There is a reason that nobody at The Hole got excited by this news on Monday:
Six nations???the two Koreas, the United States, Japan, China, and Russia???issued a joint statement yesterday that included North Korea?????s dismantlement of its nuclear programs and compensation measures for its concessions such as the normalization of relations between North Korea and the United Sates.
The reason is that we (and I think I can speak for everyone here) knew that this was coming:
With the ink not yet dry on a joint statement of principles that ended a grueling round of six-nation talks on North Korea?????s nuclear program on Monday, the Stalinist country is already locking horns again with the U.S. over a light-water nuclear reactor it wants and the timeframe for abandoning its nuclear arms.
The only thing that surprised me was that the Norks didn’t at least wait a few days to toss the monkey wrench.
Maybe someone else at this blog will have more on this later or maybe not. I have just one thing to add to the whole tedious business and it is something I’ve said more than once: The goal is not to get the Norks to negotiate nor is it to get an agreement. We have gotten plenty of both over the decades since the war. The goal is the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of North Korea.
Anything short of that would be just as useless in the long term as the 1994 deal.
UPDATE:
Chris Hill gets the money quote of the week award:
“Life is too short to overreact to every statement coming out of Pyongyang.”
57 Comments
The goal is the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of North Korea.
I don’t think we’re going to see that as long as the South has its head up the North’s ass so far that no one knows if its day or night. What I’m saying is - South Korea is just as much of a problem as North Korea.
Anything different this time compared to 1994? I don’t see any difference.
Why did Bush agree to this? We have Roh Mu Hyun making speeches in the U.S. about American Imperialism, accusing the U.S. dividing North East Asia, and accusing the U.S. for not cooperating to hammer out a deal with North Korea. You have S.Korea, China, North Korea, and Russia back dealing in the corner to plot against the U.S. The U.S. had to go along or make itself look like the villains. I think Bush knows that this is not going to work, it’s going to fall apart, and this is just a show. He can come back and say “See? We tried everything, but the North Koreans are not going to dismantle their nuclear program. It’s time to do it my way”.
Roh reminds me of British Prime Minister Chamberlain holding up his worthless paper (signed with Hitler) and proclaiming we have avoided war.
A fool is always a fool.
kimbob:
“It?s time to do it my way”… Which is?
Sorry for the stupid question.
Yeah, CVID won’t happen until Kim Jong-Il is no longer in power, which means dead (which does not mean that I mean by war). At some point I believe some sort of agreement will be reached, since I think NK is slavering over the billions to be had from Japan.
Hill should sign the next ??epoch-making? (thanks for the quote, Roh) agreement with a special poison ink, so that when the Dear Leader uses it for arsewipe, again, he will get a little surprise…
Progress Before The Carnage
The amount of finger-pointing and hand-clapping over the purported deal in Beijing is astounding. Aside from the scepticism hurled at the joint statement, its arguable that this sliver of agreement should be jettisoned into space before the sup…
“my way” meaning, no S.Korean, Chinese aid to North Korea. Actively work to bring down the North Korean totalitarian regime. Raise human rights issues. Put economic blockage of North Korea. Play hardball - that’s all they understand.
There is no way to have peace with a regime like this. They are not Gorbachev Russia. They are not even Deng Xiao Ping China. They are not and cannot change their stripes.
Read this interesting article from Eweeks. North Korea has, with the help of the Chinese, waging a cyber warfare. They are good at hacking through computer systems, but you have also got to believe North Koreans have also been very successful in undermining South Korean society.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/.....995,00.asp
“you have also got to believe North Koreans have also been very successful in undermining South Korean society”
… but in the long run, isn’t the South is more likely to undermine the North’s society than the other way around? At some point, the effects of volumes of illegal VCDs from China full of “My Lovely Samsoon” will build up steam. And how long will the ban on mobile phones last?
Just for the record, I, too, was not jumping for joy and overcome with relief at the news of the six-point joint statement, as stated on my own blog.
That being said, someone please tell me what the HECK the friggin big deal is with the NK foreign ministry’s statement the day after the joint statement was announced, and why so many internationals (bloggers in particular) are on the North’s case about this.
No one seems to be saying that the North has actually just rendered the joint statement invalid, that it is violating or threatening to violate what it has just agreed to, or otherwise. That being the case, what on earth’s the problem? What kinda fool thought the North would ever be satisfied with giving up everything and then merely discussing a LWR “at an appropriate time”? Point six on the joint statement says they’re going to have the next (fifth) round of six-party talks in November, and isn’t that what opposing parties to a difficult agreement do, position themselves with rhetoric as they look forward to the next round? From the North’s perspective, can’t the “appropriate time” to discuss getting the LWR be at the six-party talks in November, and what would be so bad faith about going to November’s talks demanding that the LWR come first? (Whether it gets that or not being another question.)
