North Korea pledges to halt nuke programs

[igloo]

North Korea pledges to halt nuke programs

Pyongyang vows to rejoin arms treaty, allow inspectors; U.S. hails deal

Christopher Hill, the top U.S. negotiator in the six-party North Korean nuclear talks, cautiously welcomed a deal with Pyongyang to halt their weapons program and allow international inspectors.

Frederic J. Brown / AFP - Getty Images

BEIJING - North Korea on Monday agreed to stop building nuclear weapons and allow international inspections in exchange for energy aid, economic cooperation and security assurances, in a first step toward disarmament after two years of six-nation talks.

The chief U.S. envoy to the talks praised the breakthrough as a “win-win situation†and “good agreement for all of us.†But he promptly urged Pyongyang to make good on its promises by ending operations at its main nuclear facility at Yongbyon.

“What is the purpose of operating it at this point?†said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill. “The time to turn it off would be about now.â€

Story continues below ↓ advertisement

Despite the deal’s potential to help significantly ease friction between the North and the United States after years of false starts and setbacks, Hill remained cautious.

“We have to see what comes in the days and weeks ahead,†he said.

More talks in November

The agreement clinched seven days of talks aimed at setting out general principles for the North’s disarmament. Envoys agreed to return in early November to begin hashing out details of how that will be done.

Then, the hard work of ensuring compliance will begin, officials attending the talks said.

“Agreeing to a common document does not mean that the solution to our problems has been found,†said Japan’s chief envoy, Kenichiro Sasae.

Another Japanese official, who spoke on condition he not be named in order to discuss the issue more freely, noted that there was no common understanding among the participants about the nature of North Korea’s nuclear program.

The head of the U.N. nuclear nonproliferation agency welcomed North Korea’s decision to allow inspections, saying he hoped his experts could take the country at its word as soon as possible.

“The earlier we go back, the better,†said Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Return to treaty safeguards

According to a joint statement issued at the talks’ conclusion, the North “committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning at an early date†to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

“The six parties unanimously reaffirmed that the goal of the six-party talks is the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner,†the statement said.

Responding to Pyongyang’s claims that it needs atomic weapons for defense, North Korea and the United States pledged to respect each other’s sovereignty and right to peaceful coexistence, and also to take steps to normalize relations.

“The United States affirmed that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade (North Korea) with nuclear or conventional weapons,†according to the statement, in assurances echoed by South Korea.

The talks, which began in August 2003, include China, Japan, Russia, the United States and the two Koreas.

Light-water reactor

The negotiations had been deadlocked over North Korea’s demand to keep the right to civilian nuclear programs after it disarms, and the statement acknowledges the North has made such an assertion but doesn’t go beyond that.

North Korea had also demanded that it be given a light-water nuclear reactor at the latest talks — a type less easily diverted for weapons use — but Washington had said it and other countries at the talks wouldn’t meet that request.

Putting aside the question for now, the statement said: “The other parties expressed their respect and agreed to discuss at an appropriate time the subject of the provision of light-water reactor†to North Korea.

The North will have to build trust by fulfilling all its pledges before that issue would be discussed, said Sasae, who is director of the Asia and Oceania Bureau at Japan’s Foreign Ministry.

North Korea has also refused to totally disarm without getting concessions along the way, while Washington has said it wants to see the weapons programs totally dismantled before granting rewards. The statement, however, says the sides agreed to take steps to implement the agreement “in a phased manner in line with the principle of ’commitment for commitment, action for action.â€â€™

The other countries at the talks said they were willing give energy assistance to the North, including a South Korean plan to deliver electricity across the heavily armed border dividing the peninsula.

“This is the most important result since the six-party talks started more than two years ago,†said Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei, Beijing’s envoy.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[vicman]

this is big news, now lets see if they actually follow through with their promise.

[igloo]

this is big news, now lets see if they actually follow through with their promise.

