North Korea To The World: Maybe You Misunderstood

Original Diary

There was an historic breakthrough yesterday in the North Korean nuclear standoff. Apparently the North Koreans gave up some of there demands and agreed to halt its nuclear program in exchange for a civilian reactor. This was of course seen as a major diplomatic victory in the war on nuclear proliferation but North Korea was sure to put a quick halt to that:

The US should not even dream of the issue of the DPRK's dismantlement of its nuclear deterrent before providing LWRs (light-water reactors), a physical guarantee for confidence-building

more below the fold...

This should come as no surprise to anyone who is informed about the position of the North for the past 2.5 years. The problem has always seemed to be who will do what when (sequencing). Diplomats were obviously led to believe that the Koreans would dismantle, sign the NPT and the safeguards prior to receiving any rewards; if this was the agreement yesterday the Koreans seemed to have unilaterally changed that agreement:

As clarified in the joint statement, we will return to the NPT and sign the Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA and comply with it immediately upon the US provision of LWRs, a basis of confidence-building, to us

...

As already clarified more than once, we will feel no need to keep even a single nuclear weapon if the DPRK-US relations are normalized, bilateral confidence is built and we are not exposed to the US nuclear threat any longer.

What is most essential is, therefore, for the US to provide LWRs to the DPRK as early as possible as evidence proving the former's substantial recognition of the latter's nuclear activity for a peaceful purpose.

As I pointed out yesterday I was skeptical on an agreement that was based on promises and my skepticism was obviously warranted. The signed agreements between foreign ministers and diplomats are not to be celebrated until ratified by all parties (leaders of each nation). There was similar confusion in the Iranian negotiations prior to their suspension of their enrichment programs. These latest developments does not necessarily mean that yesterday's progress wasn't real progress (if nothing more it shows that the Koreans are not completely opposed to dismantling of all their nuclear weapons) but it demonstrates the medias ignorance and their desire to break stories rather than explain them. Don't sound the celebratory trumpets just yet.

A Promise Is A Comfort To A Fool

•  but

  but NK is like a nutjob holding some hostages in a building, the key to keeping the situation from gettin out of hand is to just keep them talking. Keep them at the table and allow them to win some concessions every once and awhile.  I find it silly that we can WASTE 2 to 3 Billion dollars a WEEK in Iraq ( which never posed a threat to us ) yet somehow we balk about throwing pennies to NK for energy and food.  My god, if a billion dollars a year keeps NK happy and at the table talkin, then its the greatest bargain this country has ever had in world diplomacy.

   It's simply amazing that more people don't see that.

  by threecents on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 07:24:54 AM PDT

  •  excellent

    South Korea knows that.

    by seesdifferent on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 07:40:09 AM PDT

  •  Problem

    I think the problem with your approach is that it creates an atmosphere where the rest of the world will see that as the way out of poverty and debt. Certainly you can't advocate paying off Iran, NK, Pakistan and other countries who will use this as a bargaining tool. Also, paying them off every so often does shows America to be a paper tiger which doesn't do much for diplomacy with Iran and other crises in the future.

    I agree with you 100% that North Korea must be kept at the table but just throwing money at the situation doesn't do the world much good. Personally I don't see it as a major concession to make the first move in this situation. If the world can get North Korea signed on to the NPT and the safeguards once again everyone will be better off. That is what Bill Clinton essentially did. That type of "payoff" is justifiable but simply thowing money into the pot in return for nothing isn't a good idea.

    by Wiseprince on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 07:48:43 AM PDT

•  return for nothing?

  Huh. return for nothing?  Peace is nothing?  again I don't understand your logic here.  Peace can come about by many ways, with some places like NK, Iran and others it may well be bribes, but are "bribes" that allow other humans electricity, energy and food really that bad especially if it greatly lowers and threat of a real threat.  NK won't be selling nukes to terrorist if we are the ones giving them a few billion in handouts a year.  It is inexpensive, and it works.    I find it amusing that people have no problem spending half a trillion a year on our military, but somehow have aproblem spending a few billion here and there that allows us to avoid NUCLEAR events.

   America doesn't give in to blackmail is the stupidest comment I have ever heard uttered from politicians.  Of course we do, and often its the cheapest and best course of action.  

   Nuke technology is 1940's technology, in case you missed it, take a look at your calendar, you cannot stop the spread of thei technology, BUT you can stop the idealism, the mindset that would ever USE the technology.

  by threecents on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 08:03:56 AM PDT

  •  Point Well Taken

    are "bribes" that allow other humans electricity, energy and food really that bad especially if it greatly lowers and threat of a real threat.

    You're right.

    I think the problem is the need (Primarily the American need) for America to remain the world's police.

    
    you can stop the idealism, the mindset that would ever USE the technology.

    Right again and labeling nations axis of evil isn't the best start.

    My point is that in the climat of the world (us v them) you back yourself into a position that doesn't allow for the appearance of weakness. It is obviously not the best position but in the atmosphere of the world today that is what the world must work with.

    Also, I still see a need for safeguards (within the context of the NPT). I wouldn't trust the Bush administration on its word alone nor do I think it is wise to trust the North Koreans on their word alone.

    by Wiseprince on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 08:35:37 AM PDT

•  Personally...

  I say "Nuke the Dog Eaters," and don't stop at the Imjin Gang.

  But then I'm allergic to Koreans.

  I think Wen will continue to sit on Kim's chest until good sense arrives, which is the only way they got this far.

  The Chinese don't want DPRK to escalate any more than the US does.

  Given the state of their delivery technology, they realistically have three potential targets, Russia, China and Japan.  ROK isn't a potential target, it's an objective.  Remember, both sides want to "liberate" the other and unify the peninsula.  

  China has literally millions of ethnic Koreans and only a few of them consider themselves "Chinese."
  

  by lao fei zhu on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 09:13:58 AM PDT