Oops would be more like 7 and 8 above.

#6 OK, that seems pretty inescapable: I now believe that Christopher Hill knowingly lied on December 5, 2007. I guess I should have read that bold part more closely earlier.

(This counts as one of my “oops” blogging moments.)

QUESTION: And did, while you were up there, you get a chance to talk about what is in the declaration, or did you get a chance to see a draft copy?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No. We discussed what they plan to have in the declaration, and we wanted to make sure that they would also include all the facilities, materials, and programs that the DPRK has had in the nuclear era in these many years that it has had these nuclear ambitions. [Excerpt from a State Department press release, emphasis mine]

Later, after the North Koreans said that they had already given Hill their declaration in November, Hill changed his story:

“They were prepared to give a declaration which wasn’t going to be complete and correct and we felt that it was better for them to give us a complete one even if it’s going to be a late one,” Washington’s top envoy to nuclear talks with North Korea, Christopher Hill, told reporters. [Reuters, Teruaki Ueno with John Herskovitz]

C’mon, Andy, admit it. Any one of us would take Bruce Klingner’s word if it came down to that, but Hill himself pretty much admitted it. How could he know the declaration wasn’t complete unless he read it? And if you look at the level of detail we expect this thing to contain, it’s not as if the North Koreans could have scrawled this onto the back of a bar napkin.

Then there’s the matter of assessing the declaration’s contents. Hill isn’t a nuclear scientist. I’d venture to guess that Hill must have shown it to technical experts, most likely the ones he’s installed in the Koryo Hotel. Maybe the North Koreans gave their declaration to the technical experts and not Hill himself, but it would still be a lie for Hill to say he didn’t get “a chance” to see a draft that was in the hands of someone in the State Department. This isn’t a case of “oops, all the spies got it wrong and so did I.” Barring some explanation that escapes me, Hill knowingly making a factually false statement. If not, I’d like to hear someone in the State Department explain why.

None of this is to say that diplomacy needs to be done out in the open — diplomacy doesn’t work that way. I can accept a diplomat saying “no comment.” I can’t accept flat-out lying. And really, when you look at all the feigned outrage we’ve all heard about politicizing intelligence, the complete absence of media or political interest in the manipulation of this intelligence, or about NK’s probable proliferation to Syria, is conclusive proof that absolutely everyone is completely — not partially, completely — full of shit here. It seems that politics has chewed up and swallowed the very meaning of “truth” and “lie” and spat them both out in disgust.

Bruce Klingner’s take;

NK did provide the data declaration to visiting Chris Hill in November. When Hill realized how far short of expectations the declaration was, he decided it was best not to have the document see the light of day. Had it been published, it would have shown NK was not going to comply with the joint statement requirements. Because the document wasn’t ready for prime time, the next round of negotiations, which otherwise would have been in early December, was not scheduled. Despite Hill’s visit, Bush’s letter, and a visit by senior Chinese officials, Pyongyang has told the US that it has provided as much detail on nuke weapons, HEU, and proliferation activities as it intends to do. The big issue is now how low will the US go in accepting an inadequate document in order to maintain momentum.

However, from what I have read at the link in #2, Hill was pretty specific is saying that he had not received a “declaration.” A “draft” of a declaration is not a declaration. “Elements” of a declaration are not a declaration. Whatever the North Koreans shared in November, it did not meet the standards of what our side considers to be a declaration.

So when Hill says that the Norks did not submit a declaration, I do not see that as a bald-faced lie in the tortured, diplo-speak sense of the word.

Yeah, he would get slammed for trying to talk like that in a courtroom, but the diplomatic world operates by a different set of standards.

(BTW, if it helps by credibility any, I think the whole “disabling stage” is a load of bunk designed to give Kim Jong-il an extra round of free goodies.)

Unlike Josh, I don’t think Chris Hill “lied” when he said that the North Koreans did not submit a complete nuclear declaration (see the last link).

However;

QUESTION: Is there any draft of the declaration or —

HILL: No. They have not given us a declaration. We

[...]

QUESTION: Did the Chinese share your view that North Korea hasn’t submitted its declaration [inaudible]?

HILL: They are not suggesting that they’ve submitted a declaration, because there is no declaration.

Andy, Hill not only denied there was a declaration, he denied there was even a draft submitted. that tends to remove “creative diplomacy” from the table. It seems that Hill either lied or was unaware; I’m not sure which is worse.

I was hoping you’d answer the question in the title of your post. I’d sum up the prevailing view about like this.