North Korea Vows to Drop Nuclear Program

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it pronounced "nucular?"

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you want "Pees"
and how do get it
" A knife"

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You're telling me that within the span of 1 year (2001-2002) North Korea developed a clandestine nuclear program, but before that (during the rest of Clinton's term) everything was hunky-dory?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no time for this. No, I did not say that. I would humbly suggest you read the book by the Clinton duo and get the whole of the story. Skip the politics, of which there is thankfully little, and focus on the history. Very interesting.

[BCPVP]

Which book? I might take a look next time I'm in Barnes and Noble.

But you seemed to suggest that everything was going fine until Bush was elected. That suggests that NK somehow put together a functional clandestine nuclear program in the span of 1 year. Which I have my doubts.

[Richard Tanner]

That's right a knife, not a pesky olive branch.

Cody

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
But you seemed to suggest that everything was going fine until Bush was elected. That suggests that NK somehow put together a functional clandestine nuclear program in the span of 1 year. Which I have my doubts.

[/ QUOTE ]

OBVIOUSLY, North Korea did not concoct their functioning nuclear program in just the one year after Clinton left office. They were working on nukes during the Clinton years and Clinton allowed the wool to be pulled over his eyes.

The agreed-upon-framework was a non-verified farce which was taken full advantage of by the North Korean government.

Moreover, I strongly suspect that Cyrus must know this (which, of course, makes his stance--that Clinton was on the right track regarding North Korea--all the more baffling and bizarre).

[MMMMMM]

(excerpt)"
N.Korea statement puts nuclear deal in jeopardy
Sep 19 9:15 PM US/Eastern


By Martin Nesirky

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea will not give up its nuclear weapons until the United States provides civilian atomic reactors, Pyongyang said on Tuesday in a statement that significantly undermined a deal reached just a day earlier.

Six countries, including the North and the United States, had agreed on Monday to a set of principles on dismantling the Pyongyang's nuclear programs in return for aid and recognizing its right to a civilian nuclear program.

Skeptics had said the deal was long on words, vague on timing and sequencing and short on action: the North's comments made clear just how short.

"The U.S. should not even dream of the issue of the DPRK's dismantlement of its nuclear deterrent before providing LWRs," said the North Korean Foreign Ministry statement, which was published by the official KCNA news agency.

DPRK is short for the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. LWRs are light-water reactors, which experts say are more proliferation-resistant than other reactors."(end excerpt)


Who'd a thunk? (surely not Cyrus, or Bill Clinton;-))

Reuters

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you seemed to suggest that everything was going fine until Bush was elected. That suggests that NK somehow put together a functional clandestine nuclear program in the span of 1 year. Which I have my doubts.

[/ QUOTE ]

OBVIOUSLY, North Korea did not concoct their functioning nuclear program in just the one year after Clinton left office. They were working on nukes during the Clinton years and Clinton allowed the wool to be pulled over his eyes.

The agreed-upon-framework was a non-verified farce which was taken full advantage of by the North Korean government.

Moreover, I strongly suspect that Cyrus must know this (which, of course, makes his stance--that Clinton was on the right track regarding North Korea--all the more baffling and bizarre).

[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMM is right on the money here. North Korea's word has never been good about anything. They are masters at one-upmanship extortion and that is all. And notice that all the nuclear threats by North Korea in the past haven't been in reaction to any serious threats by the U.S., under Bush or not, but rather in reaction to the U.S. merely refusing to be extorted for technology to prop up their crumbling economy and state. This doesn't mean that NK isn't very dangerous, for it surely is as any regime that places keeping the ruling oligarchy in power over the welfare of its own people to the point of starving them to keep in place the 4th largest standing army in the world which is not needed to insure its security, would have no qualms in killing millions of foreigners.

Clinton's strategy only amounted to playing their game and allowing himself to buy the con. Any good poker player should know better than to agree to the play a hustler's game.