I know, been down this road before...hopefully this agreement has more teeth to it, with real verification and access

[drlogic]

Whatever happens,,,it's Bush's fault...

unless it's positive,,,then we'll just ignore it and move on to the next agenda item on MoveOn.org.

REPENT!!!! BUSH is cleansing America w/ Hurricanes!!!

[kramadas]

Whatever happens,,,it's Bush's fault...

unless it's positive,,,then we'll just ignore it and move on to the next agenda item on MoveOn.org.

REPENT!!!! BUSH is cleansing America w/ Hurricanes!!!

Alright dude, you're getting a but annoying now. Respond to the topic at hand - at least attempt to say something about it.

Anyway topic at hand - I've always thought that NK was just saber rattling in order to try secure more energy aid, and essentially get itself into a better bargaining position without stepping over the line. However, on the flip side Kim Jong is crazy so part of me wouldn't put anything past him.

Lets hope for the best.

[drlogic]

Alright dude, you're getting a but annoying now. Respond to the topic at hand - at least attempt to say something about it.

Anyway topic at hand - I've always thought that NK was just saber rattling in order to try secure more energy aid, and essentially get itself into a better bargaining position without stepping over the line. However, on the flip side Kim Jong is crazy so part of me wouldn't put anything past him.

Lets hope for the best.

Did you say "annoying"? LOL

The last thing many here want is to get serious! I tried serious! Igloo is one dedicated dude. I don't know how he does it? Trying to inject logic and perspective on these threads is the equivelant to arguing w/ a spare tire.

Igloo is right on. I havn't seen anyone here who can compete w/ him. For that, he's called "sheepboy, etc..etc.."

If the critics on this board actually think what they're doing is "KEEP'N IT REAL",,,,,,,They sure are,,,,REAL STUPID! Dumb mutherfohkr's....You know who you are.....

Keep up the good work Igloo,,although, I'm sorry to say it's probably all in vane. These kooks have already drank the kool-aid. They're in a downward spiral, they know it and can only hope to drag others down w/ them........

Sorry you object Raver......I'm 31 and reading these posts sometimes makes me feel like I'm 14 again. There are some down right IGNAN'T mofo's in dis here place.....4 shizzle!

LOL

Gotta go,,,,gotta get ready for the storm......

[igloo]

Alright dude, you're getting a but annoying now. Respond to the topic at hand - at least attempt to say something about it.

Anyway topic at hand - I've always thought that NK was just saber rattling in order to try secure more energy aid, and essentially get itself into a better bargaining position without stepping over the line. However, on the flip side Kim Jong is crazy so part of me wouldn't put anything past him.

Lets hope for the best.

I have no doubt the weird dude was sabre rattling....but it shows the inherent weakness and stupidity of the original framework that was put in place......they got what they wanted then, and then proceeded to cheat anyway (including weapons proliferation).....

They when confronted about their cheating, they threaten again, and get more of what they want........

This whole mess sends a scary message to other rogue regimes (i.e. Iran)....get nukes (or threaten to), blackmail the world.....

Don't get me wrong---the U.S. had no choice but to attack this diplomatically...a war here would make Iraq look like a good club brawl.....

And the President should get credit....which I know he will not....the 6 party talks was the way to go

[igloo]

Did you say "annoying"? LOL

The last thing many here want is to get serious! I tried serious! Igloo is one dedicated dude. I don't know how he does it? Trying to inject logic and perspective on these threads is the equivelant to arguing w/ a spare tire.

Igloo is right on. I havn't seen anyone here who can compete w/ him. For that, he's called "sheepboy, etc..etc.."

If the critics on this board actually think what they're doing is "KEEP'N IT REAL",,,,,,,They sure are,,,,REAL STUPID! Dumb mutherfohkr's....You know who you are.....

Keep up the good work Igloo,,although, I'm sorry to say it's probably all in vane. These kooks have already drank the kool-aid. They're in a downward spiral, they know it and can only hope to drag others down w/ them........

