PROGRESS KENTUCKY OFFICIAL RESIGNS AMID McCONNELL BUGGING FALLOUT – Kevin Robillard reports for POLITICO: “Pressure is growing Thursday afternoon on a liberal super PAC in Kentucky accused of surreptitiously recording a strategy session held by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Jacob Conway, the Jefferson County Democratic Party’s executive committee member who originally accused Progress Kentucky of making the recording, told NBC News he was on his way to talk to the FBI about the allegations. And the group’s treasurer confirmed he had quit his position after the audio was published. ‘At this time based on advice of both friends and counsel, I will be not be making a public statement available until everything has been reviewed by an attorney at this time,’ Douglas L. Davis told NBC News. ‘I have resigned my position as treasurer and did not and do not condone any allegations of illegal activity that might have taken place.’

– “Conway told Louisville’s NPR affiliate earlier Thursday that two Progress Kentucky employees bragged to him about recording the meeting through a door in McConnell’s office. Conway said Shawn Reilly and Curtis Morrison told him they snuck into McConnell’s freshly-opened campaign office February 2, not long after McConnell held an open house for GOP activists and media members. They heard the meeting going on through a closed door and recorded it. … McConnell campaign manager Jesse Benton told the radio station the door in question has a large gap at the bottom and a vent the duo could’ve recorded the meeting through.” http://politi.co/ZPqq3C

– Reilly, the group’s executive director is denying he engaged in any illegal activity, The Hill’s Alexandra Jaffe reports: http://bit.ly/ZQTms2

DEFICIT GANG OF EIGHT BACK FROM THE DEAD? – Ginger Gibson reports for POLITICO: “Republican and Democratic senators are considering resurrecting a gang of deficit-busting lawmakers with an eye on a grand bargain with President Barack Obama. The bipartisan effort would come on the heels of the immigration Gang of Eight that is on the verge of announcing a sweeping immigration overhaul, and a breakthrough agreement on gun control between Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). In fact, it seems reining in the deficit is the only thorny issue left in Washington that hasn’t seen a recent bipartisan breakthrough despite an aggressive outreach campaign by Obama to lawmakers. …

–“A revival of the group could see the return of veteran negotiators like Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mike Johanns (R-Neb.). But they could also tap new blood like Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Johnny Iskason (R-Ga.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.), or budget supercommittee members Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Toomey.” http://politi.co/1525Y7w

WALDEN’S ‘CHAINED CPI’ REMARK SPLITS GOP – Jonathan Strong writes for Roll Call: National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Greg Walden touched a nerve Wednesday when he savaged the entitlement changes in President Barack Obama’s budget as a ‘shocking attack on seniors.’ But while conservative groups expressed outrage and top House leaders, including Speaker John A. Boehner, said they disagreed with Walden, it’s the lack of fallout for the Oregon Republican that may be more revealing. The debate Walden’s remarks has set off inside the GOP shows many Republicans harbor deep-seated fears about publicly supporting the entitlement cuts they supposedly back and have demanded Obama and other Democrats embrace since taking control of the House in 2011. ‘Walden is doing the right thing for the 30 seats that control the majority of the House, and that’s what the mission of NRCC chair is,’ said Brock McLeary, the president of Harper Polling and a former top political hand at the NRCC. …

–“On Thursday, Boehner said, ‘I’ve made it clear that I disagree with what Chairman Walden said. He and I have had a conversation about it. This is the least we must do to begin to solve the problems of Social Security.’ Rory Cooper, a spokesman for Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said his boss “thinks that chained CPI should definitely be on the table” and noted that, like Boehner, Cantor had also spoken to Walden.” http://bit.ly/XH4EF9

– Angered by Walden’s position, the conservative Club for Growth is now looking for a primary challenger to take him on in 2014, Kate Nocera reports for POLITICO: http://politi.co/ZPEOsO

THURSDAY’S TRIVIA WINNER – Bradley Dlatt was first to correctly answer that Thomas Jefferson signed legislation in 1806 providing funding for the National Road, previously known as the Cumberland Road, the first highway to be built by the federal government. The road started in Cumberland, Md.

