No, we have not been on that course. Clinton's agreement had no enforcement or inspections provisions, it was "outsourced" to UN, a "kick the can" joke of a "solution".
The point is that some agreement with NoKo had to be reached *eventually* - I am sure nobody is advocating military attack on NoKo at this point. The fact that Kim himself agreed to inspections showed that China pressure strategy is working. Kim is China's problem now - not that they want it, but they got it. The tit-without-tat game is over, and everybody knows it now. Inspections and disarmament will start before substantial aid starts to flow... any temper tantrum and spigot turns off, and it wouldn't be so easy to turn it back on next time without more giveaways by Kim. It won't be smooth, but it's a serious progress - short of military action. We made the first "gesture of good will", from now on it's "turtles all the way down" - Kim's turn. Flow of aid will never be comfortable enough for him to stop and go back. It's just a matter of execution now, when in Albright's case there was nothing to execute - it was a sham because it was designed to be a sham.
NoKo is "contained" for the moment, and maybe permanently, and at the very least Kim's position is severely weakened. We have truly serious issues with Iran (much shorter fuse, threat is more immediate, and more volatile), we shouldn't get distracted with NoKo strategies right now, only execution - the train is on the rails and it's only a matter of execution and time. If we have to bomb them someday (if Kim totally loses his cool), there will be no excuses and we'll have their neighbors on our side for a change. Kim presents far more danger to China now, that was not done in the case of bilateral Clinton agreement.
Outside of verifiable disarmament agreement, and step-by-step enforcement, what other options (short of military) could one expect or hope for? Kim will try to play games, but we know that and prepared for it now, and we are not in this alone anymore, neighbors have "skin in the game" now, and UN is not "involved" with their feckless "inspections".
Overall, much better than one could expect from our State Dept.
No, we have not been on that course.
Yes, we have. I was referring to Bush admin's actions about N. Korean nuke test, not sorry-ass Clinton's escapade. Bush and China appeared to draw the line on the nuke test, but when it happened, China did not do much, and let it slide. Bush was initially serious but swiftly backtracked himself after losing mid-term election. That is why I said we have been through this course before. I do not understand why you got it wrong. Perhaps you are referring to the characterization of Condi=Maddie. Condi may have an improvement on some issues. However, lacking firm resolve is the same in both cases. Whatever the Condi's improvement is, it is woefully short to impress Kim Jong-il. No wonder Kim Jong-il and Kim Kye-Kwan are all smiles these days.
The fact that Kim himself agreed to inspections showed that China pressure strategy is working.
Yeah, N. Korea can let us inspect and eventually shut down a few well-known installations which are no longer really productive. What about N. Korea's not-yet-detected secret facilities and bombs? Are you going to take N. Korea's words on it? Certainly, we don't know exactly how much plutonium they have, nor the extent of HEU program, or other secret facilities. If N. Korea submits report on a fraction of what they have, how would U.S. determine if N. Korea has cheated U.S. again. As I said in the previous reply, is U.S. prepared to demand inspection to resolve all suspicions? N. Korea would balk and make hissy fit again. What would U.S. do? Just pretend that China would resolve it to U.S.'s satisfaction? If China muddles along not resolving it, what leverage does U.S. have? Is U.S. prepared to slap some punitive measure against China? I doubt it.
Outside of verifiable disarmament agreement, and step-by-step enforcement, what other options (short of military) could one expect or hope for?
It is a disingenuous mischaracterization to cast this as military option vs. current negotiation. Negotiation can proceed step-by-step for disarmament. To convince it, we need to put longer and harsher sanction against N. Korea. When N. Korea feels that it has truly run out of any option, then it might seriously negotiate. This can be certainly done while Iran crisis is still brewing.
This all boils down to what serious leverage U.S. has on China or S. Korea. So far I see little or none. U.S. had enough trouble to raise a measly fraction of Yuan's value over several months. I need to hear convincing case of how China would behave different now. If it is a classified matter now, fine. Then you don't have to tell me, but I can't subscribe to your argument until it gets unclassified and becomes public knowledge.