Sorry you object Raver......I'm 31 and reading these posts sometimes makes me feel like I'm 14 again. There are some down right IGNAN'T mofo's in dis here place.....4 shizzle!

LOL

Gotta go,,,,gotta get ready for the storm......

dr logic.....stay safe!

[igloo]

UNREAL....shame on us for actually getting excited about the deal

North Korea Demands Nuke Reactor From U.S. By JAE-SOON CHANG, Associated Press Writer

34 minutes ago

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea insisted Tuesday it won't dismantle its nuclear weapons program until the U.S. gives it civilian nuclear reactors, casting doubt on a disarmament agreement reached a day earlier during international talks.

ADVERTISEMENT

Washington reiterated its rejection of the reactor demand and joined China in urging North Korea to stick to the agreement announced Monday in which it pledged to abandon all its nuclear programs in exchange for economic aid and security assurances.

North Korea's new demands underlined its unpredictable nature and deflated some optimism from the Beijing agreement, the first since negotiations began in August 2003 among the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia.

"The U.S. should not even dream of the issue of (North Korea's) dismantlement of its nuclear deterrent before providing (light-water reactors), a physical guarantee for confidence-building," the North's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

U.S. officials dismissed the demand.

"This is not the agreement that they signed, and we'll give them some time to reflect on the agreement they signed," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in New York on Monday.

The announcement Monday that North Korea would dismantle existing weapons and stop building new ones, culminating two years of bargaining, contained no deadlines and few details. The six parties in the talks agreed to meet again in November, when the difficult questions of verification and timetables would be on the table.

The North had demanded since the latest round of six-party talks began last week in the Chinese capital that it be given a light-water reactor — a type less easily diverted for weapons use — in exchange for disarming. U.S. officials opposed the idea, maintaining North Korea could not be trusted with any nuclear program.

The issue was sidestepped Monday, with participants saying they would discuss it later — "at an appropriate time." The North, however, chose to immediately press the issue, essentially introducing a major condition on its pledge to disarm.

Japan swiftly joined the United States in rejecting the demand.

"The Japanese side has continuously said that North Korea's demand is unacceptable," Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura said.

China, North Korea's closest ally in the talks, urged Pyongyang to join the other negotiating partners in implementing the commitments in "a serious manner."

South Korea remained optimistic, with its point man on North Korea relations saying the country's latest statement isn't likely to derail the Beijing agreement.

"It's possible that the parties differ over this, but we and other participating countries are going to discuss it in bilateral or multilateral contacts before the fifth round of talks resume in early November," Unification Minister Chung Dong-young said on MBC radio.

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun predicted that "the United States and North Korea will likely engage in a tug-of-war," but added that prospects for resolving the nuclear issue are brighter after Monday's agreement.

Other countries at the Beijing talks made clear that the reactor could only be discussed after the North rejoins the Non-Proliferation Treaty and accepts inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency — which North Korea pledged to do in Monday's agreement.

State Department spokesman Adam Ereli emphasized earlier in Washington that the "appropriate time" for discussing the reactor meant only after the North complies with those conditions.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang was asked in Beijing whether North Korea might have misunderstood the order of commitments laid out in the statement Monday.

"The common statement was adopted by all six parties and I don't think North Korea has any misunderstanding," Qin said.

Qin said that the November talks were still on, as far as he knew.

President Bush's administration has opposed anything resembling a 1994 U.S.-North Korea agreement, which promised the North two light-water reactors for power. That project stalled amid the current crisis, which broke out in late 2002 after U.S. officials said the North admitted having a secret nuclear program.

The North's latest position is likely to be a major sticking point in future discussions.

"If the North meant it, it would pose a lot of problems for future talks," said Baek Seung-joo, senior researcher at the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis in Seoul. "The United States will never be able to accept the North's demand as it means going back to the 1994 agreement."

The agreement Monday had drawn praise around the world and raised hopes of resolving a standoff that has raised concerns of an arms race in northeast Asia.