TODAY’S TRIVIA – Howard Kipnes has today’s question: Which U. S. president was the first to appear on television, and what was the event he was attending? First to correctly answer gets a mention in the next day’s Huddle. Email me at swong@politico.com.

GET HUDDLE emailed to your Blackberry, iPhone or other mobile device each morning. Just enter your email address where it says “Sign Up.” http://www.politico.com/huddle/

** On the Hill? Then join the Susan G. Komen Global Race for the Cure ‘State of Pink’ Challenge, a little friendly competition to support the fight against breast cancer. Since 1990, Komen’s investments have helped drive down breast cancer mortality rates in the U.S. by 33% thanks to participants like you. Represent your state and keep the momentum going. Form a team in your office today and then come celebrate with us on Saturday, May 11. The largest congressional team and top fundraising team will be recognized on Race Day. Learn more. http://globalrace.info-komen.org/site/PageServer?pagename=hq_gr_2012_about_hill_teams

POLITICO – Top 10 – The Huddle

Rubio goes all in on immigration, NEWTOWN VICTIMS BECOME POWERFUL LOBBY, Lamborn spills bean on N. Korea nukes, Progress Ky. official resigns, Walden faces backlash

Rubio goes all in on immigration, NEWTOWN VICTIMS BECOME POWERFUL LOBBY, Lamborn spills bean on N. Korea nukes, Progress Ky. official resigns, Walden faces backlash

(swong@politico.com or @scottwongDC)

RUBIO GOES ALL IN ON IMMIGRATION – POLITICO’s Manu Raju has a preview of the Florida Republican’s game plan: “Marco Rubio is preparing to go all in to support sweeping immigration legislation, offering himself up as the public face of a bill that will split the Republican Party — but that his allies hope will propel him to the front of the GOP presidential sweepstakes. After offering lukewarm support until now, Rubio is preparing to fully embrace a measure that is the most significant of his political career so far. The gambit could pay off in spades by crowning a leading presidential contender in 2016, or it could permanently damage the Republican’s brand with conservatives.

– “Rubio is planning a media blitz to promote the bill — which is expected to be released early next week — making the rounds on all of the Sunday political talk shows starting this weekend, wooing skeptical conservative radio hosts and pitching the plan to Spanish-language news outlets. The campaign is aimed at building public support for the far-reaching immigration bill that will dominate Capitol Hill’s attention for much of the year. …

– “Behind the scenes, the potential 2016 aspirant has already launched a lobbying campaign to convince conservatives that the plan will be tough on the border. The goal is to assuage GOP concerns over the pathway to citizenship that would be offered to the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants, allowing them to apply for citizenship after 13 years as the new enforcement measures take effect. The Florida Republican has privately briefed individual GOP senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee — including conservative skeptics John Cornyn of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah — about the soon-to-be-unveiled proposal, according to sources familiar with the matter. His staff has pitched the plan to conservative thought leaders, including at the National Review and Wall Street Journal editorial board as well as the columnist Charles Krauthammer, sources say.” http://politi.co/Zknfly

THE GANG’S immigration bill will include a new merit-based program for foreigners to become permanent legal residents based on their work skills, the NYT’s Julia Preston and Ashley Parker report. http://nyti.ms/ZlgS1q

NEWTOWN VICTIMS BECOME POWERFUL LOBBY, MOVE SENATE – Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen write in their latest “Behind the Curtain” column:  “When a lobbyist for families of Newtown shooting victims called the office of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to set up a meeting, the first response was a standard D.C. offer. They could get a meeting with her staff, and a quick and simple ‘hello’ from Collins herself, they were told. The families’ answer: Not good enough. According to their lobbyists, the families have a rule against staff-only meetings: they won’t do them. They insist on sitting down with the senators themselves.