If anyone out there wants to say publicly that they think the North is backpedaling, please help me with my reading skills on this much: Specifically in what way does the NK foreign ministry statement about wanting that LWR before it renounces/abolishes everything else go against Monday’s joint statement out of Beijing?
as long as they give me enough warning to get out of korea first. i can’t say i would want to be in korea, or anywhere close for that matter, shortly after a strike on NK by the US.
Megatons away!
Oranckay has thrown down the gauntlet:
If anyone out there wants to say publicly that they think the North is backpedaling, please help me with my reading skills on this much: Specifically in what way does the NK foreign ministry statement about wanting that LWR before it renounces/abolishes everything else go against Monday?s joint statement out of Beijing?
OK, Pete, I’ll take you up on that. First, here are the relevant parts of the statement to which the North Koreans agreed yesterday (all emphasis my own):
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning at an early date to the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT) and to IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards.
. . . .
The DPRK stated that it has the right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The other parties expressed their respect and agreed to discuss at an appropriate time the subject of the provision of light-water reactor to the DPRK.
In other words, North Korea “stated,” and we agreed to “consider” it at some appropriate time. We didn’t agree to build so much as a pojang-macha or help them enrich makkoli. Now, here’s what Article III of the NPT says about the matter:
1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency’s safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfilment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this Article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this Article shall be applied on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.
More on those safeguards and links to the NPT here. Needless to say, the IAEA considers North Korea noncompliant with the safeguards. Contrary to what North Korea says, it does not have an absolute right to “peaceful” uses of nuclear power. Its right is contingent on certified compliance with the safeguards, and for all my criticisms of the U.N. in some areas, the IAEA has drawn a fairly hard line on North Korea.
Now, here’s today’s North Korean version of what it agreed to do yesterday:
“We will return to the NPT and sign the safeguards agreement with the IAEA and comply with it immediately upon the U.S. provision of LWRs, a basis of confidence-building to us,” the North’s Foreign Ministry said in the statement, carried by the North’s official Korean Central News Agency.
In the context of the NPT’s plain meaning, it was clear from yesterday’s agreed statement that North Korea would not get any nuclear power facilities until it was NPT compliant. At a minimum, that would have meant shutting down Yongbyon, letting in inspectors, and handing over its centrifuges–the ones that Pervez Musharraf recently told us he sold North Korea for its admitted-and-denied uranium enrichment program.
What All of This Means:
You can’t harmonize North Korea demand (today) for LWRs up front with its agreement (yesterday) to rejoin the NPT and its safeguards “at an early date,” and to get the LWRs at “an appropriate time.” Today’s demand that the United States that has to build the reactors first–something that one of my congressional sources assures me is a non-starter, and which would take years in any event.
Yes, the North Koreans’ statements really are inconsistent.
Incidentally, I liked your “translation” of the “missing piece” of the South Korean statement.
My tinfoil-hat senses indicate that Kim Jong Il is throwing a tantrum, displeased with how we are freezing his assets in Macau. He probably believes that the estimated $250mil counterfeit US currency that is being annually laundered in Macau was money “earned” fair and square. Or maybe he is just being his monkey self. hmm. Note to self: send in saboteurs to spike Courvoisier(sp?) with arsenic.
Oranckay;
I thought it was blatantly obvious that NK is backpedaling; they unilaterally changed LWR from something to be discussed at a further point, into a pre-condition before anything else goes forward. While not explicit, the agreement implies some order of events; must enter NPT before discussing LWR since no nation with nuclear know-how is going to give LWR to a nation not in the NPT. NK?s precondition clearly violates that basic premise. Maybe it?s a tactic to extract some other concessions, or maybe it?s a way of delaying talks/deals until ??regime change? in the U.S. ? either way, it clearly is not in line with the accord all nations signed.
I thought the LWR line was a face-saving (che-myon) feature installed by China to make it palatable to NK; NK apparently disagrees. Maybe they will back it down a notch, maybe they won’t. The prognosis remains the same; wait and see.
Joshua says “In other words, North Korea ?stated,?? and we agreed to ?consider?? it at some appropriate time. ”
Let’s look at that again. Statement says NK “committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning at an early date to the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT) and to IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards.”
