Salons write up of how we got here:
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/north_korea_whats_really_happening/
They don't go back far enough IMO (only to Clinton), but its a good read
.
It's Salon, so of course they're going to pick the timeline carefully so they can spin a narrative about everything was peachy under Clinton and horrible under Bush. This also allows them to leave out the little fact that the Clinton administration very publicly considered a unilateral military strike on North Korea at one point.
Pretty sure the article bashes Obama as well, calling the current Korean policy "an utter failure", and adds this review of Obama's stance:
>
[Hillary] Clinton and Obama also made it clear that they would not reopen any talks with the North until it turned away from nuclear weapons and opened itself to change. That policy turned out to be a strategic miscalculation: Kim did die last year, but the transition to his third son, Kim Jong-un, has gone smoothly. The regime is still there, as strong as ever.
One incident from 2010 underscores how little Obama was interested in negotiations. That fall, a delegation of former high-ranking U.S. officials visited Pyongyang and met with senior officials in Kim Jong-il’s government. As I
reported shortly after their return, the delegation was told “that Pyongyang is prepared to ship out all of its nuclear fuel rods, the key ingredient for producing weapons-grade plutonium, to a third country in exchange for a U.S. commitment to pledge that it has ‘no hostile intent” toward the DPRK.” Joel Wit, a former State Department official who was part of the delegation,
recalled last week that the offer “would have been a first step toward permanently disabling the [Yongban] facility, making sure the reactor would never again be a threat.” The offer, he added, “was dutifully reported to the Obama administration in briefings for the White House, the State Department, the Department of Defense, and the intelligence community.” But the Obama White House “didn’t even listen,” Wit
said.