– “That rule is just one of the ways that the Newtown families, political novices just a few months ago, are proving to be savvy, effective advocates as they promote the gun legislation that has finally begun to move through the Senate. The families are well-educated, and many are well-off. They have been polished and sharp on TV. They’re mostly non-political, but quite accomplished in their own fields. With access to money and media, they’re using persistence, visibility — and, most all, their unique moral authority — to help prod Senate action. They also have their own lobbyists — several of them, in fact. …

–“What started as a support group is now a lobbying force unlike any other to descend on Capitol Hill. The family members typically begin their pitch to senators softly, telling the story of the child that they lost. They gently say they could not have imagined themselves in this position, but they’re doing it to honor the memory of their children. They say they’re supporters of the Second Amendment, and just want to have a conversation. But there’s nothing subtle about the way some of them conclude their visits: by leaving behind a color card with a photo of their slain relative. Nicole Hockley, who introduced President Barack Obama in Hartford this week, hands senators a card with three photos of her son Dylan, who was 6 when he was gunned down. One frame shows him grinning, in a Superman shirt. ‘Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06 – 12/14/12,’ the card says. ‘Honor his life. Stand with us for change. NOW IS THE TIME.’” http://politi.co/10SJDFr

– More than a dozen family members of Newtown victims sat in the gallery and looked on as the Senate voted 68-31 to begin debate on a gun-control measures, beating back a GOP-led filibuster, Kasie Hunt reports for NBC News.  http://nbcnews.to/157VnZ8

TWO DEMOCRATS broke with their party and voted to filibuster the gun legislation: Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor.

SIXTEEN REPUBLICANS voted to begin debate on the bill: Lamar Alexander of Tennessee; Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire; Richard Burr of North Carolina; Saxby Chambliss of Georgia; Tom Coburn of Oklahoma; Susan Collins of Maine; Bob Corker of Tennessee; Jeff Flake of Arizona; Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; John Hoeven of North Dakota; Johnny Isakson of Georgia; Dean Heller of Nevada; Mark Kirk of Illinois; John McCain of Arizona; Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania; Roger Wicker of Mississippi. http://politi.co/155XEE3

– Thursday’s vote could be just the first of many on gun legislation, POLITICO’s John Bresnahan reports: “A vote could come as soon as Tuesday on the bipartisan proposal by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) that would expand background checks to all commercial gun sales and close the so-called gun-show loophole, said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a key player in the gun bill debate. … But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have yet to reach an agreement laying out all the conditions for the gun debate, including how long the fight could go on and how many amendments — and what type — can be offered. The Manchin-Toomey proposal will actually be offered as an amendment to an underlying Democrat-only gun bill, and without agreement from McConnell, it will be hard for Reid to get to a final vote on the gun package.” http://politi.co/1525UVv

– Roll Call’s John Gramlich has five gun-control amendments to watch next week, including measures on concealed carry, mental-health records and high-capacity magazines: http://bit.ly/Zlk6Sw

SUBURBAN GROWTH in states like Pennsylvania, Georgia and Virginia is forcing lawmakers to consider a new political calculus in the gun debate, Philip Rucker and Paul Kane write on A1 of the Washington Post: http://wapo.st/10YqS0J

LAWMAKER: NORTH KOREA CAN MAKE NUCLEAR WEAPON MOUNTED ON BALLISTIC MISSILE – The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and L.A. Times all front stories about Rep. Doug Lamborn’s surprising revelation about Pyongyang’s nuclear capabilities. Thom Shanker, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt write for the NYT: “A new assessment by the Pentagon’s intelligence arm has concluded for the first time, with “moderate confidence,” that North Korea has learned how to make a nuclear weapon small enough to be delivered by a ballistic missile. The assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which has been distributed to senior administration officials and members of Congress, cautions that the weapon’s ‘reliability will be low,’ apparently a reference to the North’s difficulty in developing accurate missiles or, perhaps, to the huge technical challenges of designing a warhead that can survive the rigors of flight and detonate on a specific target.