Under the pact, in exchange for abandoning its weapons, the North gets security guarantees and energy aid, including a pledge from South Korea to provide it with electricity.

The North said Tuesday it would "wait and see how the U.S. will move" and warned there would "very serious and complicated" consequences if Washington demands the dismantlement of the communist nation's nuclear programs before providing a light-water reactor.

___

Associated Press writer Burt Herman in Beijing contributed to this report.

[kenl]

UNREAL....shame on us for actually getting excited about the deal

Indeed, lol. I new it was way too good to be true. I didnt expect the deal to fizzle out this quickly though. Pyongyang is psychotic. Although maybe the fact that North Korea even signed in the first place means that it could actually happen. I guess we will have to wait and see..

[kramadas]

Did you say "annoying"? LOL

The last thing many here want is to get serious! I tried serious! Igloo is one dedicated dude. I don't know how he does it? Trying to inject logic and perspective on these threads is the equivelant to arguing w/ a spare tire.

Igloo is right on. I havn't seen anyone here who can compete w/ him. For that, he's called "sheepboy, etc..etc.."

If the critics on this board actually think what they're doing is "KEEP'N IT REAL",,,,,,,They sure are,,,,REAL STUPID! Dumb mutherfohkr's....You know who you are.....

Keep up the good work Igloo,,although, I'm sorry to say it's probably all in vane. These kooks have already drank the kool-aid. They're in a downward spiral, they know it and can only hope to drag others down w/ them........

Sorry you object Raver......I'm 31 and reading these posts sometimes makes me feel like I'm 14 again. There are some down right IGNAN'T mofo's in dis here place.....4 shizzle!

LOL

Gotta go,,,,gotta get ready for the storm......

Actually, a lot of ppl on here are around 30. However, I'm not on here that much anymore so I don't know about the newcomers - some of the posts are definitely out there!

So, NK backed out huh! Should have known.

[igloo]

September 20, 2005, 8:13 a.m.

North Korea: Getting to “Yes�

Following in Clinton’s footsteps.

"North Korea agrees to give up nuclear program."

Haven't we been here before?

I was skeptical when I read reports of the draft accord reached at the Six Party talks in Beijing, in which North Korea has agreed in principle to end its nuclear-weapons program in exchange for economic aid, security guarantees, and light-water nuclear reactor. In the first place, this has been Pyongyang's basic position since December 2003. After two years of effort, our negotiators seem to have beaten the North Koreans down to accepting what they originally proposed. This is the art of diplomacy — agreeing to your adversary's terms, but taking credit for the deal.

More to the point, the new draft accord sounds uncomfortably like the 1994 Agreed Framework negotiated by the Clinton administration. At the time is was heralded as a great step forward for peace and nonproliferation, but in practice the agreement provided the cover for the North Korans to pursue their current nuclear programs. When North Korean violations were uncovered in 2002, a crisis developed that led Pyongyang to expel the IAEA inspectors, begin openly converting spent fuel rods into weapons-grade material, and start claiming to have an existing nuclear-weapons capability.

It took awhile even to get the North Koreans to the bargaining table, and there were several years of false starts after they did. So after all that effort we seem to have come full circle back to the Agreed Framework. Proponents of the new agreement disagree, and note that the Clinton-era document mandated that North Korea "freeze" its weapons program, while the new draft accord calls for "dismantling." Of course, in 1994 there were no nuclear weapons to dismantle so that is not much of a distinction.