Hence, North Korea “stated” that it would do all that “at an early date.” Whoop dee damn doo. What does that really mean, if anything, in practical terms? NK has always been for a nuclear free Korean peninsula in principle.
I hereby state that in order to promote peace in Northeast Asia I will buy all the commenters at the Marmot Discussion Group two beers each at an early date. If someone wants to make that early date an even earlier date, he can come over here to Jongnogu and build me a house.
I still think it will be a miracle if the next (or for that matter any) round of six-party talks produces something that leads to genuine, internationally satisfactory CVID, and I still think it will be a miracle if someone can show me specifically how the NK foreign ministry’s statement about wanting its LWR before it gives up its nuclear programs goes against the joint statement.
To me, getting overly upset at what NK is saying would be as silly as thinking the joint statement solved all our problems. This is just what parties do in negotiations, it doesn’t violate or reneg on the joint statement, and with the “early date” statement I for one wasn’t thinking the negotiations in November were just going to be a working-level session on how to go about CVID.
Richardson,
Parties always come home from negotiations with different ideas about what the statements they sign imply. In the end, however, what a statement says explicitly is what matters, and in this case it is makes no explicit outline of the time and order of events, and as a statement is explicitly vague with phrases like “early date” and “appropriate time.”
Oranckay,
Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
The fact remains; NK must be in the NPT to receive LWR. Anyone giving NK a LWR would itself be in violation of the NPT unless NK were a member in good standing (following all safeguards, etc.)!
This requirement of the NPT is not something that is open to interpretation by NK, or the U.S. By insisting on receiving a LWR before implementing anything else, NK is in effect breaking the agreement.
The 1994 Agreed Framework didn’t explicitly mention Uranium-based weapons programs, but it did reference the 1992 North-South accord that did specifically forbid that, so it was implicitly referred to.
Agreements commonly refer to other agreements; that?s why things don?t have to be explicitly spelled out in each agreement to be valid. Call them implicit or derivative requirements, they are still valid. In this case, one would have to completely disregard the text of the NPT to think that NK?s unilateral demand is not breaking this agreement (if they stick with it).
Oranckay:
Hence, North Korea ?stated?? that it would do all that ?at an early date.?? Whoop dee damn doo. What does that really mean, if anything, in practical terms?
You’re still not addressing the NPT issue–I don’t think this leaves room for doubt on the relative timing of NK disarmament and the LWRs. If you promise each of us two of the beers that are in your fridge at this moment, and a federal statute prohibits you from distributing beer that’s warm or stale, we have what’s called . . . an analogy! We also have a deadline of sorts. Ditto the LWRs, which NK can only legally have after getting back into compliance with the NPT safeguards.
By syllogism: disarmament first, LWRs later.
I see you spot some vagueness in the agreement, and I don’t take issue with that. So are you saying that a) diplomacy with NK is a waste of time, b) that the agreement was so hoplessly vague as to be meaningless, c) that the only statement North Korea would sign is one that contains enough vagueness to allow an egress from its obligations, or (d) all of these?
I don’t disagree with any of those statements ( except that I see some “circus value” in keeping up our diplomatic appearances in Beijing). But if you believe that words mean things, then “at an early date” is sooner than “at an appropriate time,” and North Korea has gone back on its word.
That’s what you seem to imply when you say–
To me, getting overly upset at what NK is saying would be as silly as thinking the joint statement solved all our problems. This is just what parties do in negotiations, it doesn?t violate or reneg on the joint statement . . . .
Well, that cinches it–we both agree that they can’t be trusted to keep their agreements. But for the (imho, considerable) value of letting the North Koreans show themselves to be the complete asses we know them to be, we’re wasting our money on air fare for diplomats when we should be spending it on parachuting planeloads of MRE’s, radios, and cheap, untraceable Chinese Tokarevs into North Hamgyeong province.
All hail the Axis of Oranckay and OFK!
kimbob,
You chickened out. Bush’s “my way” includes the ultimate solution, a surprise strike on nuclear facilities, which I advocated all along.
The US is working on a bunkerbuster equipped with small nuclear device. This was suggested by the Pentagon and is being reviewed in the Hill.
When all talks cease, there is only one solution left. Israelis did and it worked! Russia will stay calm. China will have to stay put. NK gets it, right where they hurt the most.
About six suspected facilities will do it. The US with satellite surveillance on NK must have pretty good ideas on locations, along with human intel coming from the NK escapees, notable among them, Mr. Hwang ChangYup.