– “The assessment’s existence was disclosed Thursday by Representative Doug Lamborn, Republican of Colorado, three hours into a budget hearing of the House Armed Services Committee with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey. General Dempsey declined to comment on the assessment because of classification issues. But late Thursday, the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., released a statement saying that the assessment did not represent a consensus of the nation’s intelligence community and that ‘North Korea has not yet demonstrated the full range of capabilities necessary for a nuclear armed missile.’” http://nyti.ms/16RtqCR

– Defense hawk Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called the North Korean dictator a “clown” and a “fool” on Fox News Thursday night, saying the U.S. can “take out” his nuclear capabilities if he fires a test missile. http://politi.co/ZlawyS

** On the Hill? Then join the Susan G. Komen Global Race for the Cure ‘State of Pink’ Challenge, a little friendly competition to support the fight against breast cancer. Just form a team in your office and then come celebrate with us on Saturday, May 11. Winning teams will be recognized on Race Day. Learn more. http://globalrace.info-komen.org/site/PageServer?pagename=hq_gr_2012_about_hill_teams   

GOOD FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL 12, 2013, and welcome to The Huddle, your play-by-play preview of the day’s congressional news. Send tips, suggestions, comments, complaints and corrections to swong@politico.com. If you don’t already, please follow me on Twitter @scottwongDC.

My new followers include @Katy_Brock and @Cabananatuan.

A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO ANITA FORD, a senior web producer at POLITICO who’s endured countless early morning wake-up calls and worked behind the scenes to produce The Huddle each day since I took over a year and a half ago. Today marks her final Huddle as she moves on to bigger things, and we wish her the best! Email her at: aford@politico.com

TODAY IN CONGRESS – The Senate is out today. The House meets at 10 a.m. with first and last votes expected between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. on a bill requiring the National Labor Relations Board to halt all activity until the legal issues surrounding the legitimacy of President Obama’s recess appointments are resolved.

AROUND THE HILL — Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform holds a Countdown-to-Tax-Day press conference at 10 a.m. in H-137, featuring speakers House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Sen. Orrin Hatch, and Reps. Kevin Brady, Devin Nunes, Tom Price and Reid Ribble.

Sen. Ben Cardin holds a town hall with employees at 11:15 a.m. at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. The Cato Institute hosts a Capitol Hill briefing titled “After the Arguments: What’s Next for Marriage Equality?” at noon in Rayburn B-369.

PROGRESS KENTUCKY OFFICIAL RESIGNS AMID McCONNELL BUGGING FALLOUT – Kevin Robillard reports for POLITICO: “Pressure is growing Thursday afternoon on a liberal super PAC in Kentucky accused of surreptitiously recording a strategy session held by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Jacob Conway, the Jefferson County Democratic Party’s executive committee member who originally accused Progress Kentucky of making the recording, told NBC News he was on his way to talk to the FBI about the allegations. And the group’s treasurer confirmed he had quit his position after the audio was published. ‘At this time based on advice of both friends and counsel, I will be not be making a public statement available until everything has been reviewed by an attorney at this time,’ Douglas L. Davis told NBC News. ‘I have resigned my position as treasurer and did not and do not condone any allegations of illegal activity that might have taken place.’

