Tuesday, February 13, 2007

# Posted 1:58 PM by Taylor Owen  

Bolton: This is in many respects simply a repetition of the agreed framework of 1994. You know, Secretary Powell in 2001 started off the administration by saying he was prepared to pick up where the Clinton administration left off. President Bush changed course and followed a different approach. This is the same thing that the State Department was prepared to do six years ago. If we going to cut this deal now, it's amazing we didn't cut it back then.
I wonder if Rice/the White House agree?
BBC: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has welcomed a deal reached with North Korea over its nuclear programme during six-nation talks in Beijing...

US President George W Bush said he was "pleased" with the agreement.

White House spokesman Tony Snow called it "a very important first step" towards denuclearising the Korean peninsula.
As Drum adds, "and six years ago this deal would have come without an already built stockpile of nuclear weapons. Perhaps there's a lesson there?"
(10) opinions -- Add your opinion

I don't understand why you and Drum would be concerned about NK having nuclear weapons. Surely Kim can be trusted to act responsibly with his stockpile just as he can be trusted to live up to this deal?
It really isn't that hard to understand and a moment's thought on your part should be enough.

The point regarding NK, as with Iran, as well as every other tradeoff in international relations, is weighing the concequences of stopping an event by force, versus the damage of the event itself minus potential mitigation. In the case of NK and Iranian nuclear development, to me this equations is a no brainer.
As far as verification goes -- do we actually get verification here? Or is it going to be like 1994, where we just trust them?

Is North Korea undertaking to stop work on uranium refinement? Last time, my recollection is that after signing a deal that talked about plutonium, they turned around and immediately started refining uranium. I hope we've taken care of that.

And what about KEDO? To implement the 1994 agreed framework, we, South Korea, and Japan undertook to provide North Korea with sophisticated nuclear technology, for two light water reactors, through KEDO. At some point, I think we all realised that this was, in fact, a kind of dumb thing to do, so we never actually transferred the critical components to North Korea (I believe North Korea cites our foot-dragging -- we didn't even start construction until 2001, and construction was supposed to be complete by 2003 -- as a violation of the 1994 agreed framework). Do we have technology transfer like with KEDO this time around too?

Reading the only draft I've seen, I don't see much in the way of answers at this point.
Taylor, what event are you referring to, creating nuclear weapons, or using them? What do you mean by mitigation?
When we buy the nuclear facility and peace are we buying out Kim and his program, not likely, or are we paying for the new facility?
At least North Korea can be bought off until the next time they need food and fuel oil.

North Korea two major exports:
1) Counterfeit US currency

2) Nuclear weapons know how

Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana
2) Nuclear weapons know how

I don't think we have strong evidence that they've been exporting nuclear weapons know-how. Pakistan is (as far as I can see) the real problem on nuclear proliferation, partly because Pakistan's program has actually been clearly successful, and partly because Dr. A.Q. Khan, the former head of Pakistan's nuclear program, has confessed that between 1989 and 2000, he sold nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.

What North Korea does export seems to be ballistic missiles and ballistic missile technology. Since the early 90s, they've been selling missiles (primarily Scuds, I think, rather than North Korea's own Nodong and Taepodong designs) and missile technology to Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan, and possibly a number of African states, such as the Sudan.
The main difference between this and the clinton deal seems to me to be that this one is a six power agreement, and if Nkor cheats, its a slap at China, making this a much stronger agreement (of course its not complete yet, and we need to see where it ends up)

Now I know some right wing blogs where they are echoing Boltons rejection. That makes sense, since they dont put any real value on multilateralism, least of all on cooperation by China. Im not sure why Mr Owen would take that position though.
Post a Comment