Sometimes, you have to push the envelope when you can. Just do it!
This may bring a limited war on the peninsula. Or, it may just collapse the KJI regime.
I forgot to add that one of B2 bombers that hit those suspected sites should also hit KJI’s residence. America so rightly declared KJI to be a terrorist regime. In addition, the US does not recognize NK as a nation. Therefore, the US does not have any obligation to notify these terrorists about upcoming surprise attack.
Just do it!
I have got to believe that most parties to the process would have liked to have seen some sort of statement about “denuclearize first, talk LWR later,” but they didn’t get that, leaving plenty of room for NK to wiggle in. Furthermore, given what it says in part 5 of the joint statement, I can imagine that NK could eaily say that things have to come hand in hand, instead of “denuclearize first, talk LWR later.”
Part 5 says “The Six Parties agreed to take coordinated steps to implement the afore-mentioned consensus in a phased manner in line with the principle of “commitment for commitment, action for action”.
What steps would there to be to coordinate, and what is there that’s “phased” when it explicitly says “committment for commitment, action for action”? We all may have different answers to that, but I NK interpreting that part of the statement to its advantage seems to be to be utterly natural.
The only significance I see in the statement is that NK has made a more recent reafirmation of the principle of a non-nuclear peninsula, and that it agrees in principle to verification and IAEA inspection. I would’ve expected it to agree in principle to going non-nuclear but hold out longer on the verification concept.
Sure, Joshua, “early date” seems earlier than “appropriate time” to me too, but like I say if the US and others thought they could’ve gotten that order of things stated explicitly they would’ve. They didn’t and that leaves a lot of room for NK to maneuver in. I’m not faulting anyone for not producing a better statement at this stage, but I’m not going to fault NK for reminding everyone that “early date” could mean anything.
‘NPT! NPT! NPT!’ cried the expat
The NPT is being used as a tool by Bush who just happens to be violating the treaty as well. The treaty calls for the US to get rid of its nuclear arsenal, yet Bush is building MORE nukes not less. Still further, he’s allowing the Pentagon to draw up plans to use nw on non-nuclear states.
If that was not enough, we now see a reinterpretation of the NPT to include banning countries we don’t like from having ANY form of nuclear power.
NK and Iran will become nuclear states courtesy of Bush and folks like you.
I agree ?denuclearize first, talk LWR later?? is defiantly not specified. The language on dates is vague enough to mean nothing solid. But there is no wiggle room with the NPT; no member nation can give NK a LWR until NK is also a member, and in good standing. That means following safeguards no matter how you cut it. No valid interpretation can get around that. NK can?t ??take advantage? of that language w/o violating the NPT ? and that is the deal breaker.
I agree ?denuclearize first, talk LWR later?? is definitely not specified. The language on dates is vague enough to mean nothing solid. But there is no wiggle room with the NPT; no member nation can give NK a LWR until NK is also a member, and in good standing. That means following safeguards no matter how you cut it. No valid interpretation can get around that. NK can?t ??take advantage? of that language w/o violating the NPT ? and that is the deal breaker.
Hush, nulji. Adults are speaking.
– non-expat
‘hush nulji, adults are talking?’
really? adults address contradictions like the ones i pointed out. children usually ignore whatever doesn’t suit them.
1. bush is violating the npt
2. bush has added criteria to the npt that does not exist within the npt ie us now has the right given to it by God to prevent nations it does not like from having ANY form of nuclear power.
3. that’s why he and you will fail at your goals. like in iraq. like in katrina. like in iran. like in north korea. the neo con and his bubba supporters are DOA. bush is finished.
Nulji,
Yes, I see your point. North Korea is pursuing nuclear weapons because of Bush. That is very clear. Without Bush, they would never have considered it. I guess they used a time machine to get started, since they sent their first students to become nuclear scientists of to the Soviet Union before Bush was 10 years old. Maybe they have some fortune tellers as well, since they started their (illegal by agreement) Uranium program at least two years before he was even elected (although they didn’t do very good with the whole food crisis thing). Very clever, those North Koreans. Maybe they can go back in time and alter the NPT to make it so they can get LWR before becoming a party. You should mention it to them, maybe you?d get a medal.