[britspin]

[ QUOTE ]

This doesn't mean that NK isn't very dangerous, for it surely is as any regime that places keeping the ruling oligarchy in power over the welfare of its own people to the point of starving them to keep in place the 4th largest standing army in the world which is not needed to insure its security, would have no qualms in killing millions of foreigners.

Clinton's strategy only amounted to playing their game and allowing himself to buy the con. Any good poker player should know better than to agree to the play a hustler's game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The truth is that there are no good answers when it comes to North Korea.

As you say it is a regime that is truly dictatorial, vicious to it's own people, on the edge of physical collapse and imprisons hundreds of thousands of its populace in concentration camps.

If we were looking for candidates that it would be good for the world for the US to invade and overthrow, the DPRK would be top of the list.

Unfortunately this is not realistic. First, the DPRK has a standing million strong army and devotes about 25% of GDP to it's military. Second it may (or may not) have nuclear weapons, Finally both China and North Korea are violently opposed to aggressive action so it's pretty much off the table.

So what leverage do we have in negotiations with the DPRK to prevent them from giving up nuclear ambitions?

1. We are dealing with a bad actor who will be more than happy to decieve and lie to us.

2. We are dealing with an leadership that is not concerned with the well-being of their own people. They will be willing to give up pretty much any economic advantage if it allows them to meet their own objectives.

3. Their objectives (as far as we can tell, which is not totally clear) appear to be based upon the maintenance of the regime- that is, the most important issue for the North Koreans is whether or not they are able to sustain their own power. If they are confident of their own power their willingness to negotiate externally is limited.

4. Despite all the above limitations, they clearly have the technical capability to develop some form of nuclear weapon technology if they so choose. They might also see their technology to other interested parties.

Not a good set of conditions.

I suspect that a lot of the positioning of the DPRK over the last few years has been based on their own economic position- the famine a few years back meant that they were prepared to offer more to the Clinton negotiating team to prevent regime degradation- as their position strengthened they began to renege on these promises.

We could perhaps have considered refusing to get involved at that point, but given the massive humanitarian crisis and the prospect of a collapsing state racing to get nuclear weapons, intervention was probably wise.

Now the DPRK appears only willing to suspend nuclear programme in exchange for energy reactors. Not a good trade. Key really is for China to make clear that DPRK has to comply otherwise regime suport will be removed.. now what does US have that China wants? This also leads you into some pretty unpleasant areas re: trade, weapons, blind eye to internal repression.

Like I said, no good answers.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Which book?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Going Critical : The First North Korean Nuclear Crisis" by Joel S. Wit, Daniel Poneman, Robert Carlucci.

Wit was in the State Dept for 15 years and co-ordinator of the 1994 Agreed Framework between US and NK. Poneman is with the Forum for International Pilicy and served on the NSC with GHWB and Clinton. Carlucci is dean of Georgetown's School of Foreign Service and led the team that negotiated the Agree Framework.

[ QUOTE ]
You seemed to suggest that everything was going fine until Bush was elected. That suggests that NK somehow put together a functional clandestine nuclear program in the span of 1 year.

[/ QUOTE ]
For the second and last time, this is not what happened and, of course, not what I "suggested". The North Koreans, a most unpredictable and paranoid bunch, were trying to go nuclear from way back.

What I'm quite explicitly claiming/"suggesting" is that Bill Clinton dealt with the issue of a nuclear North Korea with far more intelligence and efficiency than the current White House resident ever did.

Let me give you a for-instance: Throughout the crisis, Clinton was in almost daily consultation with the South Korean president, in order to co-ordinate strategy and tactics. How many times has Dubya done that?

Read the book.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me give you a for-instance: Throughout the crisis, Clinton was in almost daily consultation with the South Korean president, in order to co-ordinate strategy and tactics. How many times has Dubya done that?


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh-huh...so what good did it do? KJL still ripped us off, developed nukes, and starved to death a million or more North Koreans.