For years I have occasionally used resources listed on Tim Beal’s DPRK – North Korea site, which is a wealth of links. And for years I noticed his strong dislike of the Bush administration in the newsletter section, which is why I rarely read it; such strong biases tend to overshadow relevant facts in analysis. The latest newsletter (January 2006), concerning the October 2002 Kelly-Kang meeting, and why North Korea might have decided to illegally process uranium, is a case-in-point:

Not being at the meetings it is impossible for outsiders to be sure what transpired. The likeliest explanation, advanced by Selig Harrison (Foreign Affairs, February 2005) is that the DPRK did import centrifuges from Pakistan to process fuel from its abundant supplies of natural uranium in readiness for the Light Water Reactors promised under the Agreed Framework. The US has now managed to have that promise formally abrogated. What is also significant, Harrison continues, is that the US has never produced evidence sufficient to convince other governments. (emphasis added)

Statements like that make me question the intellectual honesty of the author, and the overall value of related analysis. Keep in mind that the above statement was written in January of 2006, by someone who religiously chronicles DPRK-related news. A rudimentary fact-check yields the premise to be incorrect.

First, who lied in October 2002 concerning the meeting between James Kelly and Kang Seok-ju, where Kang reportedly made the admission? In this case there is no middle ground; either Kelly or Kang is a liar. Pakistan’s admission in that matter would indicate that Kang is the liar, when he later denied a DPRK nuclear program, by confirming the overall fact of the program(s):

After years of blanket denials, Pakistan’s government has finally admitted that during 1989-2003 Pakistani nuclear scientists and entities proliferated nuclear weapons-related technologies, equipment, and know how to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. . . Khan and his associates supplied Pyongyang with centrifuge and enrichment machines, and depleted uranium hexaflouride gas (UF6). (emphasis added)

This information has been in the open press since 2004, and completely demolishes the assertion by Harrison, and seconded by Beal that, “the US has never produced evidence sufficient to convince other governments.” Unless the president of Pakistan is lying about his top nuclear scientist and national hero proliferating nuclear technology to North Korea, Kang must not have been telling the truth when he later publicly denied the existence of such programs.

Beal says that, “The US has now managed to have that promise [for LWR] formally abrogated.” Actually, North Korea did that when it went into material breach of the 1994 Agreed Framework (III.2.), which implicitly prohibits any sort of nuclear program or processing, uranium or plutonium. North Korea then left the NPT, which formally killed the 1994 Agreed Framework. The agreement does not provision for North Korea to get in a state of “readiness” by processing its own uranium. It was also a violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, among other agreements.

What adds a true sense of irony to the “readiness” apology in the newsletter is this concerning President Bush:

. . . it is George W. Bush who is commonly considered to have taken lying to new heights, or perhaps depths. Iraq, and its mythical weapons of mass destruction (and implied ties with Al Qaeda), is the most obvious example.

Dictionary words are based on the usage, that is, if a word is commonly used in a certain way it will eventually be reflected in an updated dictionary. So don’t be surprised in the future to see the definition for the word “mistake” under the heading “lie.” Currently in the English language those two words are not interchangeable. This fundamental misuse of words is pathetic for that reason, but also in that those employing the misuse hypocritically label Bush a liar for saying what was the general understanding of intelligence agencies (PDF) around the world at the time:

U.S. government analysts were not alone in these views… Other nations’ intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States; France’s President Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February, “There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right … in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.” In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

When one ignores public information and lets political biases get in the way when attempting to make a point, the reader must constantly sift through, applying both fact and logic checks to the conclusions, and even information provided as fact. Such analysis becomes practically useless.

Another has joined the ranks of Selig Harrison and Bruce Cummings.

UPDATE: More evidence to make fodder of apologist arguments, H/T OneFreeKorea.
—–
—–