Nulji, Here’s the IAEA’s latest annual report. Please, knock yourself out and explain to us all why the IAEA is wrong, you’re right, and Bush is violating the NPT. We all promise to put it up on our refrigerators and give you a cookie . . . just like mommy did.
i think what this debate shows is that there ARE different ways to interpret complex agreements. Orankay is in the minority here, but then again, so is the DPRK in the real world.
like Orankay, and most others here, i was not surprised by the backtracking (as perceived by us). it fits their MO. the real question, and what we don’t know, is to what extent this was expected by the DPRK’s negotiating partners.
the facts remain that, although they had reached an agreement, everyone knew that the agreement was still subject to much interpretation. it’s hardly an ironclad document that Americans would take the bar (or bank).
it’s very much within the realm of possibility that Hill’s counterpart from the DPRK warned him of the backpeddling and that this was assented to to some degree.
i would therefore disagree with Andy’s argument about the goals of the process. first, there’s no need to be repetitive of American goals here. we all want CVID. second, and more importantly, that is too far off to be set as a realistic short term goal in a complex negotiation. what they accomplished was “something” and it seems to me that the “something” was important.
can they build on it? that is the question and we ought to let the parties give it a try before pronouncing the whole thing to be a failure.
it’s too early. forgive me my grammatical trespasses.., though i assume you’ll assail my naive logic.^^
Joshua said
We didn?t agree to build so much as a pojang-macha or help them enrich makkoli.
and deserves a cigar or something for making my jet-lagged morning happier…
What are you, bunch of lawyers? NPT or no NPT, NK said that they would attack the US with a nuclear bomb(in a implied statement). That is good enough for me to bash in KJI’s head.
The US has justification in that we don’t want another 9/11. NK said that they did have a nuclear bomb, a weapon of mass destruction. And, they would not hesitate to use it against America.
Bomb the suspected sites now, before they get more! There would be no serious and lasting consequences, not on the US at least, as I wrote in previous posts.
Orankay,
The North Korean negotiators could have just shut their mouths and got on the plane. They could have waited until the next round, presented their point of view that according to their interpretation they need a reactor first, and then waited for offers. What’s the point then of shooting their mouths off before the ink is dry?
My hunch tells me that they made this statement to avoid being thrown to the wolves by Kim Jong-il upon return to Pyongyang. Kim sent them to Beijing to get a reactor; it wasn’t realistic, but no one told him otherwise. The NK negotiators therefore have to keep the process going without making any deals that will get them sent to a gwalliso for failure.
Because the negotiators had to cover their asses, they did so at the expense of China and South Korea. SK has already lost a lot of face dealing with the North - remember the power offer? - but now China has been humiliated on a world stage. It hosted the talks. It announced the deal. It keeps the North afloat. Now the North has told China to go fuck itself.
It looks like this is a total rout, victory USA.
Ted Turner makes an arse of himself (NK comments;
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts.....0920.asp#2
Richardson said:
I agree ?denuclearize first, talk LWR later?? is defiantly not specified. The language on dates is vague enough to mean nothing solid. But there is no wiggle room with the NPT; no member nation can give NK a LWR until NK is also a member, and in good standing. That means following safeguards no matter how you cut it. No valid interpretation can get around that. NK can?t ??take advantage? of that language w/o violating the NPT ? and that is the deal breaker.
The 1994 Geneva “Agreed Framework” says this: ?When a significant portion of the LWR project is completed, but before delivery of key nuclear components, the DPRK will come into full compliance with its safeguards agreement with the IAEA.??
LWR’s aren’t delivered all at once, dropped from airplaines in parachutes. They take time and come in stages, and it is therefore to supply them simultaneously, in “coordinated steps” in a “phased manner” as the Beijing statement says.
The North just very well may arrive at the talks in November and demand LWR first before it takes action on its part of the deal. But that’s not what it is saying, yet, and given that it was always going to get its LWR in mutuallly assured good faith stages, it could demand that again and still be consistent with the Beijing statement and the nations providing LWR wouldn’t be in violation of the NPT.
The Bush Administration is saying that LWR can be discussed well after NK returns to NPT, etc, and that is certainly not something stipulated by the statement, particularly because we all know that would’ve been part of the statement were the North to have agreed to it.
BTW, there is some discrepancy between the North foreign ministry’s statement in Korean and in English, which I’ve blogged about.
“and it is therefore to supply them simultaneously”
Sorry, I meant “and it is therefore to possible to supply them simultaneously”
pabsthooligan,
Everything you say about the North might be true, but that still doesn’t mean they’re demanding anything that the Beijing statement prevents them from demanding.
For an audio treat, you can hear Ted Turner’s comments at http://www.radioblogger.com/#001000. I love how his pronunciation turns “Kaesong” into “Khe Sanh.”