– “Conway told Louisville’s NPR affiliate earlier Thursday that two Progress Kentucky employees bragged to him about recording the meeting through a door in McConnell’s office. Conway said Shawn Reilly and Curtis Morrison told him they snuck into McConnell’s freshly-opened campaign office February 2, not long after McConnell held an open house for GOP activists and media members. They heard the meeting going on through a closed door and recorded it. … McConnell campaign manager Jesse Benton told the radio station the door in question has a large gap at the bottom and a vent the duo could’ve recorded the meeting through.” http://politi.co/ZPqq3C

– Reilly, the group’s executive director is denying he engaged in any illegal activity, The Hill’s Alexandra Jaffe reports: http://bit.ly/ZQTms2

DEFICIT GANG OF EIGHT BACK FROM THE DEAD? – Ginger Gibson reports for POLITICO: “Republican and Democratic senators are considering resurrecting a gang of deficit-busting lawmakers with an eye on a grand bargain with President Barack Obama. The bipartisan effort would come on the heels of the immigration Gang of Eight that is on the verge of announcing a sweeping immigration overhaul, and a breakthrough agreement on gun control between Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). In fact, it seems reining in the deficit is the only thorny issue left in Washington that hasn’t seen a recent bipartisan breakthrough despite an aggressive outreach campaign by Obama to lawmakers. …

–“A revival of the group could see the return of veteran negotiators like Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mike Johanns (R-Neb.). But they could also tap new blood like Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Johnny Iskason (R-Ga.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.), or budget supercommittee members Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Toomey.” http://politi.co/1525Y7w

WALDEN’S ‘CHAINED CPI’ REMARK SPLITS GOP – Jonathan Strong writes for Roll Call: National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Greg Walden touched a nerve Wednesday when he savaged the entitlement changes in President Barack Obama’s budget as a ‘shocking attack on seniors.’ But while conservative groups expressed outrage and top House leaders, including Speaker John A. Boehner, said they disagreed with Walden, it’s the lack of fallout for the Oregon Republican that may be more revealing. The debate Walden’s remarks has set off inside the GOP shows many Republicans harbor deep-seated fears about publicly supporting the entitlement cuts they supposedly back and have demanded Obama and other Democrats embrace since taking control of the House in 2011. ‘Walden is doing the right thing for the 30 seats that control the majority of the House, and that’s what the mission of NRCC chair is,’ said Brock McLeary, the president of Harper Polling and a former top political hand at the NRCC. …

–“On Thursday, Boehner said, ‘I’ve made it clear that I disagree with what Chairman Walden said. He and I have had a conversation about it. This is the least we must do to begin to solve the problems of Social Security.’ Rory Cooper, a spokesman for Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said his boss “thinks that chained CPI should definitely be on the table” and noted that, like Boehner, Cantor had also spoken to Walden.” http://bit.ly/XH4EF9

– Angered by Walden’s position, the conservative Club for Growth is now looking for a primary challenger to take him on in 2014, Kate Nocera reports for POLITICO: http://politi.co/ZPEOsO

THURSDAY’S TRIVIA WINNER – Bradley Dlatt was first to correctly answer that Thomas Jefferson signed legislation in 1806 providing funding for the National Road, previously known as the Cumberland Road, the first highway to be built by the federal government. The road started in Cumberland, Md.

TODAY’S TRIVIA – Howard Kipnes has today’s question: Which U. S. president was the first to appear on television, and what was the event he was attending? First to correctly answer gets a mention in the next day’s Huddle. Email me at swong@politico.com.

GET HUDDLE emailed to your Blackberry, iPhone or other mobile device each morning. Just enter your email address where it says “Sign Up.” http://www.politico.com/huddle/

** On the Hill? Then join the Susan G. Komen Global Race for the Cure ‘State of Pink’ Challenge, a little friendly competition to support the fight against breast cancer. Since 1990, Komen’s investments have helped drive down breast cancer mortality rates in the U.S. by 33% thanks to participants like you. Represent your state and keep the momentum going. Form a team in your office today and then come celebrate with us on Saturday, May 11. The largest congressional team and top fundraising team will be recognized on Race Day. Learn more. http://globalrace.info-komen.org/site/PageServer?pagename=hq_gr_2012_about_hill_teams

POLITICO – Top 10 – The Huddle

Rubio goes all in on immigration, NEWTOWN VICTIMS BECOME POWERFUL LOBBY, Lamborn spills bean on N. Korea nukes, Progress Ky. official resigns, Walden faces backlash