Personally, I am skeptical that the North Koreans have working nuclear weapons. In April 2003 they claimed through unofficial channels to have one weapon, and said they would soon prove it. In October 2003 the North Koreans said they would soon "physically open their nuclear deterrent to the public." In January 2004 they allegedly showed their nuclear deterrent to a U.S. inspection delegation. Current speculation is that they have at least two weapons, maybe more. (One an exuberant North Korean general said they had hundreds.) But they have never proved their capabilities by undertaking a nuclear test. They have threatened to on various occasions, but never quite got to the point where they actually lit one off. They are not shy about demonstrating their technology when they have it. When the North Koreans launched the Taepo Dong-1 ballistic missile in 1998 they sent the whole North Pacific on alert. I think North Korea should confirm they have the capability before we give them any deal. After all, we may have been deluding ourselves, and the North Koreans could have been feeding that impression through various forms of disinformation. We know how speculative WMD intelligence can be; don't we deserve it to ourselves to demand proof?

Regardless of what the North Koreans are promising to give up, any such deal founders on verification and compliance. As the president said, "The question is, over time, will all parties adhere to the agreement." Darn right that's the question. The North Koreans did not adhere the last time, so why expect them to now? More to the point, how can we prove whether they are complying or not? History is littered with flawed arms-control agreements that have foundered on inadequate verification means. And the arms-control establishment dislikes verification anyway — too messy, too complicated. They like hammering out the deal, not managing the details of enforcing it. That attitude is what got us into this mess in the first place.

President Bush had it right in his 2003 State of the Union address when he said, "Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated framework to keep North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know that that regime was deceiving the world, and developing those weapons all along. And today the North Korean regime is using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek concessions. America and the world will not be blackmailed." But we can still make another foolish bargain like the one we made in 1994. And when this one collapses the cleanup might be a bit messier.

The only certain solution to the WMD question on the Korean peninsula is regime change. The Clinton administration claimed that the reason the Agreed Framework was such an obviously bad deal was that they thought it would not matter; they expected North Korea to melt down before it could be fully implemented. Maybe some policymakers in the current administration believe the same thing. However, if North Korea is on its way into the dustbin of history then the last thing we should be doing is reaching agreements with them to provide economic aid and energy assistance. We might inadvertently stave off the inevitable, and give Kim Jong Il's regime a new lease on life. With democracy on the march around the world, this is not the time to get to "yes" with one of the most repressive totalitarian regimes on earth.

— James S. Robbins is senior fellow in national-security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council, a trustee for the Leaders for Liberty Foundation, and an NRO contributor.

[drlogic]

maybe we can just jawbone North Korea into submission?

[destruction]

maybe we can just jawbone North Korea into nuking Texas?

[drlogic]

maybe we can just jawbone North Korea into nuking Texas?

I knew you were a patriot!

Gooooood Blesssssssssssssssssssss AAAAAAmmmmmericaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[obby]

Alright dude, you're getting a but annoying now. Respond to the topic at hand - at least attempt to say something about it.

Annoying is hearing you left wingers try and blame Bush for everything and I mean EVERYTHING.

As for N. Korea.......we have heard that song and dance before but we shall see. China needs to put them on the spot.

[kramadas]

Annoying is hearing you left wingers try and blame Bush for everything and I mean EVERYTHING.

As for N. Korea.......we have heard that song and dance before but we shall see. China needs to put them on the spot.

You leftwingers?? hehe - wake up and get real Obby-man.

[destruction]

I knew you were a patriot!

Gooooood Blesssssssssssssssssssss AAAAAAmmmmmericaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Wow. You're 31 years old and hangs out in politicalteen.com...

Kid toucher.

[destruction]

Annoying is hearing you left wingers try and blame Bush for everything and I mean EVERYTHING.

Annoying is hearing you right wingers try and blame Clinton for everything and I mean EVERYTHING.

I'm gonna take your post, print it and wipe my ass with it. I'm running low on toilet paper anyhow so this will suffice.

[drlogic]

Annoying is hearing you right wingers try and blame Clinton for everything and I mean EVERYTHING.

I'm gonna take your post, print it and wipe my ass with it. I'm running low on toilet paper anyhow so this will suffice.

Your ass, your face,,,,

What's the difference?

[igloo]

Your ass, your face,,,,

What's the difference?

[obby]

Your ass, your face,,,,

What's the difference?

LOL

None at all.

LOL