To borrow General Honore’s marvelous phrase, the man is stuck on stupid.
It is good that the Norks tossed this out so quickly, since Monday’s statement was giving some people a false sense of optimism. Getting too excited about an agreement with the Norks is just as naive as getting too worried about their brinksmanship.
Making an agreement while stipulating that some more difficult issue will be dealt with at a later time is a normal diplomatic nicety that is used as a confidence building measure. The problem is that you can’t exercise such niceties with the North Koreans.
We all know that LWRs are a non-starter. The Americans know it. The South Koreans know it. The Chinese know it. The Russians know it. The Japanese know it. It was agreed on in the previous round of the talks by all five nations except North Korea. The talk of future nuclear use in the Beijing statement was a face-saving measure to allow the North Koreans to sign. Their latest statement is pretty good proof that we can’t even give them that much.
The Chinese cannot be happy.
This thing just got one step closer to the Security Council.
The Chinese are behind it all. They use NK to embarass the US. First, they got pressure to come up with something. So, they told NK to agree. But later on, they allow NK to reneg.
The Chinese can always say ” I am doing my best but NKs are NKs”. Similar a mob boss saying “I cannot control my men. They got their own minds.” Yeah, sure.
They can just cut off their oil supply to NK tomorrow but the Chinese won’t do it, unless the US offers up Taiwan. They will veto any attempt by the US at UN council meeting as well.
Just bomb those sites and the problem solved.
Or, put high tariffs on Chinese goods and hurt them in their pocketbooks. Demand they cut oil supply to NK if they want to sell something in the US.
But, with so many politicians dipping into Chinese money, this has low chance of working out.
Just bomb. The quick and easy solution sometimes is heading directly onto the problem, cutting red tapes. A carefully-planned decisive blow will do more for the US than years of talk.
‘this thing is getting close to being sent to the security council.’
where they’ll do what? what will they do? impose sanctions and starve an already starving people? you really think china’s going to go along? china’s number one priority is stability. parts of that stabilty is not having us troops right on their border. china’s not going to allow it’s buffer to collapse.
and besides, who do you think is going to step in if china turns off the spiket? please don’t forget that to koreans, the picture of koreans starving koreans does not carry the same weight as a picture of americans starving koreans.
your belligerence will fail. just look at the mess you sent others to make there in iraq. your he-man remedy for the world has been a complete disaster. when you gonna admit that?
****
north korea vs pakistan:
1. no evidence that nk proliferates nuclear technology. positive evidence that pakistan does.
2. nk does not possess a people who fervently believe in the destruction of the us. pakistan populated with a radicalized subgroup that subscribes to the idea of destroying america.
3. osama bin laden lives in pakistan not north korea.
hypocrisy is the little devil who foils the details of your arguments.
lastly a small converstion i had with a BLACK guy about his five years in korea (he liked the place):
nulji: …just look at the mess bush and bubba made there in iraq.
guy: you know, i hope they’re smart here about that north korea thing. those guys aren’t going to be like those iraqi guys. the north koreans are going to come at you with everything they have. america’s going to have a real fight on it’s hands. it better be careful…
btw, the use of ‘you’ in the above post was generic in that it referred to your average garden variety expat. ‘you’ does not refer to anyone in particlar.
I am absolutely convinced that the North Koreans are absolutely sincere. There’s really no reason for them to cheat or do anything to violate this very forward agreement. I think we can put the North Korea and East Asia problems behind us, and concentrate on Iran and Iraq, where we still have some ongoing difficulties.
This is from Ted Turner’s interview with Wolf Blitzer. This comes in a close second to “you’re stuck on stupid,” for causing my cheeks to hurt from laughter. It doesn’t get any better than this.
I have a feeling that the US may have signed the agreement, not to get an agreement with North Korea, but to get one with South Korea. North Korea is a hopeless case, so no matter what we give them, they will never give up their nukes. However, the US has gotten South Korea and Japan to agree that the light-water reactors come last, not first. That means that South Korea’s electricity gift to the North will have to be used in the give-and-take process. Maybe, that is all the US was hoping to do; that is, stop South Korea from giving away the store before getting anything in return?
The deal is give and take, right? So what will North Korea give us for South Korean electricity? What will she give us for Japanese financial assistance? And what will she give us to normalize relations with the US and Japan? If the North keeps on insisting on light-water reactors and gives us nothing, then she gets nothing, including South Korean electricity.
I think South Korea would give North Korea electricity without getting anything in return. And I think South Korea wants the US and Japan to normalize relations with North Korea even without getting anything in return. By getting South Korea to agree that the nukes must come before the light-water reactors, the US can use North Korean intransigence to stop South Korea from giving North Korea free electricity. That will put pressure on North Korea.
South Korea probably suspects that North Korea will never give up her nukes. I think South Korea is just trying to reap economic benefit from North Korea or get the rest of the world to pay for her economic recovery. She most likely does not even care if the North keeps her nukes or even her gulags; she just wants a source of cheap labor and markets that will accept the products made from that labor. Without markets for North Korean goods, South Korea is just pouring its money down a bottomless pit, and that is why South Korea is trying so hard to get the US and Japan to normalize relations with North Korea.
Whatever happens, the US and Japan must not normalize relations with North Korea until the nukes are gone. In fact, I do not think relations should be normalized until North Korea gets rid of its gulags and improves its human rights record.
In support of previous comment of GBevers:
The South Korean foreign minister was on Charlie Rose the other night (CR is an interview progam on PBS shown late at night, usually M-F. For those of you who don’t know it, CR usually gets “A” list notable personalities for extended serious interviews. On politics/art/culture).
The minister (speaking in English) used this exact English word “normalize” in referring to the goal that the ROK had for the relationship between US and DPRK (I think he said “normalize” for future Japan-DPRK relations as well).
So maybe the ROK administration’s vision for the peninsula is for an overall relationship similar to that of the divided Germanies during the 70’s-80’s? IE the US stayed in W. Germany with substantial air ground forces but had “normal” diplomatic relations with USSR.
I can’t remember now what the US ended up having in terms of a formal diplomatic relationship with E Germany. (I guess my mind is still stuck in the formative Cold War era when the US didn’t recognize E Germany at all).
What did we (US) have at the end with E Germany — some sort of “interests” section in another country’s embassy? Or did we have some separate stand- alone “affairs” section (less than full-embassy status)? Can’t remember (if I ever knew).
If this is the model ROK has in mind, I’d be interested if anybody knows if the ROK Foreign Ministry has ever outlined this “vision” publicly (in any forum). I guess the idea would be for the US to sign a peace treaty with the DPRK and then — keep our current level of forces stationed in the ROK.
The comparison doesn’t work for me — for all the hostility of the European “Iron Curtain” from 1947 to 1989-91, the situation there did not have its origins in an actual “shooting war” between the two opposing sides (ie NATO v Warsaw Pact). Also, the Warsaw Pact never deployed as far forward with the bulk of their ground forces in the way that the North has; nor did they engage in outrageous war-like provocations.
But I guess the ROK foreign ministry doesn’t see why we (the US) just can’t go ahead and “do it”.
South Korea’s current motto is just give North Korea whatever it wants then maybe they’ll open up like the Soviets and the Chinese. Give North Korea whatever it wants and they’ll stop their belligerance, as the thinking goes. This is the stance of the URI left wing party and the left wing dominated Korean media. They need to come back down to earth to reality in my opinion because this is causing the North Koreans to exploit the situation (the division between US and ROK). It will be only if the hell freezes over and when pigs fly, will North Korea’s Kim Jong Il allow his power to slip due to outside world’s influenza bug. ROK must hold firm with US, and Japan and present an united front. Pandering to North Koreans and Chinese will only exacerbate the already bad situation. But I’m afraid the only way for this to happen is for the left wing party to be voted and swept out of power. Unfortunately, that’s still more than 2 years away. By then, it maybe too late and South Korea maybe isolated without any friends, along with North Korea.
I personally believe the US getting involved in the six party talk was a mistake. Why should the US sit around with these inept politicians who do not necessarily represent their people.
The US should have just stay out and give deadlines, the deadlines to take the problem to UN, the deadline for NK to get rid of weapons, and the deadline for them to admit inspectors.
The US is now tied down with endless negotiations and none of other countries, with the possible exception of Japan, is really dedicated to eradication of NK nuke.
The US should just walk out. And, take the problem to UN. And, just bomb those facilities.
The UN? The UN is generally (but not always) useless, corrupt, and in gridlock. Assuming the UN did muster up enough kahunas do something, what would it be?
??Hans Brix? said it the best in ?Team America:??
Hans Blix: I?m sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me see your whole palace, or else.
Kim Jong Il: Or else what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very, very angry with you?? and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.
See the rest/download mp3; http://www.dprkstudies.org/?s=brix
Unless we have proof that North Korea is going to use a nuclear weapon on someone, or is giving a weapon/technology to terrorist (etc), the U.S. won?t attack the North. And the UN? Forget it. The consequences ? Seoul a ??sea of fire? ? is still unacceptable to the U.S.
Damned prescient observations from Orankay, and countercomments from some. It drives me nuts that for some reason I can’t open the “barbarian’s” site.
When we reasonable people contort ourselves to such lengths to for interpretations of “at an early date” and discuss at a future time, well…….I guess this is the norm….
I guess it depends on what your definition of is is…..
The world is a wonderful place…..
((((Containment is a policy…..))))
Is there perhaps a little problem with the legal(istic) notion that the NORKS have to denuclearize and allow inspections before the US or any other NPT signatory gives them a LWR?
The NPT appears to constrain so-called “nuclear weapons States” from transferring nuclear weapons, explosice devises or technology to so-called “non-nuclear weapon States”.
The NORKS already have nukes and hence would seem to fall under the rubric of a “nuclear weapon State”.
The NPT appears to be sitlent regarding the issue of transfers of nuclear weapoons/technology from one “nuclear weapon State” to another.
So. legal(istically) speaking, what’s to stop a transfer of an LWR, or even an Armageddon Special ;),to the NORKS - at least from the US, UK, Russia, China or France - the five nuclear weapon States signatory to the NPT - or Israel, India or Pakistan
From the NPT, Article III:
2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this article. [emphasis added]
It doesn’t matter if it’s a weapons/non-weapons state, only a ‘member’ state - no transfer of materials to another state unless the receiving state is subject to safeguards. An LWR would contain, ’source or special fissionable material.’ This item is important to the context of the rest of the NPT. In NK’s case, getting the seal of approval on safeguards will go deep and hard.
Also, we don’t really know if NK has nukes or not. Maybe they do (I think so), maybe they are bluffing, bottom line is we can’t say for sure, yet.
Good point about how we don’t really know what NorK has. We need to see a Nork nuclear test! (Hmm, no, my friends, I mean one done within their own borders of course).
Too bad we aren’t privy to the arguments that must go on in NorK about this subject.
The political disadvantages that would come from such a test are well known. On the other hand, they must be wondering up there — are those designs they got from AQ Khan really exact copies of successfully tested Pakistani bombs, or did AQ and/or his fellow Pakistani scientists make subtle alterations to the copies provided to NorK (ie ones which would prevent the uncontrolled fission reaction from actually occurring)?
Unless of course you think it was in the PRC’s interest to provide their own successfully tested older nuke designs to the North.
Or maybe the North has somehow gotten what they think are copies of old Soviet or even US designs, and are laughing at my assumptions. And their own scientists have produced blueprint specs in which they’ve got utter confidence. Still, it can be hard to get things exactly right when your hands are shaking, not so?
I admit I’m just a layman but I’m pretty certain from my general reading that it’s just not that easy to get even a relatively simple, primitive fission bomb to function correctly. Those of you who haven’t been soldiers should know that immediately before going into combat, soldiers are always trained to test-fire their weapons in a safe area, no matter how old and “proven” the weapon and its design may be.
Well, this is a highly speculative area. But personally I hope for such a test, as this is such a complex multi-variable problem that one longs for a little clarity. Come on Dear Leader, let us see some dramatic footage of an obscure piece of terrain in NorK rising up slightly, accompanied by shaking of the video camera (like back during the 1998 (?) Pakistani and Indian tests).
Another benefit — should make for some good posting here too. I’m curious to see if Baduk’s “bomb them right now” rhetoric has pegged out yet or not; also Nulji’s triumphalism may yet scale even more exalted heights.
And of course, another possibility — they may have tried to test already, (underground of course) and may have had a “fizzle”! (Or even “fizzles”).
Richardson:
“no transfer of materials to another state”
Except that’s not what it says, which, to use your quote, is
not to provide … to any non-nuclear-weapon State
If the Norks are, as claimed, a nuclear weapon State, the NPT doesn’t seem to prevent anyone from giving them an LWR, with or without adherence to the NPT inspection regime.
At first, I thought that this made the whole rigamarole about the NPT being an insurmountable obstacle to the NORKS getting the LWR before CVID nonsense. but then I wondered whether it’s in fact a subtle trap to smoke out whether in fact they’ve got one. I’ve met Hill a few times, and he struck me as a VERY clever fellow.
Sperwer, you have a point there. I think there is something that I am missing, but I am sure that there is some prohibition against giving nuclear material out… I’ll get back to you.